I was thinking about this issue the other day. MSFS textures look worse from high altitude then P3D ones do (at least photo textures) and besides that the performance is not that much better from the altitude than on the ground, in P3D I was able to get 60FPS in pretty much every aircraft when on cruise even though I was getting like 26 on the ground. Difference in engines, I guess.

On 3/22/2021 at 11:56 PM, JRBarrett said:

To me, they do not look bad. This is a screen shot I took near the south shore of Lake Erie, with the new CRJ. This is at FL280.

https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/crj-550-crj-700-screenshots/379517/33

This is far better than P3D with Orbx textures and landclass at the same location and altitude. XP with ortho might be better, but I have no way to test that. If you think the underlying terrain is “awful” I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree. It looks even better on my 4K monitor in game.

I you have not done so, I would urge you to check the “sharpen” setting the MSFS UserCfg.opt file to see if the setting for “sharpen” is “0” or “1” There are two places where that setting occurs in that file. Even if you yourself have never changed it (to improve pixelated clouds), something else might have modified it. There are many reports of MSFS spontaneously changing user settings without being prompted.

If that setting is set to “0” it absolutely will have a negative impact on the appearance of terrain from high altitude.

Check the file but mine was set to '1' in both places. I just think asobo downgraded this as the normal user doesnt notice. I made orthos ZL16 in xp11 (bing sourced!!)for my frequented places and there is just no comparison. Whatever they are using as a high level source is pitiful. 

On 3/22/2021 at 11:56 PM, JRBarrett said:

To me, they do not look bad. This is a screen shot I took near the south shore of Lake Erie, with the new CRJ. This is at FL280.

https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/crj-550-crj-700-screenshots/379517/33

This is far better than P3D with Orbx textures and landclass at the same location and altitude. XP with ortho might be better, but I have no way to test that. If you think the underlying terrain is “awful” I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree. It looks even better on my 4K monitor in game.

I you have not done so, I would urge you to check the “sharpen” setting the MSFS UserCfg.opt file to see if the setting for “sharpen” is “0” or “1” There are two places where that setting occurs in that file. Even if you yourself have never changed it (to improve pixelated clouds), something else might have modified it. There are many reports of MSFS spontaneously changing user settings without being prompted.

If that setting is set to “0” it absolutely will have a negative impact on the appearance of terrain from high altitude.

Check the file but mine was set to '1' in both places. I just think asobo downgraded this as the normal user doesnt notice. I made orthos ZL16 in xp11 (bing sourced!!)for my frequented places and there is just no comparison. Whatever they are using as a high level source is pitiful. 

I realy dont see whats wrong?

CJ4 at FL430 you dont get much higher than that.

From tonights flight.

Edited March 24, 20215 yr by Nyxx

1 hour ago, Nyxx said:

I realy dont see whats wrong?

CJ4 at FL430 you dont get much higher than that.

From tonights flight.

There's a difference between 18k and 43k... specially if there are same textures in use. Of course everything will look much better from 43k. At around 18k (or 20k or whatever) looks a bit low-res at times. 

13 hours ago, Tomaz Drnovsek said:

There's a difference between 18k and 43k... specially if there are same textures in use. Of course everything will look much better from 43k. At around 18k (or 20k or whatever) looks a bit low-res at times. 

no mine is sharp below 18200. above 18200 it goes 8bit nintendo on me!!