42 minutes ago, Greazer said:

There were probably at least 10 filters applied to the original image:

You are blowing this way out of proportion. Assuming stuff is one thing but yout comment is borderline trolling.

3 hours ago, Greazer said:

There were probably at least 10 filters applied to the original image: color, contrast, sharpening, HDR, DOF, etc etc. It did not come straight from FS. For one thing there is obviously no DOF in the 3d rendering. These are the tricks.

Many games have all the "filters" you mention as real-time postprocessing effects, so it's very possible this is entirely in game. The DOF has many imperfections, which suggests it was not done in Photoshop. They likely have an in-engine photo mode that lets them apply different effects and tune colors live. Though many of these effects probably happen outside of their photo mode anyway, as they do in most games nowadays.

I find a few comments here about the post processing of the MSFS2020 panel very odd. Of course it's been edited but that can only take you so far and if people can't see the qualtity in the panel beyond the DOF effects etc than I'm gobsmacked. Why do people have such a hard time accepting that it's not a big step forward from FSX and P3D and just be greatfull that we'll have that capability in the new sim.

The Crew 2 (developed by ASOBO) also has DoF (as in the MFS preview screenshot) and motion blur (as in the MFS trailer video). Hmmm...

https://support.ubi.com/en-AU/Faqs/000035316/Advanced-PC-video-settings-TC2

 

On ‎7‎/‎12‎/‎2019 at 3:08 PM, TechguyMaxC said:

And the benevolent offer to re-buy the same add-on with no discount.  For some folks, for a 3rd time.  

Simmers are a gullible bunch. They'll buy the same add-on for the 10th time if it promises an upgrade where the left row of circuit breakers now work exactly like the real thing, tested by 30 different kinds of airline pilots.

This whole thing reminds me of the brouhaha that surrounded the release of FS 2000: MS promised "high def Areas" - immediately everyone flew to these areas, got slideshows, CTDs, OOMs and what not, and then the various fora blew up with caterwauling simmers.

I'm definitely stocking up on beer and popcorn as soon as the release date of this "flightsim to end all flightsims" is announced.

7 hours ago, Murmur said:

The Crew 2 (developed by ASOBO) also has DoF (as in the MFS preview screenshot) and motion blur (as in the MFS trailer video). Hmmm...

https://support.ubi.com/en-AU/Faqs/000035316/Advanced-PC-video-settings-TC2

 

Most engines not built in 2006 do 🙂 Those are basic effects nowadays. Just like 64bit, which made it funny back then how everybody was stunned by it 😄
Eh, certain simmers need to play more and see what it is possible to achieve outside of the usual sims 😄

17 minutes ago, france89 said:

Just like 64bit, which made it funny back then how everybody was stunned by it 

But going to 64bit did virtually nothing to the appearance of flight sims, it was more about how they ran that changed.

Man that screenshot has me excited, the rendering looks amazing. The polys rendered nice and smoothly, the textures/materials look sweet.

The narrow DOF sure looks like it's done with an in-game camera in the rendering rather than post processing to me. Look at how the bokeh in the 2 different shots behaves differently to the lighting, the way all the 3D objects in the same focal plane/focal length are all correctly in focus. The black knob of the throttle is roughly at the same focal length as the altimeter and looks roughly of similar clarity, whereas the base of the throttle shaft being further away is more blurred. Not sure how that would be achieved using any "filters" in post processing which I'd expect would produce some pretty linear DOF, whereas it's the bread and butter type work of a good render engine. The chromatic aberration also looks equally predictable to what you could imagine in a real photo.

18 hours ago, Greazer said:

There were probably at least 10 filters applied to the original image: color, contrast, sharpening, HDR, DOF, etc etc. It did not come straight from FS. For one thing there is obviously no DOF in the 3d rendering. These are the tricks.

You've never played Euro/American Truck Sim, have you?  If MS has an in game photo camera feature like the truck sims do then it could very easily have been created in game.  We can't assume anything about how the pic was created without more information, but to say it definitely certainly could NOT have been done in game is simply untrue, given today's sim market.

6 hours ago, vortex681 said:

But going to 64bit did virtually nothing to the appearance of flight sims, it was more about how they ran that changed.

