FS-2020 blurry?

[OzWhitey 3,353]

15 minutes ago, tweekz said:

That's not exactly what I was talking about. For example, when I fly as a passenger, I look outside of the window on take-off and approach, but only for a few times on cruise. Then I start reading the board magazine, a book, use my iPad etc.

I look outside of the window when there's a variety of things to see. Those details usually are less sensible in 10km - more like a repetitive pattern. So it's more important to me that it looks good when you get close.

There's a reason why so many addons have a T/D pause function. 😉

That's my opinion. I'm not trying to convince you. 😉 So if the scenery looks a little blurry in 10km, that's perfectly fine for me.

OK, I'm not really trying to convince you either, but the topic of this thread related to whether MSFS was blurry at altitude.

Some people claim that it isn't, other claim that it is but its realistic and a third group - and you seem to be in that one - say they don't care.

Given that the main reason to fly MSFS is that it looks nice, it seems to be a rather important point. If - hypothetically - MSFS looks worse than other sims at high altitudes, it would be a very unattractive choice of sim for airline ops given the low quality of the available aircraft of that type.

[tweekz 2,165]

6 minutes ago, OzWhitey said:

OK, I'm not really trying to convince you either, but the topic of this thread related to whether MSFS was blurry at altitude.

Yeah, it looks blurry at high altitudes. But again, I like to fly airliners and even with that downside I'd choose MSFS over any other available sim, cause I am much more interested in authentic takeoff and approach sceneries than the looks on cruise.

To me it seems that this clearly has to do with the general technology, which enables them to deliver that level of detail at reasonable cost. It's not ruled out that they can fix this issue. But for now, there are no airliners that would be worth of flying anyway. 🙂

Edited August 23, 2020 by tweekz

[Tyke666 0]

So, as we have a very detailed layer at lower altitude and a lower detailed layer at higher altitudes, would it be possible to generate a new version of the high altitude layer by processing the lower layer. This new layer could then be a straight replacement without having to change how the image is rendered. Over time, the high altitude satellite imagery could be completely ignored.

(Obviously!) I am not an expert. It just seems to me that if you start with sharp scenery as a base it should produce a sharp image after being scaled.

 

[efis007 885]

7 hours ago, Slides said:

I'm confused. Is this an example of being blurry or sharp?

Of sharpness.

With FS2004 I flew for 14 years above always blurred scenarios.

When I saw that photo I fell off the chair! 😲

Finally after 14 years I would have said goodbye to blurry bug, I would have flown at high altitude with airliners over a clear and realistic scenery. 😍

Unfortunately, that photo was fake. 😖

[Slides 1,552]

Just now, efis007 said:

Of sharpness.

With FS2004 I flew for 14 years above always blurred scenarios.

When I saw that photo I fell off the chair! 😲

Finally after 14 years I would have said goodbye to blurry bug, I would have flown at high altitude with airliners over a clear and realistic scenery. 😍

Unfortunately, that photo was fake. 😖

What makes it fake?

[efis007 885]

JRBarrett explained on page 5.
And it is also confirmed by the videos and photos.

But you can also do a direct test: go to FL300 and take a screenshot of the scenario.
It will not be the same as the advertising photo, it will be blurry.

The thing I don't understand is why people refuse to verify the things we are discussing in this topic.
It almost seems like they are afraid of the truth.
I asked user Riccardo41 (he says I'm a troll) to show me the scenery at high altitude ... and he showed me this:

The sea!!!

Why do people behave like this?
Why run away from the truth?
Why refuse to check if high-altitude blurry exists, or not?
It does not seem a serious attitude.
It feels more like a child's attitude.

 

Edited August 23, 2020 by efis007

[Slides 1,552]

21 minutes ago, efis007 said:

JRBarrett explained on page 5.
And it is also confirmed by the videos and photos.

But you can also do a direct test: go to FL300 and take a screenshot of the scenario.
It will not be the same as the advertising photo, it will be blurry.

The thing I don't understand is why people refuse to verify the things we are discussing in this topic.
It almost seems like they are afraid of the truth.
I asked user Riccardo41 (he says I'm a troll) to show me the scenery at high altitude ... and he showed me this:

 

The sea!!!

Why do people behave like this?
Why run away from the truth?
Why refuse to check if high-altitude blurry exists, or not?
It does not seem a serious attitude.
It feels more like a child's attitude.

 

Why don't you verify it since you made the claim that it's fake? Take a screenshot for us to compare. We're not your errand boys here. Do some actual ground work please.

[efis007 885]

I can't verify it personally because I don't have FS2020.
Otherwise I would have done it already, you can bet on it!
I just look at the photos and videos of the other pilots, and ask them to verify if the high altitude blurry exists or not.
But nobody does.
In 7 topic pages I have not seen ONE high-altitude photo of FS2020 made by a user.
Why?
Why don't you check it out?
I read in your signature that you have FS2020.
Why don't you do that verification?
What are you afraid of?

