SU5 graphics quality

I am only using an original (NOT Ti) 3080 with 10GB VRAM, so a 3090 should be able to cope without breaking a sweat.:grin:

1 Like

@TwoSuitz @NineMile1
I don’t believe you were understanding each other fully only because of a subtle piece of wording, but I might be wrong:

@NineMile1 to me is correct:

  • the game is now tuned within the metrics of the game console and this shows on a PC.

However @TwoSuitz you are also right to me:

  • some of the video card capabilities are no longer solicitated because the SU5 optimization is meant to delivering JIT (Just in Time) instead of pre-loading more.

  • Even if tuned within the console metrics, you can push it further if you push your settings.

But here is the difference of interpretation I guess:

  • @NineMile1 is rightfully considering that the game no longer loading more assets in advance is degrading his experience (so is mine in VR) because for example: as soon as you turn the head you can spot the surroundings reloading. This is one example but there are a few others too long for the purpose of this post.

  • @TwoSuitz is rightfully considering that the game can use more ressources than the game console but it is only, according to @NineMile1 (I honestly haven’t tried comparing any of this) not because the game is loading more assets when you raise your settings but because you’re using a rendering resolution which is higher than the one it is calibrated for (game console in 4K) and therefore just the GBuffers and the Render buffers are taking the bulk of the VRAM usage increase (which is a valid argument in my opinion).

I’ve forgotten to add: with HF2 (or 1?) they’ve relax the LOD selection so indeed, on PC, the game is supposed to use more VRAM and RAM just because of this at least. Therefore if you’re loading a scenery + airport + aircraft + MP aircraft all with lots of LODs, the game will maintain more data in memory on PC than Xbox for the same scenery + airport + aircraft + MP aircraft.

So this is just 2 orthogonal ways of seeing the same thing which explains why you’re not understanding each other in my opinion, why you’re also therefore both right and wrong somehow :slight_smile:

Hope this helps!

PS: in any case we will be all wrong and we will all have to argue again about this in a week or so… :smiling_imp:

5 Likes

This is also true.:grin:

I am going to leave this with one final post.

My issue is not with those that have a quantifiable and reasonable complaint, that they can make a reasonable case for (even if I cannot see it) - I take exception to those claiming ‘massive downgrades’, ‘deliberate reduction in useable resources’, ‘unplayable’, ‘50% reduction in quality’, ‘ruined’ and other wildly outrageous claims, without being able to point at the ACTUAL issue in any reasonable, and remotely quantifiable, way.

The images I posted earlier are graphically as good (to my eyes, anyway) as ANY I have ever seen from the sim. Both in respect of image quality/clarity and draw distance/detail.

I would genuinely like anyone to show me where these images fall below the standard of previous, comparable images from previous versions.

I can state, without any doubt, that there is absolutely no way I could have achieved those results, on my hardware, before SU5.

So, for me, it is clearcut - there has been an upgrade, along with a few short term slip ups like ‘pop in’ issues.

3 Likes

this. now you’ve to jack up the render scaling way past 100 to “force” the sim to fully utlilise vram (at the expense of fps).
wish i did, but i don’t have screenshots pre SU5 displaying mem usage, only thing I could find was msfs review from guru3d with testing of vmem usage. they tested at ultra settings, with render scale set at 100.

Graphics memory usage can fluctuate per game scene and activity in games. This game will consume graphics memory once you start to move around in-game, memory utilization is dynamic and can change at any time. Often the denser and more complex a scene is (entering a scene with lots of buildings or vegetation, for example) results in higher utilization. With your close to the max “High” but not “Ultra” quality settings this game tries to stay at a five towards 5~6 GB threshold. We noticed that 4GB cards could have more difficulties running the game at our settings, and that presents itself in stutters.

