The Graphics and Performance just keep getting worse for me :(

Discussion Hub General Discussion
1

Which one is FS2020 and which one is Aerofly FS2?

A.

A
A2560×1440 509 KB

B.
B
B2560×1440 610 KB

B. is Aerofly FS2.

Since Asobo / MS nerfed FS2020, Aerofly FS2 now looks considerably better at altitude. I also get around 80FPS in Aerofly FS2. How do we convince MS to un-nerf their sim? It was amazing when it launched, and subsequent patches just make it look and perform worse.

I know we all get different results … I’m just talking about my own experience and my deep disappointment in what I had expected to be an incredible sim. It isn’t … it’s nothing like the adverts either … not even close.

3 Likes
2

So to prove that MFS’ graphics are getting “worse”, your screenshot comparison is between current MFS and… an unrelated product.

What?

3 Likes
3

If you want a comparison between old and new, here is a comparison someone posted a while back ago:

sfo tree downgrade
sfo tree downgrade2560×2880 1.25 MB

1 Like
4

Did anything come of that? Any reason for the decreased tree drawing distance?

1 Like
5

I believe the thread was deleted for “negativity”.

6

I was hoping for much better satellite imagery in FS2020.

1 Like
7

I care a lot about the British Channel Islands, which look terrible. This shot from even higher up shows how poor the satellite stock is for this region. Now my point isn’t really about comparing products, its about “next gen” progress, which I am not seeing for my preferred flying region. It doesn’t matter how much one might argue about which region should receive better graphics than others. the fact remains, my region looks rubbish. I wish MS/Asobo had planned in advance some mechanism for us to purchase satellite image upgrades for our preferred locations, rather than having to wait for some kind of lottery.

Microsoft Flight Simulator Screenshot 2020.11.25 - 15.15.42.88
Microsoft Flight Simulator Screenshot 2020.11.25 - 15.15.42.882560×1440 216 KB

2 Likes
8

Be sure to make sure your graphics settings are where they should be. I’ve noticed mine get switched from High to medium from time to time with out making that change myself.

2 Likes
9

Sacramento Area seems to come from x-plane 9.

Good job ASOBO

2020-11-25
2020-11-251920×1080 240 KB

2020-11-25 (1)
2020-11-25 (1)1920×1080 260 KB

4 Likes
10

Oh boy. You opened up the hornet’s nest criticizing the Golden Goose.

3 Likes
11

Have a look here for screenshot progression from day 1

And a detailed comparison across multiple patches… which I’ve not bothered to waste my time repeating as the graphics are not being downgraded

12

That first picture with the embedded watermark clearly shows trees on that far ridgeline that are not in the second photo.

Is that not possible any more?

13

FS2020 looks pretty bad at high altitudes. For whatever reason, you can literally see the resolution of the scenery images degrade as you go higher and they become a blurry mess (maybe something to do with limitations of their servers). People seem to be in denial about this reality. XP orthos look significantly better at high altitudes

1 Like
14

According to the person who posted the screenshots, no!

15

It’s difficult to judge what is going on from two screenshots, without knowing the exact circumstances in which they were generated.

But it does seem to me that after every single patch, a “graphics downgrade” thread gets created.

I fully expect that by the time Update 10 is released we’ll be reduced to ASCII art!

2 Likes
16

As an “addenda” to this thread, in the event anyone is interested, I created a simple GTX 1080Ti performance test over New York at 2K in August 2020. If anyone wants to see how things have moved along, go check it out for a comparison. I can’t produce any videos right now as I get too much stuttering and audio popping, no matter what settings I select, so I am waiting for the next patch to see if things improve. Here’s my New York video: https://youtu.be/RsxIJpNcJBc