Obviously I’m biased but really can’t agree on that point, and fortunately lots of the community agree. I doubt we’d have had got away with releasing an aircraft with poor visuals. I’d consider that to be down to personal taste in texturing/visual style rather than good versus bad. They’ve opted to go down the tiling/detail map route which provides greater resolution and uniformity across the entire aircraft but at the expense of character, especially when it comes to wear and tear, and gradations in surface colour and detail etc. That explains the difference in appearance versus their P3D version, with advantages (resolution, which is very important to some users) and disadvantages (some users consider the uniformity to make cockpits a tad bland).
Their approach works well for a modern aircraft, hence it’s use on the default aircraft, as such clean and uniform exteriors and cockpits don’t really require those gradations, but it absolutely wouldn’t work well for something as worn and non-uniform as the 146 (or most of our other aircraft). There’s a good chance that we will use that same approach on some of our future aircraft but not the 146, F28, Vulcan, Tornado etc.
It’s a difficult thing to explain without examples but I just thought it was worth pointing out the difference between ‘good versus bad’, instead this is all about artistic choice and what’s most suitable for the aircraft in question. The 146 has all the same 8K and 4K textures with decals, and we have very closely simulated the visuals of the real-world example on which ours is based (G-JEAO) and I’m happy to supply reference photos to prove it. I think the attached in-sim screenshots demonstrate the high visual fidelity we’ve been able to achieve in MSFS.
That said, we’re always happy to respond to feedback if you have specific examples?
Martyn - Just Flight