But what happens if you have a graphics card with even more graphics memory? As you can see only at Ultra HD is starting to fill up that kerosine data-tank in our own created benchmark when graphics cards have more memory available. We max out at roughly 11 GB. Flight Simulator really likes to use your graphics memory. I’ll operate subtle at 8GB framebuffers. However terrain is responsible for extensive further VRAM usage, and with so many locations worldwide, there’s no conclusive answer here. Extra framebuffer memory does not make the sim noticeably less stutter-free, neither went performance upwards. But it will cache as much as needed and as much as possible and surely that can only be a positive thing.
MS Flight Simulator (2020): the 2021 PC graphics performance benchmark review - VRAM Utilization and CPU Scaling

…now it seems behaviour is very different as they describe. memory isn’t fully utilised, even if available. so naturaly, for SU5, my assumption is asobo tuned memory utilisation for xbox.

2 Likes

OK, so I caught up with this thread last night, and I read your post and quite a few after it, and there are so many people saying precisely what you did in this sentence, that I decided I had to do a sanity check. So, I hopped into the sim at I don’t know, probably 1:30AM, and flew until after 3:00AM just to do that aforementioned sanity test.

Here’s what I found out. Now, keep in mind, this was not just some casual flight. I was actively looking to TRY to find these flaws everyone says are so obvious that you have to be Stevie Wonder to not see them. I was tilting my head from side to side (this was all strictly VR testing) looking for anti-aliasing problems. I would zoom in and was trying, maybe even hoping to find them. Same with clouds. At first I started with real weather and there weren’t all that many. But it turns out that in the sim, it just so happens that I am a GOD OF WEATHER. so I changed it to have more. And then I went outside the plane, and let it fly itself while I was just looking around staring at the clouds, looking for flaws, colors that were even hardly perceptibly wrong, blockiness, again with that anti-aliasing, anything that might prove to myself that I was just overlooking things, or looking right at them and not seeing them.

Overall, I found nothing. I did find a bit of anti-aliasing issues if I hit the ESC key to bring up the menu. I also saw some, probably even a little bit more, when I brought up the Navigraph windows to check my charts. But the menu thing I don’t care about at all, and the Navigraph thing I can easily live with, too. Yes, the “box” itself around the charts had some stair stepping, and there might have been some in the charts themselves, but they’ve been hard to read when zoomed out ever since Navigraph introduced that feature. When I zoomed in, it was clear, or at least as clear as it needed to be for me to understand what I was reading.

But as for the flying around in my plane part? Nada. No shimmering, and while I’m not completely sure what that means, because I’ve never seen it, the name is quite descriptive. No AA problems, even when I zoomed in on stitching on the leather on the panel, on the NXI screens, nothing nowhere. Not inside the plane, not outside the plane.

The clouds looked fine to me, exceptional even. Now, given this was VR, they were not as crystal clear as if I was looking at a 2D display, but that is just how VR works in 2021. In another year or two, and another generation or two of headsets and GPUs, I’m betting that will no longer be a problem, and it will be as clear in a headset as on a display. In fact, I can make it that clear NOW, it’s just that my rig doesn’t have the horsepower to drive it, and frames per second becomes seconds per frame.

If it matters, if anybody cares, I’m running an i5-10600K paired with an EVGA RTX 2070 Super, sprinkled with 64GB of CL16 Corsair RAM. I don’t use framerate counters, instead I just trust my eyes to tell me if/when there is a problem, and they didn’t report any. The motion was smooth with no perceptible “framerate” at all, whatever a counter may have said. No stutters, no pauses, not even the occasional total blackout the HP Reverb G2s are famous for. I’m not saying those are completely gone, they’re not, but I didn’t have any during this specific flight.

I experienced no CTDs at all, even though started the flight without rebooting after using the computer heavily for work purposes, which is generally something I always do when planning to fly. I also left it on overnight by accident, and did not experience any crashes after such an extended length of time running.

Bottom line is that either I am actually blind, which I can assure you I am not, and have better than 20/20 vision, or these experiences that so many are complaining about are most likely very much relatively rare exceptions to most people’s experiences. Sometimes they make it sound like it’s pert near everyone having the symptoms they are having, but I think that’s an illusion based on them being “vociferously noisy” about such things.

