6 minutes ago, Alpine Scenery said:

 So a lot of people get angry in here if you point out problems with the update, but to me the frustration of it is because they get so close to having a great system, but then they mess up by 1-2 design decisions.

 

I totally agree.  I'm not angry about the update (except the update process) but, I am frustrated because I think this could be such a great sim, and believe it will be, one day.  I really hope Asobo/MS decides to "circle the wagons" for a moment to try to clean some things up.  They have demonstrated they are an extremely talented group. 

2 minutes ago, irocx said:

 I can do 50-60 fps easy and rock solid 30 everywhere most high and ultra, but after the latest patch the popping and culling simply ruin the experience.  Not worth the FPS increase.  Could very well be my FPS are great, but I don't have the cores and threads.

But, I thought that's what those sim settings sliders were about - so an experienced simmer could configure the sim to meet their system's needs -  in lieu of a forced reduction of visuals for everybody. 

Totally agree.  The whole point in graphics option is so you can optimise it for your hardware.

An unnecessary substantial increase in FPS across the board at the expense of reduced visual fidelity for everyone just makes no sense.  If you did not really care about scenic fidelity you probably would have stayed with XPlane as in most other areas XPlane is still a better sim. People came over to MSFS because of the visuals.

 

 

Just now, Glenn Fitzpatrick said:

Totally agree.  The whole point in graphics option is so you can optimise it for your hardware.

An unnecessary substantial increase in FPS across the board at the expense of reduced visual fidelity for everyone just makes no sense.  If you did not really care about scenic fidelity you probably would have stayed with XPlane as in most other areas XPlane is still a better sim. People came over to MSFS because of the visuals.

Absolutely, and after re-reading your earlier post, I now realize I misconstrued things and you were actually trying to state the same things.  I apologize, Glenn.   I should probably should go back to lurking in the background now.  lol.  

Just now, Glenn Fitzpatrick said:

 

 

 

I'm not completely unsympathetic, but the phrase backseat driving keeps popping into my mind.

I'm not sure how I would be taking some of this if I was someone in management at Asobo.

Another phrase that comes to mind is "You can't please everybody".

And at a certain point they may decide that they've spent too much time trying to.

There is a clouds thread in the wish lists:

https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/provide-an-option-to-restore-the-old-ultra-clouds/430593

The washed out colours in this update are a perfect example of Asobos relentless "two steps forward, one step back....sometimes three" approach.

Almost every single update shows a regression of some kind, or schoolboy errors & issues that should never of seen the light of day in the first place but there they are.

I've said it before, I'll say it again and I'll keep saying it: QUALITY CONTROL, Asobo...Get some QUALITY CONTROL!

4 minutes ago, HiFlyer said:

Another phrase that comes to mind is "You can't please everybody".

The phrase that comes to mind for me is "common sense", which is what some of the updates are lacking.

 

6 minutes ago, HiFlyer said:

 

I'm not sure how I would be taking some of this if I was someone in management at Asobo.

 

I am sure some developer at Asobo put an awful lot of work into reducing the performance hit of the clouds and may even be proud of the fact that they achieved a fair bit of the fidelity of the old clouds at a huge performance saving.

That however is beside the point, some of us would like the option of getting the realistic volumetric clouds we had before SU5 even if it has a performance hit.

Edited July 30, 20214 yr by Glenn Fitzpatrick

2 minutes ago, Alpine Scenery said:

The phrase that comes to mind for me is "common sense", which is what some of the updates are lacking.

 

I think as the designers of the software, they kind of get to decide where it goes?

And also, as about a bajillion posts here prove, what might seem an obvious priority from one direction, might be for any number of other and perhaps unknown reasons  completley different to someone else.

2 minutes ago, HiFlyer said:

I think as the designers of the software, they kind of get to decide where it goes?

So how is that relevant to the discussion?

In a POW camp, I'm sure I don't have many choices either, but I bet I'd still be pointing out some lacking amenities even if I'm not the one in control.

Edited July 30, 20214 yr by Alpine Scenery

2 minutes ago, Alpine Scenery said:

So how is that relevant to the discussion?

In a POW camp, I'm sure I don't have many choices either, but I bet I'd still be pointing out some lacking amenities even if I'm not the one in control.

There are so many negative places your simile can go (that it doesn't have to) that I'm going to just go ahead and leave that particular unexploded bomb right there on the table where you left it.

Absolutely, the sliders were for people to tweak the sim to get the best they could out of their system. I do think, though, that so many people have complained and up-voted threads demanding higher FPS that some of those users probably could have got higher FPS if they had nudged a few options to the left to find a better balance for them.

All I can say with confidence is that Asobo would not have "nerfed" the sim to accommodate the console. It just doesn't and wouldn't happen. Doesn't make sense. When their game A Plague Tale was ported to Nintendo Switch, did they downgrade the PC version massively? No, of course not.

Flight Simulator was developed with a high-end PC in mind, that being an RTX2080 at the time of initial development, so ultra graphics settings were based on that GPU architecture, not the 30XX series. The Xbox Series X has an enhanced AMD GPU, which is the performance equivalent of an RTX2080 Super, I believe. 16GB GDDR6 VRAM, 320-bit bus. It has a custom 8-core Zen 2 CPU. Note the use of the words enhanced and custom; the Series X has some architectural advantages over most home PC builds, because it's custom-designed.

The point is, it is effectively a high-end PC, with architectural enhancements over bog-standard PCs. My system, with a fairly old i7 CPU and a GTX1070 runs this sim at ultra settings, with locked 30FPS, 1080p, which is silky smooth almost 100% of the time. The only thing I don't have is live traffic on, because I'm not bothered about it. But the Xbox Series X is far superior to my system, has no trouble running the equivalent of ultra graphics settings at a higher resolution and frame rate, and would handle live traffic turned on too.

16 minutes ago, HiFlyer said:

I'm not completely unsympathetic, but the phrase backseat driving keeps popping into my mind.

I'm not sure how I would be taking some of this if I was someone in management at Asobo.

Another phrase that comes to mind is "You can't please everybody".

And at a certain point they may decide that they've spent too much time trying to.

I believe they can please everybody if they want, they just have to set the graphics sliders differently and add more "advanced" options to exclude some of the tricks that brought this performance increase.

Now the sim is even too fast for high end PCs: I get 60-70 fps over NYC and up to 95 fps inside the FWB A320 cockpit, all at Ultra settings.

It would be useful to sacrifice 10-20 fps for a better image quality and less pop-in. 

SCALABILITY is a must for a PC game, and this was born as a PC game after all.

27 minutes ago, Glenn Fitzpatrick said:

People came over to MSFS because of the visuals.

The visuals even on lower settings are still heads and shoulders above XPlane and P3D.

Other reasons that are just as important:

1) It's a Microsoft flight simulator - let's not forget the pull of the name
2) As mentioned, great visuals straight out of the box
3) Runs well even on lower end hardware
4) Visual effects that would bring P3D to a grinding hat come with little to no frame rate penalty.
5) There is a lot of stuff included in the base simulator, hence not requiring an immediate college-tuition size investment in addons.

But, most importantly:

A vibrant mod community

Great developers like Working Title, Fly by Wire, etc. that are committed to the sim and have already demonstrated that this sim offers more than just pretty scenery,

1 minute ago, MrFuzzy said:

It would be useful to sacrifice 10-20 fps for a better image quality and less pop-in.

Someone interested in VR (for instance) might have another opinion.