Newbie question. Flying around the Alps in MSFS2024 lately and I am blow away at the quality of the visuals, especially when I “stepped out” of the plane and used the drone to explore the Matterhorn Glacial Palace, with running cable cars! Are you kidding me! I’m fairly new to flight sim. Started with XPlane and moved to MSFS 2024 when it was released. Never have flown in 2020. Just curious if you 2020 users get the same level of visuals and detail in 2020 as I’m seeing in 2024? Obviously someone put some real time into developing the visual model for the Matterhorn and surrounding area. How does this work and who decides what areas of the world get this kind of special attention to visuals?
2 Likes
As a MSFS 2020 owner (now just for VR) I can attest to the incredible visuals of 2024 compared with 2020. The lighting, water textures and ground textures are at another level from 2020. Naturally, not everyone will enjoy the same experience as I am. My set up is an i7 12700 KF with an RTX 4070ti Super card and this combination provides me with an outstanding experience in 2024. Just for a laugh, I loaded 2020 at PAAT to compare the landscape detail with 2024. No comparison. 2024 actually made me feel chilly with the realistic environment of this remote Aleutian airport. So for me, it’s no returning to 2020, other than for VR which, frankly, is becoming more infrequent as I dive deeper into its newer cousin.
3 Likes
If you’re close, details are astonishing in some places, in some others they do not show improvements.
I frequently fly in South America, and the Andes aren’t much better than 2020, neither the cities (except the ones that got specific coverage, like Rio de Janeiro in Brazil).
For example, Medellin has some iconic places which are actually landmarks for VFR procedures and they were not there. The Coltejer bulding is an example:
This building, Coltejer, was absent in 2020, and it’s absent in 2020.
This is the obelisc in Buenos Aires, absent in 2020, and in 2024 too.
This is mount Fitz Roy in Southern Patagonia, Argentina. Absent in 2020 (just a bunch of polygons vaguely resembling the figure), and somewhat improved but still the same “idea of that mountain” instead of the actual mountain in 2024.
There’s a lot of contrast between regions, because some other places are extremely detailed, but a lot aren’t. Also, as soon as you put some distance all detail is lost. Get to 5000ft AGL and, with a few regional exceptions, detail is worse than in 2020 sadly (known issue).
Seb
1 Like
Very helpful comments! Thanks!
Right after 2024 was released I took some pics in 2024 of JFK and NY City for some 2020 users who had purchased 2024 and couldn’t see the difference between the 2020 and 2024 world maps. Their conclusion at that time was there was no difference. I was disappointed to hear that. As Charles states above the visual quality is dependent on system hardware so everyone is not going to have the same experience. I’m really encouraged to hear that both of you can see significant improvements in 2024!
Thanks for the pics Seb! I’ll be checking out Southern Patagonia soon!
Doug
Sure glad it helps!
Well, you can tune everything up. You will have a horrible performance if your hw isn’t up to the task, but you can tune everything up and see what happens with a very light aircraft. Of course, photogrammetry areas will affect a lot.
I’d say a bigger factor is if the area you’re interested in actually got an update, and what kind of update.
This is a very good question. Sadly South America never got an update, just some places in Brazil. There are a lot of areas that didn’t receive any attention, some others that received some attention, and some that really shine.
Wish I had the answer to your good question. Would explain why entire South America never got an update (since 2020 release, it’s been years).
1 Like
The tech previews made it seem like the visuals were orders of magnitude better than 2020 but that isn’t quite how things turned out. Sometimes the sim looks amazing. Frequently it looks like garbage.
My own hypothesis is that they’ve had to turn down the quality to fix issues that occurred at go live and they’ve never been able to turn it back up fully. Either because their data centres just aren’t capable or it proved to be too costly.
3 Likes
Perfectly said
If he had written, “Frequently it looks like garbage on MY system,” it would have been perfectly said. Given the range of technical systems and setups of forum contributors, this codicil should always accompany any claim or statement because the contributor can only comment on their experience from their system.
5 Likes
Yesterday in FS 2024 I recreated a real life helicopter flight we took at the Grand Canyon in 2014 for my best friend’s birthday. I put in the same date and the clear skies we experienced and it was absolutely stunning. FS 2020 would never have been able to get that kind of realism. My flight was also in VR and not a glitch. I landed in a number of spots such as edges of cliffs, Phantom Ranch and on top of a hotel in Grand Canyon Village, got out and walked around and the detail was amazing. I think after SU2, we’ll all be much happier. I’ve had some rough days as well especially in VR.
1 Like
Agree with you. Sadly I’ve seen a lot of this omissions. People who say graphics are bad but fail to say if they have a good connection or an adequate PC (even more important considering that 2024 appears to have a bigger impact on hardware than 2020) on one hand. On the other hand, people who say that it works perfectly but fail to say that they a gigabit symmetric connection, a top of the line rig, or fail to say that in their use of the sim, they use third party aircraft, 3rd party ATC, 3rd party scenery, etc. It’s pretty common, and I agree with you that should be good to have a thorough description. In this case however, the LOD issues is a known and logged bug.
1 Like
It’s a good feeling to be correct. I experience it a lot.