This Thread is insulting to the People who have this Problem!!!
1 Like
Seriously? In what way? I am showing clear before and after comparisons. No one else has yet done that on these forums and I’ve been looking. I’m trying to find the evidence to back up the claims that the detail has been “dumbed down” to quote some threads, and I can find none. And I’m the one getting insulted for looking for it in an objective way. Thanks a bunch mate.
You show me your evidence that the detail has got worse, and I;ll happily listen to credible discussion not insults.
That took 41 posts to get the haters. Just wow. What a great community.
8 Likes
Dude, come one, the Chicago seen, you see that one pix in the far left side, #129,405, the one that is red that should be slightly less red… that is the real problem 
Yeah, I mean what kind of gargbage is that. It should be ochre and not red at all
To be fair: Chicago would be a different topic again, because there is photogrammetry. 
You would have to look at that separately.
If you check the rocks on picture 1, you can clearly see that the white marbling looks less sharp post patch. On picture 3, check the colors of the grass (e.g. around the upper rock). Post patch it is clearly brighter.
1 Like
I think the whole of pic 3 is a bit brighter as I didn’t get the time of day exactly the same - my bad. Agree re the rocks.
1 Like
This can also be the lighting conditions.
I hope you bought a new power supply too for the extra 400 watts.
Impossible for him to set the same time of the day, with same clouds coverage\height, affect wave and colour when the sun is direct in front you or lower you get totally different wave depth, same with clouds coverage, wave works with wind speed, if not the same wind, clouds coverage\heights and direction, you will see different visual. Screenshots1 the sun is at bottom left, no clouds, second, sun is much higher at right and clouds coverage.
Only difference I think higher at 5000 feet, wave less appears less visible then pre patch, unless you set wind at 20kt and higher.
2 Likes
Suppose he now has a 1080 (250W) and goes to 3080 (according to NVidia 320W), then it is only 70W more. If you have a reasonable power supply, you have the reserve for sure. I have a 750W power supply and would have the reserve easily.
The date also plays a role.
Could be, yes! But I noticed throughout the sim that colors in general slightly changed post patch. To my personal taste it looks less natural due to the brightness.
Dude that is what it looks like in reality. It is an Olympic white-water course.
Uninteresting, because withdrawn by the author. 
1 Like
Could it be that the degradation only happened if the Object Level of Detail is set to 100?
So the maxed out settings might not have changed but if you used the High preset you’d see the reduction of LOD?
I mean, clearly there is no big difference in the screenshots shown, but I had to go from 100 to 200 on the Object LOD slider in order to make if alright, which was not an issue pre patch for me.
I’ll try to find old screenshots and replicate them too.
Just wanted to throw in that this comparison might be true for LOD 200 but not for LOD 100 and that would explain the difference in the experiences of many users.
I quite easily could check this myself with my saved flight at LGA. In order to tweak FS, I always used this save under the same weather and time conditions. Like that I clearly could observe the wave difference post patch.
Have you ever tried to reset all graphic settings, restart FS2020 and adjust your own settings as desired? Maybe this will help. 
Uninteresting, because withdrawn by the author.
1 Like
No I didn’t, i just saw that the settings that I had before the patch seemed to noticeably affect the draw distance.
But since I did not yet do such a proper comparison, it’s rather a gut feeling. With LOD 200 it looked fine.
Nobody should have to go by trial and error to figure out what to reset after a patch has been released. That’s the point of having settings that are persistent.
1 Like