Looking at the latest screenshots, I am starting to have a few doubts about some of the ground textures, in particular mountains, they seem very FSX-like, with poor texture definition. 

I wonder what the texture resolution is, at its lowest, and whether they are taking any of this directly from FSX or whether 'everything' in the sim is truly satalite/aerial imagery. as suggested. In the trailers, some mountain regions seem almost photographically real, but others, like in the latest shots, very generic. 

For me, mountainous area, lakes and busch is where this new sim should really shine and I certainly hope it does, so that not all depends again or 3rd party developers. 

 

From what i know, the quality of the scenery will depend on the quality of your connection. In saying that, i'm sure some areas will outshine others depending on available data. 

Many lvl of  Detail if we read last French interview. So you can zoom and look a texture captured at 3000ft, but certainly in Simulator if you fly close to the ground, texture change and give more detail. 

The mountains in the trailers look like the terrain mesh is quite low resolution That’s a bigger concern.

 

Funny... To me, when I look at the footage, and the screenshots, there's very little that seems FSX like to me. The ground textures look phenomenal comparatively speaking.

 

I look at screenshots like this one taken of the Wasatch mountain range near Salt Lake City, Utah, which historically has had mediocre to poor texture quality in any flight simulator. It's is so beyond night and day different that it's not even funny. 

There are multiple levels of detail.  As with any video game if you take a screen shot of something far away, drawn at the lowest levels of detail and then zoom in on the screenshot it will look average.

If however, you zoomed in the view in a game so higher levels of detail are drawn then your screenshot for that area you had just zoomed in will look completely different.

So zooming in on your screenshots on areas 30000 feet away, yes it will look average

Because you're zooming into a picture which you wouldn't be doing in the game.

Also, many remote areas of the planet do not have very high-resolution satellite images commercially available.  There are likely to be some areas that are more autogen based on algorithms from lower res satellite data.

1 hour ago, Eclipse said:

Also, many remote areas of the planet do not have very high-resolution satellite images commercially available.  There are likely to be some areas that are more autogen based on algorithms from lower res satellite data.

This is the annoying post-launch period I awat with baited breath - when X-Plane/P3D diehards start looking for sections of the planet in the game that have visual bugs or low-res imagery, so they can post it and go "hahah, this is the future eh? lolol" or some such comment, as though it isn't simply a reality of trying to render the entire planet in detail.

20 hours ago, hatchna said:

 

Funny... To me, when I look at the footage, and the screenshots, there's very little that seems FSX like to me. The ground textures look phenomenal comparatively speaking.

 

I look at screenshots like this one taken of the Wasatch mountain range near Salt Lake City, Utah, which historically has had mediocre to poor texture quality in any flight simulator. It's is so beyond night and day different that it's not even funny. 

Thanks for posting this lovely shot, you are right, this looks good.

What do I think? Honestly?.........I think you need glasses lol.

See, when I see them release media images like this to the public, I feel like maybe it's not the big leap forward we were hoping for.

For the record, this screenshot was taken in the Caucasus mountains.  I lost control and crashed into some shrubs below.

I think this sim needs some more time in development.

 

@scottoest. You realise you have just broken the Microsoft NDA by posting that pic?

FS2000? you must be the funniest around 🤣