My observations and lack of issues

[neil0311 366]

1 minute ago, turbomax said:

many have purchased lots of addons, costing more than MSFS itself. Do they really notice when MSFS crashes and pc shuts down? probably.

Understood. That was me for FS9 and FSX and P3D  

Again…and hear me…I’m trying to offer info so folks can understand that there may be common threads contributing to the crashes and other issues. Perhaps 3rd party add ons…or one of them…is a contributing factor.

Anyway…that’s all speculation. What I can offer is the info I provided. 

[Alpine Scenery 1,609]

Right, it will not bother everyone, it's not a night and day difference if you were just flying and not observing the ground all the time. I guess it depends on your level of OCD.

It's not speculation that they changed the renderer and the LODs, I assure you it's a known fact even before we noticed the differences. One of the largest payware developers explained exactly what they changed in an earlier thread, but besides that Asobo directly speaks about it both in forums and in videos. To the degree that is affecting image fidelity, yah that is somewhat subjective, but that will always be subjective since we don't all share the same eyesight and display setups or screen size and settings.

 

Edited August 1, 2021 by Alpine Scenery

[neil0311 366]

Just now, DylanM said:

Thanks for sharing your info - again the frustration isn’t with you. The issue is we’re trying to find solutions to a multitude of issues that aren’t consistent across the user base and recently-introduced with SU5.

I mostly fly GA too and ran on close-to ultra settings on my machine - unfortunately the control issues and visual degradation are noticeable.

Yup I get it. And perhaps the visual degradation is there for me too, but I don’t notice it. And it’s not affecting my ability to use the simulator.

CTDs and those kinds of issues are the ones that to me are serious. Whether a tree is slightly lower resolution than the last update? I don’t really care. But that’s me.

I used FS5, FS98, FS2002, FS9, and FSX for decades and this is still waaaaay better for me. And best of all for me is no scenery.cfg to manage. As long as I get decent FPS and no crashes, to me that’s the ballgame.

I know others aren’t as easy to please. 

[Alpine Scenery 1,609]

1 minute ago, neil0311 said:

I used FS5, FS98, FS2002, FS9, and FSX for decades and this is still waaaaay better for me. And best of all for me is no scenery.cfg to manage. As long as I get decent FPS and no crashes, to me that’s the ballgame.

I know others aren’t as easy to please. 

It is in most ways, though i had some pretty visually appealing moments in Xplane 11 with high-quality Ortho. The water and clouds looked like poo though.

Edited August 1, 2021 by Alpine Scenery

[Bobsk8 12,673]

There are many , many, many reports of a sudden loss of quality immediately after the release of SU5. If you look at the complaints on the Official FS forum there are hundreds of people reporting the exact same issues. This is not peoples PCs, or their controllers, or their monitor, or their internet connection, or their IQ. This is a bug ridden update. period. Sure some don't see a difference. I have a neighbor that can't see the difference between a 2 K Tv and a 4K TV. That doesn't mean they are equal. 

[wim123 761]

Just now, Bobsk8 said:

There are many , many, many reports of a sudden loss of quality immediately after the release of SU5. If you look at the complaints on the Official FS forum there are hundreds of people reporting the exact same issues. This is not peoples PCs, or their controllers, or their monitor, or their internet connection, or their IQ. This is a bug ridden update. period. Sure some don't see a difference. I have a neighbor that can't see the difference between a 2 K Tv and a 4K TV. That doesn't mean they are equal. 

and there is no reason to keep on ranting about it.

it will get fixed, patience grasshopper, thats needed.

 

[neil0311 366]

3 minutes ago, Alpine Scenery said:

It is in most ways, though i had some pretty visually appealing moments in Xplane 11 with high-quality Ortho. The water and clouds looked like poo though.

I was never an X-Plane fan. The flight models never felt real to me. Always felt like an arcade game.

Last comment from me, as repeating myself doesn’t help anyone. I do think some folks have forgotten the “flight” part and are obsessed with the “simulator” part, and aren’t as concerned with whether they can intercept the ILS or lock a GPS approach and land without visual reference. I love VFR flight, but when I’m under the hood shooting a practice approach, I’m looking at and scanning the panel. I don’t see trees or the ground or anything else.

I’ve logged time on real simulators and the level of detail is actually quite low. The focus is on procedures.  

[Alpine Scenery 1,609]

Just now, neil0311 said:

I’ve logged time on real simulators and the level of detail is actually quite low. The focus is on procedures.  