And I’ve seen the pictures with the arrows that allege to point to this or that flaw, and someone brought up that ridiculously double or triple compressed picture that was zoomed in so far that as a semi-professional photographer (at least before my disability), I call that “pixel peeping”. And when you are pixel peeping, it says nothing whatsoever about the quality of the image when seen from a proper distance. Not to mention that the truck that was the subject of that photo that “proves massive downgrades” is such a tiny part of the overall scenery a user would see in or out of VR, I’m not sure it matters. It’s a small truck parked on the other side of the ramp that you barely even notice is there at all.

Anyway, that’s what I learned from my test flight last night. That doesn’t mean the people complaining about it aren’t seeing what they see, though I think that some of them are probably trying just a bit too hard to find “flaws” that may not really be there.

It is what it is. Why do they have problems yet I don’t? Lots of possible reasons, but flaws in the code isn’t one. That’s not to say that there aren’t or weren’t problems. They acknowleged the fuzzy textures with the original SU5, but that was fixed in one of the patches. I did see some AA issues, just on things where it didn’t bother me. Not that I will mind if they fix it, but it also doesn’t bother me. There may be flaws in the code, but they either have fixed them, or are working on fixes, so I’m not all that worried. In fact, I think some of these issues may be why WU6 got delayed in the first place.

And that is WAY, WAY too much typing just to say I tested the complaints and didn’t find anything of substance.

2 Likes

I believe you know me enough to believe me!

When I said a few weeks back on the forum (can’t remember where but I did) that I never noticed the shimmering people are talking about at first, until I was finished posting “My VR Index” latest and I’ve started experimenting with “My VR G2”. There is a shimmering problem which is undeniable but it is also possible it is more or less visible depending on some settings.

More specifically about the shimmering bug, I quickly realized it is more visible with the sun lower on the horizon lighting whiter buildings. This shows in the form of white clipping pixels at the edges of the building and because it is white clipping it is most likely having a harder time to “smoothen things” out. This was my first conclusion of this bug, thinking they are assigning a too much metallic material to the black shark AI buildings.

Then I’ve also documented another bug where it shows the viewdir vector in the pixel shader code is wrong on the right eye.

Last but not least I’ve noticed a few days ago another discrepancy with the viewdir and the lightdir (sun) and the shadows which shows only in VR but not in 3D.

All this to say, in my latest “My VR Settings G2” post, I’m reporting that actually Reflections settings in VR (with my test system - all documented over there) when set to anything but Low, is producing fuzzier rendering in the distance. In setting this to Low instead some of the distant objects rendering flaws that I know and document since the beginning, are less visible.

To me, all of this are code bugs for sure, and some where definitely not there prior SU5 either.

1 Like

Yes, I absolutely know you well enough to believe what you say. But if the above sentence is accurate, does that make it a “bug”, or simply a “don’t use these settings on your rig” kind of problem. Before your infamous posts about setting things up properly, most especially including your Nvidia Control Panel settings, the clarity of my VR went up so much it was almost as if I needed glasses, but only slightly, and someone bought them for me. Does that mean the fuzziness I experienced prior to using your settings (which, with a few exceptions, I am still using to this day) was a “bug” or just something that needed some setting tweaks?

3 Likes

This I believe is a very good question indeed.

To me, there can be settings which are amplifying a visual annoyance/glitch/inconvenience of course. It is only when the outcome of the same setting is changing between version that you may be wondering whether it is a bug (regression of some sort) or a new artistic direction (which might not please all but it is their game, not ours).

However in this particular case of the shimmering for example, when I factor in the viewdir Shader code bug (to me this is nothing else than a bug honestly - 3D vector maths kind of bug but there are others*), it has all the elements of being a new bug introduced in SU5 too.

I’ll draw a parallel which might be easier to grasp too: if you remember the “tall buildings” bug which took me a few hours to solve and for which I’ve offered a “fix” to the community, we’re in the same situation: is this a new bug, or a new artistic vision. And why there are people not seing this but I do? (yes, some people didn’t notice the tall buildings at first, either they just didn’t see, or they were flying in places where it was less visible).

Hope this helps!


