15 minutes ago, Bobsk8 said:

Now we are all stuck with it, and no possibility of rolling back to the previous version. 

I do sympathize with that. I certainly wished I didn’t have to ‘upgrade’ in the stutterbomb update (SU3?) where I had to just give up msfs for about a month until it was fixed.

At the same time I can understand no other sim has the complexity of msfs and so we need to put up with the occasional disruption for the long term growth. I’ve just about made my peace but can understand if others can’t / haven’t yet.

It’s why I think, attractive though it is, msfs might be just a bit too much of a pitna for some, and P3d or XP might be better choices.

Well I'll be damned. I set my texture setting to low and it made a noticeable difference. Everything looks extremely sharp and crispy again! Although the terrible washed out look is still there. But the textures are very sharp like how I use to remember them  to be.

Edited August 4, 20214 yr by captain420

 

It's not the pain in word not allowed bit of it. What is the issue is they degraded the sim for folk on lesser PC.s and the Xbox. One year down the line the graphics were actually better on launch day. Couple it with constant CTD's, of which i had non since SU3  (and please don't reply with it's progress, it certainly is not.) The temp at alt issue, and the graphics, should never have happened. Especially after them promising the earth.

Looking at polls etc there is slightly under half that frequent forums etc reporting serious issues... That's a lot of folk to lose.

Another development now being kicked down the road due to this update the CRJ expansion due now is now looking at September/October, (Easily checked by visiting Aerosoft forums)

Edited August 4, 20214 yr by Car147
Updated

6 minutes ago, captain420 said:

Well I'll be damned. I set my texture setting to low and it made a noticeable difference. Everything looks extremely sharp and crispy again! Although the terrible washed out look is still there. But the textures are very sharp like how I use to remember them  to be.

At 1000 feet the degradation is barely noticeable, of course, apart from that horrible washed out tonemap they are using since the XBox/HDR was implemented. I guess XBox users see an incredible saturated Hollyuwoodesque vibrant scenery(gamey and unrealistic, but...you know, console market) but we are left with a milky dull shade everywhere. 

Edited August 4, 20214 yr by Aristoteles

4 minutes ago, Aristoteles said:

At 1000 feet the degradation is barely noticeable, of course, apart from that horrible washed out tonemap they are using since the XBox/HDR was implemented. I guess XBox users see an incredible saturated Hollyuwoodesque vibrant scenery(gamey and unrealistic, but...you know, console market) but we are left with a milky dull shade everywhere. 

No this setting made a huge difference. This is at 3000-4000 AGL

LOW Texture Resolution, are you serious? Tried to swap it with Ultra to see the difference? I think we might getting into placebo territory ....

Honestly, in my testing, it appears Texture Resolution = Low is LOW
and Texture Resolution = Ultra is also LOW.
 

Edited August 4, 20214 yr by Alpine Scenery

9 minutes ago, captain420 said:

Well I'll be damned. I set my texture setting to low and it made a noticeable difference. Everything looks extremely sharp and crispy again! Although the terrible washed out look is still there. But the textures are very sharp like how I use to remember them  to be.

Amazing!  I would be happy with that sharpness and clarity again - this thread has been a revelation!

For the sake of clarity (if you excuse the pun!) could you tell me how exactly you set it to low?  From the config file?  Or inside MSFS then restart it?  And it was definitely 'Texture Quality'?

Thanks to everyone involved for highlight this.  I will also try the AFx16 from Nvidia CP when I get in.

16 hours 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.

Yes, I'm glad I have my screenshots from the earlier days of this sim. It used to be pretty darn amazing, that's for sure.

3 minutes ago, bobcat999 said:

Amazing!  I would be happy with that sharpness and clarity again - this thread has been a revelation!

For the sake of clarity (if you excuse the pun!) could you tell me how exactly you set it to low?  From the config file?  Or inside MSFS then restart it?  And it was definitely 'Texture Quality'?

Thanks to everyone involved for highlight this.  I will also try the AFx16 from Nvidia CP when I get in.

I set it through the options menu in the game. My jaws just dropped when I saw the difference. I can't believe my eyes! Yes, I changed the Texture Quality setting to Low, and hit save and apply. I don't recall if I had to restart. But oh my goodness what a huge difference it made!

Edited August 4, 20214 yr by captain420

4 minutes ago, Alpine Scenery said:

Honestly, in my testing, it appears Texture Resolution = Low is LOW
and Texture Resolution = Ultra is also LOW.
 

Texture resolution option doesn't affect satellite imagery resolution, you should look at things like runway textures or other things that use procedural textures.

This is getting messy now. Back to the old days of nvidia control panel, and now reversing in game settings?

It is a no thanks from me. Good luck to those with the time to mess about with it all.

This definitely isn't low quality textures, they are crisp. If this is low then I wonder what ultra must look like?

 

I only understand "station". What should I set where now?