Sure, if the goal is to simulate just the flying, but some of us are playing a scenery simulator. I mean what's the point of all those shiny new mods I keep buying if I don't zoom in and fly around. 

If I'm truthful, the first thing I do after buying an airport is I go into dev or drone camera mode, and I examine every little detail of the buildings, ground, etc... For the me the flying is often secondary, sometimes primary, but often not.

[bean_sprout 1,201]

@neil0311 of course you realize that there are paid noisemakers in here that want to trash MSFS.

IOW take everything with a grain of salt.

bs

[Bobsk8 12,673]

2 minutes ago, neil0311 said:

I was never an X-Plane fan. The flight models never felt real to me. Always felt like an arcade game.

Last comment from me, as repeating myself doesn’t help anyone. I do think some folks have forgotten the “flight” part and are obsessed with the “simulator” part, and aren’t as concerned with whether they can intercept the ILS or lock a GPS approach and land without visual reference. I love VFR flight, but when I’m under the hood shooting a practice approach, I’m looking at and scanning the panel. I don’t see trees or the ground or anything else.

I’ve logged time on real simulators and the level of detail is actually quite low. The focus is on procedures.  

The selling point for MSFS 2020 was the great looking visuals when flying VFR, just like flying in real life. I know very high end training sims do not have this, I have flown one that cost over $20,000,000 made by CAE, but that is not what MSFS was advertised to be. Now all of a sudden, these stunning visuals that everyone including many YouTube reviewers' commented on, are not there anymore for many of us. That is what has users all bent out of shape about. They buy a product that does something very  well, and then after you get used to it, they take that away with an "update" which I would rather refer to as a "downgrade".

[Alpine Scenery 1,609]

2 minutes ago, bean_sprout said:

@neil0311 of course you realize that there are paid noisemakers in here that want to trash MSFS.

IOW take everything with a grain of salt.

bs

Paid noisemakers, sign me up, finally a job I'd be good at.

Never heard of such a thing for a Flight Sim, maybe heard about it for a Yelp review scam.

Edited August 1, 2021 by Alpine Scenery

[Ricardo41 5,948]

52 minutes ago, DylanM said:

Or that their controls no longer work…but that is asking too much and being “discerning”

My  controls worked exactly the same like they did before SU5. Not sure what you mean. 

[neil0311 366]

1 minute ago, Alpine Scenery said:

Sure, if the goal is to simulate just the flying, but some of us are playing a scenery simulator. I mean what's the point of all those shiny new mods I keep buying if I don't zoom in and fly around. 

If I'm truthful, the first thing I do after buying an airport is I go into dev or drone camera mode, and I examine every little detail of the buildings, ground, etc... For the me the flying is often secondary, sometimes primary, but often not.

See here’s a data point that matters. I have never done that. The airports I typically bought were regionals and other airports I knew in real life and many times because it was a higher fidelity of realism for the approach, whether visual or instrument.

I fly inside the cockpit. TrackIR and my view as pilot is the extent of my experience for the most part. But yes…I love the fact that I don’t have to buy Megascenery and fly in a flat world, or invest huge money and tinker with vector based scenery and textures and landclass and custom objects. That part of this sim is the huge improvement for me.

I want out of the box to be good enough, and for me now I think it probably is.

[Alpine Scenery 1,609]

2 minutes ago, neil0311 said:

See here’s a data point that matters. I have never done that. The airports I typically bought were regionals and other airports I knew in real life and many times because it was a higher fidelity of realism for the approach, whether visual or instrument.

I want out of the box to be good enough, and for me now I think it probably is.

I guess the problem is I build and design my own airports, buildings, textures in Blender and other apps. So it kind of makes it more purposeful for me to examine others work and see what and how they did it, and to strive to improve my own work. Once you crossover into that side of it, it becomes more than just about simulation, as I am literally a landscaper as well....

 

Edited August 1, 2021 by Alpine Scenery

[neil0311 366]

Just now, Alpine Scenery said:

I guess the problem is I build and design my own airports, buildings, textures in Blender and other apps. So it kind of makes it more purposeful for me to examine others work and see what and how they did it, and to strive to improve my own work.

 

Hence the really tough part about making a complex piece of software that incorporates large amounts of scenery data from the cloud.

Folks assume they can squeeze more and more performance out of the engine and also keep quality constant or improve it. Maybe with DX12 that’s possible.