*as for the other 3D vector maths bugs: in VR when you recenter the view (press SPACE), if you look horizontally if recenters on your position. If you look downward though it recenters farther up, and if you look upward it recenters closer down… Is this a bug or a feature? :slight_smile:

2 Likes

Two other things I’ve seen people mention that I did not see but forgot about in my post above… I saw no pop-ins of scenery, though I was flying in Florida, which ain’t exactly known for it’s hills, and I didn’t see any of those triangle thingy’s on the streets that several have mentioned, and one went out of his or her way to even give a painted on primer so people would know what to look for in a “but that devastated the scenery quality” or whatever the phrase du jour happens to be…

I have seen some of the scenery pop-ins, but to me, it was nothing new as I’ve been experiencing them to one degree or another for way longer than SU5 has been around. I can’t say I’ve noted any significant change from how it was pre-SU5 to post SU5. But then again, maybe I had them in the past and others didn’t meaning I’m just used to something that is new for other folks, who knows.

I remember that bug, and while I did see picture of some of them, I never saw one “in person” so to speak. I was under the impression that it was a simple math error, that someone put in 300 to the “stories” field that described the buildings when the proper number was 3. Same with those scenery spikes that to me, were no big deal, while a lot of people absolutely lost their minds about them. But it seemed to me that it was a misplaced decimal point in some math used that related to small, shallow lakes, like on golf courses, where I frequently encountered them, or even on natural smallish lakes that the AI extracted from the satellite data and decided were smallish lakes in the first place. But both of them were fixed, and we moved past it.

As for the shimmering “bug”, just tell me what settings NOT to use. I haven’t experienced it, and see no reason why I want to. From just the name, I know I don’t want them even though I’ve never even so much as seen a picture of one. So which settings should I make sure to not use? Even if it turns out it was a misguided but intentional attempt to add some artistic touches, sounds like it was a failed experiment to me.

I also never saw the “office tower in lieu of the Washington Monument” bug in person, but I did find it funny that some people were legit thinking it might literally be illegal to replicate those specific monuments out of national security concerns. Clearly they were wrong about that one!

1 Like

It’s a GAME now…Not a SIMULATOR.

1 Like

This is that ridiculous photo I was talking about in my post above. Looking at it with knowledge that its been compressed who knows how many times, knowing that even using this picture to try to prove anything is ridiculous pixel peeping taken to an extreme, and the image on the right, if I’m imagining this as a real photograph of real life taken by a real camera, the image on the right looks like it was WAY oversharpened. So to the extent this photo alleges to claim anything at all, I would say the image on the left probably looks better when zoomed back out with all the compression and oversharpening artifacts removed.

And that’s not to even mention the things I already said. Seems like a waste of keystrokes.

2 Likes

I couldn’t care less what it looks like on XBox. We had an absolutely gorgeous simulator for PC and they ruined it. I don’t care how or why, but it needs to be fixed.

6 Likes

Yes it is and yes it was.

1 Like

It’s understandable you would like the deficiencies resolved. We have one sim on multiple platforms, but everyone should be getting the best experience that their equipment allows. :relieved:

No, the majority is not delusional, it is actually playing the game and enjoying. Only a perceived majority here in the forums is vocal about issues that only they notice, and as I mentioned often times backing the claims up with screenshots that have to be zoomed in and even then the claimed issue specifically highlighted by an arrow or a circle.

You seem to completely dodge the main point I have been trying to make. How is it possible, if the claims of graphical degradation were true to the extent many say, for the sim to produce graphics like in the video I shared, effectively being almost impossible to discern from real-life? It makes absolutely no logical sense to me. Also I don’t quite grasp your sharing the showcase videos of the new engines, are there currently other sims out there utilizing them and creating the whole world with the AI as this one is? I am quite sure the engines are developing all the time, and in or within 10 years time we will have again quite amazing on the market, sim-wise. Yet someone will be able to come up with the same argument as yours, “look these new engines are so much better, this is not revolutionary”.

