But facts show the drawdistance is lower compared to su4 though. Not to mention the culling they introduced which causes popin when panning. (Which again worked fine in su4)
But i guess it just looks better on your pc, even though no graphics upgrade has been made.
This is really wired, how you keep saying that while there’s couple of comparing screenshots (I took some too on a saved location, to make them match exactly) that proof you wrong, while you just keep saying, without any proof, that, contrary to almost everyone else, it looks better?
If you’re on a mid to low range pc the sim can run on “higher” settings with better frame rate yes if your lucky enough its not crashing, and the fact that almost every plane has something that isn’t working anymore, ap, trim, parking brake…
Oh and while we’re at it:
There’s your ultra settings with visible water texture tiles, completely blown out whites because of gama 2.4 to look “good” on wide garmut TV screens.
What’s that 400 LOD, where do you find that setting?
C:\Users\USER\AppData\Local\Packages\Microsoft.FlightSimulator_8wekyb3d8bbwe\LocalCache
“UserCfg.opt”
TerrainLOD 2.0000 ObjectLOD 2.0000
You can thange these and other parameters use something like 4.0000 or 6.0000 on the terrain lod (if your pc can handle it) make that file “read only” (right click)
I can disprove your screenshots with mine. Imo @TroyairOne has a point, the sim looks better now than it did before. These are from SU5
This sim was always meant to be exclusive to wealthy ex-pilots with $3000 computers. What happened???
These are just the same kind of picture marketing used before the update to show off, nothing comparable just stand alone pictures, which btw. just shows that no one’s saying that fa2020 isn’t good looking.
Everyone claiming deterioration for the sake of Xbox, which must be true just for the sole fact that a 500€ piece of hardware can’t possibly run software that barely runs on a Ryzn9/i10 3080/90, tries to come up with some forensic evidence if possible. (Comparable screenshots) while some, you include, for one reason or another just say “looks better now, here have one picture”
As well it should.
Screenshots are like statistics. You can make them defend whatever position you are taking. Hell, In one flight I can take 3 SS that show the game in all its glory and then take 3 SS that show it at its worse.
The bottom line is that the graphics, over all, have been degraded since SU5. They admitted what they did in the Digital Foundry interview video from August 01, 2021.
I have provided proof they have not, and they did not say that in Digital Foundry’s video, and I dare you to quote it because I have watched it.
Hence my explanation of those “trying to proof” something, while others just go for “better”
Here’s a example of mine:
Proving that the tree distance changed, and to what extend.
Here’s another one,
Loading screen location before and after some “updates”
Here you have a thread with comparison pictures, hope that helps end the claims of a downgrade:
They said “We tuned the distances, the draw distances, of objects and the way the LOD’s are being used in order to minimize the number of meshes and textures in memory at the same time.”
You will argue that tuning is not degrading, but I will disagree. It really don’t matter because we are stuck with it now.
If there’s one thing we’re not it is stuck with it
I so hope you are right, but we are powerless to force change. As a user base we can’t even get people to acknowledge there is a problem, much less unite against it.
That’s why we have this forum while many software producers don’t. There is also Zendesk, their solutions might not be instant but they do try and prioritise the important.
Which is not degrading, but lets agree to disagree.
And ActiveSky, you need active Sky!
Why does it look “cartoony” on your images? The world doesn’t look like that in reality.
That’s good though. Having a discrete GPU is a big help with MSFS.
