7 hours ago, Clem116 said:

Why does the mountain look so blurry and pixelated...I feel like I'm flying in FSX all over again. Is anyone else seeing this? My settings are high to ultra. 

 

Raise your LOD setting sliders to 200 and add the LOD extended trees mod. Test and let us know if it still looks like FSX to you.

2 hours ago, DJJose said:

Raise your LOD setting sliders to 200 and add the LOD extended trees mod. Test and let us know if it still looks like FSX to you.

Have a link tot he mod, I can't find it?

8 hours ago, Bobsk8 said:

Looks like normal haze I have seen for decades flying in RL. 

+1

 

Although, in my case, it was decades AGO... 😄

42 minutes ago, Clem116 said:

Have a link tot he mod, I can't find it?

 

13 hours ago, Bobsk8 said:

Looks like normal haze I have seen for decades flying in RL. 

I agree. It looks very similar to what I see normally in real flight. This issue reminds me of complaints about clouds in MSFS appearing too fuzzy, when in fact they closely resemble real clouds.

I spent years flying around at 1000 feet in a slow Experimental home-built, in high-and-dry Southwest U.S. where visibility is commonly a hundred miles. Even in this environment, you really don't have razor-sharp object definition at longer distances. Definition diminishes pretty rapidly with distance (especially with my mediocre vision!). I get the impression that a lot of simmers expect a level of sharpness that coincides more with our present day exposure to high-def TV's and monitors, rather than the level of definition that would be available in the RW. I might have been able to say that I could see that, 3 miles out there was a colorful string of laundry hanging in someone's back yard, but I would probably have to be almost directly above it to tell you whether it was a shirt or a dress hanging there. Of course a lot depends on your personal ability to see detail in the RW. Chuck Yeager was famous for his ability to see opposing aircraft long before his wing mates did (lucky him).

It's not clear to me if the OP is referring to the rounded terrain, or the textures, or other graphics rendering artifacts like the sharpening  or haze....

The quality of the texture data available for the entire world varies greatly.  In some areas where there are not good orthophotos available, or maybe where there were clouds present in the orthophotos,  it seems like the AI processing the data inserts generic landclass ground textures similar to FSX to 'fix' the data.  I've seen this in Alaska a lot, where orthophoto data is more limited.   The reality is there are not super high resolution aerial imagry available for the entire globe.

Similarly the quality of the DEM varies across the world.  It seems like the higher resolution DEM data added in the World Updates doesn't render at long distances, instead 'popping in' up close, which is a bit of a disappointment.  This seems like an area the could be improved.

There are also graphics issues currently like the 'horizontal line' at the horizon, and over-sharpened water reflections that look grainy.  These too could be improved.

Also as others have mentioned the texture resolutions and processing in the sim are based on the default zoom level, so when you zoom in things can get a bit muddled.  Given the streaming from the cloud nature of the texture data and the quantity of data I don't think it makes sense to transfer all zoom levels of textures....so this is a limitation of how the sim is designed.....

Edited January 15, 20215 yr by marsman2020

41 minutes ago, Bosco19 said:

I spent years flying around at 1000 feet in a slow Experimental home-built, in high-and-dry Southwest U.S. where visibility is commonly a hundred miles. Even in this environment, you really don't have razor-sharp object definition at longer distances. Definition diminishes pretty rapidly with distance (especially with my mediocre vision!). I get the impression that a lot of simmers expect a level of sharpness that coincides more with our present day exposure to high-def TV's and monitors, rather than the level of definition that would be available in the RW. I might have been able to say that I could see that, 3 miles out there was a colorful string of laundry hanging in someone's back yard, but I would probably have to be almost directly above it to tell you whether it was a shirt or a dress hanging there. Of course a lot depends on your personal ability to see detail in the RW. Chuck Yeager was famous for his ability to see opposing aircraft long before his wing mates did (lucky him).

Yes, one problem that many have is that they zoom in fully. But without binoculars 

I have posted before - I think one of the major visual issues with MSFS is that there is too much emphasis on having things "technically correct" and not enough artistic attention to the "visual world." Obviously, there are...and always will be, for various reasons...problems in getting consistent rendering of the world in all areas. More attention should be placed on "believability" rather than on accuracy. It should be similar to the way the "live" weather is portrayed; we don't see the actual cloud formations taking place in the area. We see a software rendering that abstracts and characterizes what is taking place in the atmosphere at that time and in that place. We have all been stunned by the shots of breathtaking light and weather posted by users. These are not photos, they are computerized renderings that reflect a given set of parameters. A similar rule-set could be applied to the visual renderings of terrain. Instead of giving each user a landscape image that is determined by the level of their gear, everyone would get the same general, abstracted portrayal of an area that is rendered by factors determined by location, time-of-day, and current atmospheric conditions. Overall resolution would, of course, be affected by the user's gear. In other words, I want to feel like I'm having a convincing experience, rather than some dead-accurate portrayal of the world at any particular moment (which is not possible yet). We are never going to simulate the world. We are only going to be able to represent an abstraction of it. Making that abstraction dramatic and moving (putting some art into it) is what is going to get our attention and give us moments to remember. The area where they should be dedicating attention to ACTUAL portrayal is the rendering and operation of the aircraft. These are also abstractions of course, but it's an area where the "realism" can be more accurately portrayed because it involves mechanical objects and their behavior in known conditions and utilizing well-understood physics.