I don't think that's true. At least in XP (the one I'm familiar with), the move to 64-bit allowed several visual enhancements.

One was the use of higher resolution cockpit textures without a RAM crunch. Another was the ability to load extended .dsf scenery (lat/long tiles outside the area you're flying), so you can see large features like mountains in the distance. There is also the high def and ultra high def free terrain mesh, which makes mountain ranges look much better, and improves rivers and coastlines. The HD and UHD terrain mesh requires the 64-bit version of XP and won't work on the 32-bit version, due to the large amount of RAM required.

All of those are in the "appearance" category, although it might not be something you'd immediately notice without a direct comparison. It's not like the sim looked drastically different overnight.

I think it's also important to recognize that sim developers are still only gradually taking advantage of the 64-bit address space. There is plenty of room to grow there, and we'll see more use of it as new versions are released. XP is ahead of P3D in use of 64-bit RAM (which you can see in the minimum and recommended system specs), but that may change in the future. And of course if we assume the new MFS is being written from scratch, then they'll be able to work their own magic in the address space.

It's partly a marketing question too, How much system RAM do you assume the average user has installed in their PC? And how much RAM will be in that new Scarlett Xbox? The Xbox will probably drive development as far as initial RAM usage goes, but I hope MS will allow for addons that push the RAM requirements past what's in the Xbox for the PC version.

14 hours ago, Ricardo41 said:

Simmers are a gullible bunch. They'll buy the same add-on for the 10th time if it promises an upgrade where the left row of circuit breakers now work exactly like the real thing, tested by 30 different kinds of airline pilots.

This whole thing reminds me of the brouhaha that surrounded the release of FS 2000: MS promised "high def Areas" - immediately everyone flew to these areas, got slideshows, CTDs, OOMs and what not, and then the various fora blew up with caterwauling simmers.

I'm definitely stocking up on beer and popcorn as soon as the release date of this "flightsim to end all flightsims" is announced.

Well I'm certainly going to have my fun with this sim.

You know there is no rule that says you should stop playing P3D or X-Plane when this comes out, but sooner or later you'll stop buying add-ons for your older sims and start investing in the new one.

Progress is a wheel that will continue to turn with or without peoples support. Might as well jump on board and see what all the fuss is about, with the lovely looking visuals being shown what have you got to lose?

Am I alone asking why a shot of the instrument panel would be taken from such an acute angle? Why not from the pilot’s perspective? If I’m viewing the instruments then the last thing I need is a shallow depth of field.

And why the need for so much post processing of the image assuming the experts on such matters believe that to be the case? What is it trying to prove? Just give us a plain screenshot without any embellishments.

6 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Am I alone asking why a shot of the instrument panel would be taken from such an acute angle? Why not from the pilot’s perspective? If I’m viewing the instruments then the last thing I need is a shallow depth of field.

And why the need for so much post processing of the image assuming the experts on such matters believe that to be the case? What is it trying to prove? Just give us a plain screenshot without any embellishments.

Yes Ray well spotted, it's a teaser image! 😁 There will be another short news update on the 25th of July with a more significant update in August.

8 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Am I alone asking why a shot of the instrument panel would be taken from such an acute angle? Why not from the pilot’s perspective? If I’m viewing the instruments then the last thing I need is a shallow depth of field.

And why the need for so much post processing of the image assuming the experts on such matters believe that to be the case? What is it trying to prove? Just give us a plain screenshot without any embellishments.

Pretty much alone, yes. Because most of us accept it for what it is....a simple screenshot, accompanying an innocent little dev update. It doesnt try to prove anything, it doesnt try to hide anything.....ITS.JUST.A.SIMPLE.SCREENSHOT....

And yet here we are, a 6 page long debate about a simple screenshot....gotta love this place

12 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Am I alone asking why a shot of the instrument panel would be taken from such an acute angle?

It is intended to be artistic.  It's not like it is a picture intended for a product brochure for the actual aircraft.

I see a picture of an instrument panel taken from an artistic angle with some artsy-fartsy processing done to make it more interesting.  If I had been taking the picture of the actual aircraft, I might use the angle but I'd do whatever necessary to get the entire panel in focus, including if necessary using a camera with swings and tilts.  But I'm not going to criticize the pics they posted.  The pic does what it was intended to do.

Hook