[travelabroad 177]

2 hours ago, efis007 said:

Why do people behave like this?
Why run away from the truth?
Why refuse to check if high-altitude blurry exists, or not?
It does not seem a serious attitude.
It feels more like a child's attitude.

Maybe, because the majority of us, don't really care? 

Yes, I can see what you mean, if I look very closely... but it's not that big a deal, IMO. When I look outside the view of a passanger seat in a jetliner at 35.000 ft - I don't see crisp terrain below me. No, I actually see something quite close to the pictures you're submitting in this thread, yet that you claim is wrong and is - apparently - a deal breaker. 

Also - and I'm sorry, but - if you do not own the sim and haven't tried it yourself (but only rely on 3rd party compressed photographic material), how do you know what the real setup is? And why do you care enough, to make such a big deal out of this? I'm genuinely curious. 😕

[JRBarrett 3,070]

One way to see the transition between higher and lower resolution imagery at a given location without actually flying would be to use the drone camera and slew straight up. You can actually move the drone into low earth orbit if you hold the vertical movement control long enough.

[efis007 885]

1 hour ago, travelabroad said:

Maybe, because the majority of us, don't really care?

Or why are they afraid that I'm right?
I don't want to be right.
I just try the truth!
If I had had FS2020 I would have found the truth by myself without asking anyone.
Some users have been interested in the topic and helped me (and I thank them very much).
Others don't.
They probably don't want to find out the truth.

[OzWhitey 3,353]

4 hours ago, efis007 said:

I can't verify it personally because I don't have FS2020.
Otherwise I would have done it already, you can bet on it!
I just look at the photos and videos of the other pilots, and ask them to verify if the high altitude blurry exists or not.
But nobody does.
In 7 topic pages I have not seen ONE high-altitude photo of FS2020 made by a user.
Why?
Why don't you check it out?
I read in your signature that you have FS2020.
Why don't you do that verification?
What are you afraid of?

The guys who say MSFS is better without having flown the other sims are the real trolls.

I had already fired up p3d to gather some data. Will post a comparison when i get a chance.

[efis007 885]

I'm sure they all flew with other simulators.
FS2020 did not yet exist.
But now it exists and it is easy to check if there is blurry or not.

[Freneticus 1]

21 hours ago, efis007 said:

Thank you for the explanation. 😉

So this FS2020 image was fake. (clic for enlarge to native resolution).

The scenery is very detailed at very high altitude... but now we know it's not true... it was just advertising. 🙄

It isnt detailed at all. Its the same low resolution as is in current meta. 

[Freneticus 1]

22 hours ago, JRBarrett said:

The Bing imagery that MSFS is based on comes in two layers. The lower, highly detailed layer is based on aerial images taken from aircraft, the upper layer is satellite based. You can see the transition between the two if you load the Bing maps app and select “satellite view” over an urban area. If you zoom in close, you will see sharp, highly detailed imagery (the aircraft based photos), which will generally look very similar to the corresponding low-altitude terrain in MSFS.

In Bing Maps, if you slowly zoom straight up, you will see the transition between aircraft imagery and satellite. There will be a sudden drop in resolution and detail, often a color or lighting shift, and you will often see clouds pop into the image that were not there at the closer zoom level.

This is also the case in the Google and Apple Maps apps when zooming in or out when in satellite view.

In the Bing app, the transition appears to occur generally at about 1.5 to 3 miles altitude (around 8000 to 15,000 feet).

In MSFS, it appears that as an aircraft climbs, at a certain altitude above the terrain, the ground imagery transitions to the base satellite data. Any “bluriness” that results would not be the result of erroneous or unoptimal LOD processing, it is simply because the source imagery, by its nature, is lower resolution. Satellite cameras are very good, but they are photographing enormous amounts of geographic area, from an altitude of over 100 nautical miles, and looking down through 60 or 70 miles of intervening atmosphere.

By contrast, the high resolution aircraft imagery is usually taken from an altitude of around 8000 feet AGL.

As the saying goes, “you can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear”, and you can’t magically create high-resolution imagery from low resolution source data.

I suppose it would be possible to retain the high resolution aircraft-based imagery even at high aircraft altitudes in the sim by downscaling it, but I have no idea what that would entail, or how much additional streaming server load it would produce, or what impact there would be on sim performance. To do that for high altitude flights, you would have to insert high resolution imagery over a much broader horizontal extent than when viewed from a simulated aircraft flying at low altitude. This can certainly be done with standard orthophotos in other sims, but I don’t know what technical obstacles there would be to doing something like that in MSFS as it is currently designed. This is a question for Asobo to answer.

You are correct, indeed. 

One tile (1x1 degree of latitude and longituted) in Europe has approximatelly 300 MB at ZL15 which is much sharper than currently is i flying FL200+.

At ZL16 we are looking at 1.5GB per tile, and image would be supersharp.

Rough estimate would be that instead of 0,2 - 1,5 Mbps usage now (on flyover) could rise to 10 - 15 Mbps max. 

Player count demise is and will happen same as offloading of servers