The dev team has acknowledged the issues...

[RXP 2,338]

47 minutes ago, captain420 said:

{Texture
        MaxAnisotropy 1
        Quality 3

So the quality setting righ underneath MaxAnisotropy is the Graphic Preset (low-3, med-2, high-1, ultra-0) that we see in the game menu?

If you say they're reversed, then does it also apply for these?

This setting is the only one reversed (since maybe SU3 at least) with 0 = ULTRA and 3 = LOW. 

This setting UI is Texture Quality.

The presets are affecting a bunch of settings values at once, not just this one.

[RXP 2,338]

1 hour ago, Nyxx said:

No they dont stick

Well I don't know what else to say !

[captain420 3,099]

I'm not saying they revert back to SU4. What I am comparing is how the new lighting in SU5 is a big downgrade for me when compared to the previous builds.

[Alpine Scenery 1,609]

59 minutes ago, scotchegg said:

Yes, as we know from the most recent poll here, more people think SU5 looks fine / good than looks bad:

I'm also sure it looks better for me. I don't doubt for a second that lots of people don't like it, but I guess we're just seeing different things, or have our monitors set differently. What I object to is people who don't like it saying it's objectively true and can be shown in screenshots, neither of which are true.

In statistics, visual cues and people's memory of such specific details in an image are invalid in polls, the poll doesn't matter. There are comparison images in Youtube videos posted showing the degradation at certain altitudes.

As far as the reason we do not have a bunch of perfect comparison images, it's difficult because everyone updated, so we have no way of generating an SU-4 vs SU-5 image, other than from images we had before SU-5. The second reason is because you have to get the settings, lighting, and clouds to match (use clear sky is better), and that's not easy even if we had access to both versions.

I admit that images from high altitude were never perfect, but I am on a very large display (120"), and i can assure you the differences even above 2,000 feet are obvious. It is much harder to see it on a regular PC monitor.

We aren't trying to take away the enjoyment of anyone's SIM, just that we miss the sharpness. 

Edited August 3, 2021 by Alpine Scenery

[Alpine Scenery 1,609]

1 hour ago, Aristoteles said:

A SU3 screenshot, several months ago....No LoD editing, High/Ultra, 1920x1080. Sometimes is good to remember where we come from.

...and a SU2 one, that´s me enjoying the Discovery Tour... THAT was a haze I loved. Autogen buildings had distinctive features an colorization.

This picture is exceptional and shows how i remember the auto-gen looking at altitude prior to SU-5. I have not seen that level of clarity since the update. 

[Aristoteles 471]

Yep, I miss it so much...

[Tuskin38 6,645]

2 hours ago, Ianrivaldosmith said:

Ohhh well, anyways, the next big target for Asobo is the Top Gun release. That should keep the hardcore Xbox user base happy. 

It will also be good for us if it reintroduces the carrier tech (or their own version) from FSX Acceleration and proper supersonic physics.

It will probably allow us to make ships you can actually land on again. Currently AI boats can't be solid.

Anything they add in that update will be good for all simmers, not just the console simmers.

Edited August 3, 2021 by Tuskin38

[Tuskin38 6,645]

My sim still looks amazing (other than being too bright). No config tweaks.

 

Edited August 3, 2021 by Tuskin38

[Alpine Scenery 1,609]

Not to take anything away from your screenshots, but the autogen still has that slightly blurred look I am seeing in all SU 5 shots. Even though the altitude is lower in your shots, the buildings aren't as sharp looking as his pre-SU 5 shot. 

[DylanM 1,069]

12 minutes ago, Tuskin38 said:

My sim still looks amazing (other than being too bright). No config tweaks.

Well this is what mine used to look like...

[irrics 1,517]

18 minutes ago, Tuskin38 said:

My sim still looks amazing (other than being too bright). No config tweaks.

 

Something about your shots feels like a sepia filter or something to me

I just don't love the way that looks honestly

[Tuskin38 6,645]

11 minutes ago, irrics said:

Something about your shots feels like a sepia filter or something to me

Southern England just has dull imagery (or it might have been the weather), here's a bunch I just look around Rotterdam, more vibrant. Ultra preset with motion blur turned off.
https://imgur.com/a/uhzIOYV

Edited August 3, 2021 by Tuskin38

[Tuskin38 6,645]

12 minutes ago, DylanM said:

Well this is what mine used to look like...

And mine still looks like that in the right conditions (these ones are not all Ultra, just high, but with the detail sliders maxed, clouds on ultra and motion blur turned off)

https://imgur.com/a/TCS5pNf

Edited August 3, 2021 by Tuskin38

[liamp51 541]

20 minutes ago, Tuskin38 said:

My sim still looks amazing (other than being too bright). No config tweaks.

 

I like the way these screenshots look a lot better than the one from SU2. To me the older one looks like the contrast is exaggerated. I also don't see any issue with the buildings here either. IDK I think it's mostly just personal preference. If you want to make things look more chromatic/impart more contrast just use the Nvidia Freestyle thing. You can tweak to your heart's content. 

[Moria15 950]

Personally I can live with it knowing that it will be tweaked again soon.   Certainly I have zero issues with the increase in performance and the improvement to the smoothness of the flights, and even on SDR I can live with what I have...  it certainly hasn't stopped me flying or become an end of world scenario.

 

 

It's a little bright and washed out under cloud, but I expect that to change soon when Asobo have looked at the results, although it was a pretty bright and hazy day down here in the South West today.

I'm still happy chugging around the skys 🙂

Graham