Ok so that's why Asobo Downgraded his game on PC?

Screenshot 2021-08-01 060409

1 Like

What’s even worse, a PC building simulator.

You guys are all rather silly. Its sounds like the sky falling. Go back to P3D default, and you will quickly get a reality check. Cartoon graphics and sim technology from 2010. There is no denying there is issues with quality, and weird looking artifacts,CTDs, but nevertheless, with all that is going on , it still looks better than previous sims… dead stop. They are not going to abandon this. They are very aware vast majority of hardcore , medium core , dedicated hobbyists are on the PC, and likely what drives most of the dynamics going forward. Xbox users are welcomed very much, but many will lose interest. Those that stay still have a long road to learn and catch up. Dont worry. These things take time. There is no sky falling. They will get it right. My gosh give them some credit for what they have accomplished.


What? No, read the post again. The picture is from the Maps application, showing the poor quality of the photogrammetry source data.

1 Like

“it’s a bug, they know, it’s fixed in the july 27th update. PC and Xbox They talk about it in the last dev talk video.”

Here is your evidence of the frequent white knighting…

ahh, sorry, my english ^^

I would like you to stop posting this image without the qualifications that I put on the video when first posted. Thank you

1 Like

Can we please try and be constructive and civil in this thread?

What I mean is that it does not help to label people as A or B. What @WaldoP3pper was saying (I think, correct me if wrong) is that Asobo had discovered a bug with rendering at the poles. Jorg said that once they had pinpointed this, it was an easy fix for them to make.
He went on to thank the community for playing their part to show the issue and helping Asobo to find the cause.
He was of course referring to people who took the time to post images and information.
People who only post to rant, with no facts at all don’t contribute to the improvement of the sim, but run the atmosphere of this great forum into the ground. Leaves nobody happy.

So please stop the name calling as it is childish and it does not contribute to anything. The truth mostly lies somewhere in the middle. That’s why I am glad with the quick post of @dumpsterfire248 as this shows (I think) a degradation of graphical quality. I suppose the top one is SU4?

In my view there are two main issues going on at the moment.

  • One is CTD’s: for this issue often, but not always, clearing out third party stuff goes a long way. That’s why some people started posting this in multiple threads, because a lot of of people don’t read release notes.
  • Second is the ‘dumbing down’ discussion. There are many people complaining about this for sure. For myself: I am not experiencing this downgrade. Call me liar as often as you will :wink:. And I can only agree that this IS a main issue for many here that are affected by this. But yelling and ranting without any information, accusing people, name calling, threatening, conspiracy talk, all this doesn’t help one inch to get any issue solved.

We’re all here to help each other AND Asobo as well to make this sim better.


Hi Capt’n Graig. Do you have a link for me?

Sorry I didn’t get a chance to do the comparison last night - real life got in the way :frowning:

Will try later

1 Like

While im happy about the preformance gains more so iv VR im angry that they have downgraded the PC version just to suit a games console…I have a top end pc and for what we had to what we have now it looks like a console port…I knew them bringing this to Xbox what a bad idea for us PC simmers

The should of kept the PC version and Xbox version separate from each other


The stills that @dumpsterfire248 has posted show the difference between SU4 with London Landmarks and SU5 without London Landmarks. That is an issue becuase, right now, I can’t get the sim tomload with Orbx London Landmarks as it’s not been updated yet.

Here is the full explanation of the videos that was originally posted elsewhere in these forums. I don’t mind people using the videos or whatever, but they should make that distinction clear because it does impact the visual quality of the comparison. If I could do a true like for like right now, I would.

