I’ve increased my Render Scaling with SU5 but they’re still worse up close than SU4. One of the hot fixes improved them marginally but not back to what they were, still great to look at from a distance but as above up close they’re pixelated.
2 Likes
good morning
how are you?
1 Like
morning, im good how are you?
pretty sure this is not a VR thread, but id like to see how that looks, from my end the clouds look really good.
Better then anything ive ever experienced
Clouds have always looked worse in VR than on the monitor.
But at the moment you really see pixelated structures and straight edges more often. Doesn’t kill you, but gets noticed.
makes sense, VR is VR i just dont see that as i run on a flat screen.
My clouds look great in VR. RS 100, SteamVR SS 152%, Vive Pro, Clouds Ultra.
1 Like
dont suppose you can take a pic to share?
Nope, because VR does not translate well in screenshots. You’ll just have to take my word for it. But as you have seen, loads of people claim their clouds are now cr4p but you yourself think they look great… and so do I. Our mileage obviously varies from others because I have seen some people’s screenshots where they do indeed look cr4p.
Clouds don’t look too bad, they just look worse then earlier versions. Mostly visible in daylight conditions. The colors are often off and there’s weird color banding. They have a green/magenta tint at less dense areas. Also they let sunlight trough when you’re inside the cloud. Even if it’s a thick layer of overcast.
Also distance clouds near the horizon tend to have an orange look wich makes it look like it’s dusk/dawn.
They’re still pretty though. But as with alot in this sim: we’ve seen better visuals in earlier releases.
7 Likes
I have to admit, i was one of those who thought the “xbox is going to ruin FS2020” whining was pathetic. Why would they lower the experience for everyone, right? But here we are. And they are going to get away with this because of two types of people. First, the “I have a 3090 and the visuals are better then ever.” What a waste of hardware. But then there are also those who think, if i can’t have nice things, nobody should. (The OP of another thread about clouds) This is somewhat shocking to me. I mean, they could of just lowered there settings. It’s not like Asobo actually optimized anything. They just lowered the settings for everyone. Thank god i chanceled my 3090. This is not a good sign for the future of PC gaming.
2 Likes
It doesn’t matter what system you have. It’s the same for everyone. The only difference you might have is performance. Unless you have really, really old hardware.
Playing in normal flat screen mode, I think the clouds look good. I wouldn’t say they’re amazing and super realistic by any means, but I don’t see the pixellation that people are reporting. At least not any more.
I used to see it in the past. It was mostly in shaded areas under certain lighting conditions, so not a constant thing. And when those conditions occurred, they did look bad.
That said, the clouds have been tweaked so often now that it’s hard to tell what’s what any more. There’s definitely room for improvement, but I’m fairly pleased with them as they are. To me, there are far bigger issues that should be dealt with as a priority than some minor eye candy.
Correct. Folks at the higher end of the graphics spectrum (RTX 2070 and up) have generally been able to run high/ultra (or a mix of those 2) settings since launch. Lowering graphics settings would gain no performance increases as the bottleneck for these folks have been CPU (main thread limited) moreso than any GPU limitation. They’re the ones that have seen the graphical downgrade. These folks also represent the smallest cross-section of the MSFS user base.
The folks with 2-3 generation old GPUs or more budget grade / entry level GPUs - the folks making up the lion’s share of MSFS users, have been GPU limited from start. They were forced to use lower settings in order to get acceptable frame rates. Many are now able to run all ultra, or at least increase graphical detail significantly compared to what they had. . So for them, this is a graphical upgrade and they tend to be the ones fighting tooth and nail there was “no graphical downgrade”. And from their perspective, they’re right. They’re seeing levels of detail they were never privy to before.
2 Likes
You mean VR scaling? Who has been able to ramp it up to 120 or 150? Thanks to SU5 I can now fly pretty smoothly with 80, when before I was stuck with 60 with no chance of having an enjoyable flight with anything above it.
Indeed, it really stands out when panning the camera or when flying through clouds. There’s also still this strange disconnect between the sun being hidden behind distant clouds, then becomes visible when you fly through a thin cloud near you. Makes no sense. However that’s been there since launch as well as the pixelation where the sun peeks through the clouds.
Clouds are still better than they were in FSX, just not as good as they were last August. Nobody is saying clouds look better since SU5, yet a lot of people are saying they look worse since SU5. While the increased fps should actually help stabilize the look of the clouds, more samples for TAA to make a stable picture. Yet the opposite seems to be happening. The pixelated edges stand out more in motion.
I took well over 10K screenshots on my tour and since SU5 I haven’t taken a single screenshot where I thought, that looks better, yet many where it looked worse. Maybe I’ve seen all the possible variations of clouds and the sim simply can’t wow me anymore. Yet at least it should match some of the good scenes.
Perhaps fixing the lighting will go a long way to restore the previous beauty. Half of the problem is the whiteout conditions during mid day and odd color banding at other times.
Nobody should be using VR as a measure of graphics quality. VR is low quality at this point in time.
2 Likes
…and what VR headset do you use to come to that conclusion?
3 Likes
A fine example of a lack of understanding of the principle.
Why should I reduce the raw data by 40% in order to then inflate the smaller one again in the PostSS. I prefer to use the better base and then downsampling if necessary if the performance drops.
I have always used 100% (oder 110% je nach Gebiet) corresponds in my settings to approx. 2900x3700pix (+ 10%) per eye in the FS.
Of course you have a better picture with a raw data resolution of 20% more (60vs.80). No question. But 100% before 100% after optically now look like 80-90% before with identical PostSS
That’s exactly the same point as DCS, where people say, “I have 200% Steam VR, it’s not crisp” Right, turn Steam to 100% and Ingame PD to 1.2 or 1.4 and, oh wonder. Suddenly they can read anything. And the performance is also better.
Well, I just went basically with this guide and found what works for me, smoothness being the absolute highest priority
1 Like
Quest 2. But it looks SD to me, so even the best wouldn’t get much better.