A summary of my current graphical issues as a VR user on a high end machine, ranked in order of personal annoyance:

  1. Nearby and distant building and tree pop in on head move - very immersion breaking in VR. Widely acknowledged with clear examples in the bug thread, hopefully to be fixed in next update
  2. Anti-Aliasing issues - Strong aliasing on overlay windows and in game shimmering on buildings in the medium and far distance, particularly towards the sun. Aliasing on EFIS such as the A320 displays. I am on Quest 2 at native resolution and 100 render scale and cannot seem to remove this no matter what settings. This is widely reported in the bug thread but no acknowledgement from the devs yet. I suspect the sharpening filter may be causing this but am not an expert. Since release I have also had aliasing on thin objects such as masts.
  3. Generally washed out / over exposed image. I can get around this slightly by running my Quest 2 through virtual desktop and adjusting the gamma, but it is still not ideal and for those who cannot do this it has a large impact on perceived image quality.
  4. Potentially increased checkerboarding/frustrum culling of terrain on head move, particularly on airport and water textures and on SteamVR runtime. I am still experimenting with this, and I cannot be certain that SU5 caused this.
  5. I perceive a general reduction in lighting/shadow quality which results in a slightly more cartoony look to the terrain and buildings. I cannot revert to SU4 to compare but my guess is there was more variation to the terrain lighting due to interactions with clouds, giving a more realistic lighting effect. However this all may be simply due to 3) above.

I am very glad that more people can enjoy MSFS due to the performance improvements. And even from a selfish level it is good as it means more money into the industry and more content. However for users who played in VR with a high end PC (in my case bought specifically for MSFS!), we do not benefit from the performance improvement but do suffer the above problems.

EDIT I also forgot, in no particular order:
-Water Reflections - broken in VR since SU5, they will dance around if you move your head even slightly.
-Morphing terrain - mountain areas popping up and down at much closer range than previously
-Airport objects such as taxi markers loading at close range despite sliders at 200

6 Likes

FYI I use a workaround for point 1, pop-in, by creating a ramdisk of 4,5GB at Windows boot, and setting a Rolling cache of 4GB on it , R:\Temp, R is the default letter for the ImDisk tool I used. More information here, really easy to set : RollingCache revisited, essential now with the aggressive culling - #13 by SvenZ

It’s a temp solution until devs fix it. Pop-in is greatly reduced, nearly invisible.

And just change a little your conclusion as it’s machine dependent : I have a big benefit with SU5 optimization on CPU and GPU side as I’m now able to raise all my VR settings including Render Scale from 70 to 80%, Clouds at ultra, etc. and still keep my 45fps locked ASW OFF

Saying that, I agree will all the rest of your post :+1: :slightly_smiling_face:

4 Likes

This is what tricker me to say what i want to say what i have on my mind on this downgrade and xbox talk.

In the first place i’m still very happy with this simulator/ game because for me it is usable in both ways, i think or like to think the sim adapts by how you fly, if its my imatination thats fine by me.

But the thing i absolutely dont like is the fact that Microsoft/Asobo decide for many who bought new high end pc systems that it must be port over to run on a gameconsole xbox.
THIS TO ME IS THE REAL DOWNGRADE, and i do not see the benefit for pc users, to develop a game through the pc user community, and the make a face behind the scènes to those users by devaluate their piece of property value which could have bought them sort of like 10 or 12 xbox xes for the same amount of money.

So i trust Microsoft/Asobo realise this as well, and now that the xbox project has seems succesfull, i hope they go back to the track for pc and start with pc devellopment again.

Sincere

Sebastiaan

1 Like

Can you please tell me where the images shown below are ‘ruined’?




(Images taken just now)

3 Likes

Personally I do not expect miracles of the VR yet, they pretty much only implemented it and there has not been much optimizations let alone other work done on it since it was launched. Quite honestly, I am rather surprised it runs as well as it does on so many headsets.

Now that the SU5 with the massive code updates to the core game is done to improve the overall performance, I would slowly start expecting more attention to VR.

I really would like to see an example of what the washed out image looks like. I maybe having it as well, just don’t know about it.

2 Likes