As previously posted:

Well, by popular demand (OK, pretty much no demand) here are two comparison side by side videos:

  1. Pre SU5 ( v post SU5 (
  2. Post SU5 ( v Hotfix (

These are all flying the same flight, flown by Charlie the AI Co-pilot (not great, but the best we have). I did my best to create the same video. However a couple of points to note:

  • I can’t get the flight to load with Orbx London Landmarks post SU5, so that isn’t included in the or video, but IS included in the video (that of course I can’t change now)
  • The AI Co-pilot doesn’t fly exactly the same route and altitude…who knows why…but it’s close enough for the first few minutes or so

Other than that, here it is (HD version will be along shortly - blame YouTube for the slowness). I make no comments on these - make of them what you will. v v

HD versions being processed now on youtube

1 Like

I’m a software developer and a pilot. I can understand the difficulties involved in coding a beast of this magnitude; however, I believe the concerns for many are as follows: There have been noticeable reductions in graphical quality, clouds, terrain, lighting (leaving out any issues with 3rd party components). These may simply be undesirable byproducts of coding changes that will (hopefully) be addressed in future updates; however, given that these issues were manifested on the heels of conforming the SIM to run on the X-Box platform I think it leaves PC users; particularly those with purpose built systems, feeling as though they have been intentionally capped in order to accommodate console users. I think some official acknowledgment is warranted, “We have noted your concerns and are working on resolutions” or at least “Hey everyone, MSFS 2020 is now a console GAME and the next update will allow you to collect floating jewels mid flight for extra points!”


Zoom into the last image:

‘barring the code quality control gone bad’. Quite important don’t you think? Amazing how people can just dismiss something as significant as that, what’s the point in starting flights you can’t be sure you’ll finish? Sure, if you just want to do short buzzes looking at pretty scenery maybe they don’t matter, but I don’t think that the sim can be classed as a success if that’s all it’s good for, and even on that it’s now failing for many, why have buildings in big cities lost all their textures until I am on top of them?

I can only assume a lot of people here have no interest in the actual sim part of the game, because they don’t seem remotely bothered by all the ATC/MCDU/weather/flight model issues that make it fairly useless as an actual sim.

No you don’t fly IRL with a zoomed-in view, because you can actually see what you need to. SadIy I need to zoom in on this game (it’s not a sim) to have any chance of finding an airport for a visual approach from 10 miles, and even zooming in doesn’t help a lot because I’m zooming in on textures and objects that haven’t loaded.

Launch day of London

London SU5


The thing is, how many chances do we give the developers?

It’s sweet some here still think they have our best interests at heart and really will fix this, but look at the direction of travel. A year after release they bring out a much hyped patch that should fix most of the core problems (some of which really should have been fixed within a month), and they make it worse, and completely broken for a lot of people.

They are at the mercy of their masters and if Microsoft don’t want the PC version to look better than the xbox it won’t. There are enough other bugs in fundamentals of a flight sim that remain stubbornly unfixed for me to assume they don’t know how to fix them, or just think they’re not important, which tells me all I need to know.

As ever in life, judge people not by what they say, but what they do. No-one likes to admit they’ve been duped, and I think some here will be on a bit of a journey to get to the point where they can accept Asobo have puled a fast one on them. Some of the posts are people convincing themselves as much as others that there is no problem. Even if you don’t believe the graphics issue, you’re just willing to accept all the other bugs a year on? ATC getting worse, how is it possible all these years later they have come up with a worse ATC model than FSX? Was anyone on the team chosen for their knowledge of flight and simulator coding rather than graphics engines?


Okay then. Show me your proof. Are you howling with the herd or do you have specific issues to show us with all the information to check it out for ourselves and maybe even to help you when possible?

And please stop the conspiracy talk. It’s so counter productive.

Most posts in this subject don’t get further than words and emotion. Hardly anyone takes the time to make a decent and informative post. This is a pity because it ruins the atmosphere here for people who actually want to help.

What I also see a lot is that when a poster finalky has to admit that he was in the wrong, that he immediately posts another issue: “but this?” And so the post gets clogged with all the issues that are already included on the bugs list.

A perfect example hereof is your ATC-issue. No-one ever has said that this improvement would be included in SU5. If I remember correctly it has been said that this will get reworked for a future update. There are many great alternatives if you don’t like it as it is now.

This makes ATC complaints non-issues with respect to SU5.

And when you think that everything is going too slow, take it for granted that the sim development team works at max capacity to deliver on their targets. And yes, there will always be things that need improvement. And improvement takes time.

It is what it is. Take the sim for a flight as it is, or back off for half a year and try again. Don’t spoil the atmosphere here with raw emotion without any content.