24 minutes ago, Alpine Scenery said:

Anisotropic Optimization is the bad guy, for the others...

You can try Texture Filtering at Quality or High Quality.
Trilinear On or Off.

I think Texture filtering might override Trilinear even though it's a separate setting, I forget.

I don't think the Negative LOD Bias has any effect, I believe it is ignored, maybe not in VR though...
Turn anti-aliasing off in Nvidia, but on in MSFS to TAA or similar.

Threaded Optimziation (Auto  - Global)
Triple Buffering: off

Set max frame rate: off (set frame rate in MSFS only)
Low Latency: off

Setup V-Synch in MSFS and disable in Nvidia
(but it varies depending on monitor type and what not)

Thank you, my Anisotropic optimisation was on.

6 minutes ago, Bobsk8 said:

PS, flying along and adjusting it, and now I have it on 8x and don't see the shimmering either. Need a voodoo doll to adjust the settings in this sim. 

Typical game setting.  I leave it at 16x otherwise the runway will be blurry a few feet in front of you.

bs

17 minutes ago, bean_sprout said:

Typical game setting.  I leave it at 16x otherwise the runway will be blurry a few feet in front of you.

 

Actually it is a little more complex in FS2020:

- Anisotropic is like any other anisotropic filtering, basically using ddx/ddy to compensate for the non-linear along Z axis sampling.

- Texture Super Sampling is only for the ground decals (the painted lines yellow, white, red etc... and the fuselage I believe too).

 

You can get nearly same visuals when siting on the ground with Aniso 4X + Tex.SS 4x4 vs Aniso 16x + Tex.SS 0x0 in practice, but the rendering cost is not the same, because Aniso is hard-wired in the GPU silicon, but Text.SS is FS2020 shader code. 

As a matter of fact, prior SU5, I used to reducing stuttering at airports in VR a lot, with Tex.SS 0x0, and I still do with SU5 (but to a lesser extent now), especially on these airports with tons of ground decals.

Of course the more, the merrier. If your GPU supports 16x + 8x8, then go for it! 

Edited August 4, 20214 yr by RXP

42 minutes ago, BiologicalNanobot said:

 

I really don't believe in the "they are ruining visuals for Xbox" conspiracy theory, Series X has a CPU equivalent to Ryzen 7 3700X and a GPU equivalent to RTX 2080, I wouldn't be surprised if majority of the simmers have lower hardware than that. It sounds more like the usual sloppy coding from Asobo.

Exactly what I have kept saying. The conspiracy is illogical. I have been running the sim on full ultra settings since day 1, with capped 30 FPS (smooth for me), at 1080p -- on a GTX1070. Only thing I have turned off is real-time traffic. The Xbox Series X and S are far more capable than my PC, both in terms of GPU and CPU. They are high spec PCs incognito, actually with some architectural advantages over home PCs, such as eliminating buses between components for efficiency and increased speed. As you say, the equivalent of a RTX2080 card -- the highest spec that the sim was developed for at launch for ultra settings, as the 30XX series wasn't around then. And the only real difference between the 20XX and 30XX is speed, not features, for potentially a few more frames per second. Asobo certainly wouldn't have needed to degrade anything for Xbox.

But what they have wanted to do is rebuild the core engine, using different rendering techniques, such as not rendering everything outside of the current viewpoint. Why would they do that? Because one major thing I have seen across this and the official forum since launch is people constantly chasing higher FPS, running their FPS monitors with every update, seeking a solid 60FPS+ at 4K, at full ultra settings, in every flight situation and aircraft. That's why Asobo are trying to rebuild their engine. Thankfully they are now looking at more sliders -- if they weren't already (I'd bet they were, but focusing on the main build to begin with).

Unfortunately, bugs will creep in in the process. It's a little unfair to say it's their usual sloppy coding, otherwise I agree with everything else you said. Programming is difficult (understatement), and often unpredictable, especially when dealing with different builds of different sections of code being put together by different people, all interacting, ideally coming together harmoniously, but sometimes conflicting and creating more bugs.

Couple this with the publisher's deadlines. The dev team must release this build on this date. The dev team know it has certain bugs; the publisher doesn't mind because "you can fix it later, right?" Then, on launch day, having focused everything on the bugs they know about, someone else's change introduces a bug into the compiled build on upload day when it's too late to intercept, and the public are the first to notice it. These are just some scenarios my brother, as an experienced developer, encounters on a regular basis, whether it's the main game code or even DLC expansions.

 

Edited August 4, 20214 yr by March Hare

12 minutes ago, March Hare said:

That's why Asobo are trying to rebuild their engine.

Their tech director basically the same thing. But it's impossible to convince some people that Asobo didn't degrade PC graphics for some marketing reason for the Xbox launch. They will continue with this myth to feel important about their supposed "insight". 

We should except a lot more things changing as they continue to re-build some of the old code and bring it into the 2021 standards. I suspect we will continue to see a cycle of the doomers spreading FUD after each change because change is frightening plus the bugs that will continue to fall through their QA process.

6 hours ago, Bobsk8 said:

On the Official Msfs forum they are reporting CTDs now on the Xbox X.

The one "good" thing here is that testing to see what is causing those CTDs should be way easier than on the PC and the PC builds might also benefit from the CTD fixes.

2 hours ago, Slides said:

But it's impossible to convince some people that Asobo didn't degrade PC graphics for some marketing reason for the Xbox launch. They will continue with this myth to feel important about their supposed "insight". 

I am a lot happier now that Asobo have acknowledged the issues with the graphics and are going to fix them. The only myth i have seen is from those claiming that nothing was amiss and that SU5 looked better than ever.

1 hour ago, jarmstro said:

I am a lot happier now that Asobo have acknowledged the issues with the graphics and are going to fix them.

All of the graphics issues so far identified have been minor as expected. 

1 minute ago, Slides said:

All of the graphics issues so far identified have been minor as expected. 

Far from minor to me though. It was like taking a car to a garage to get it tuned up and finding afterwards that although it went a bit faster they'd done it by stripping out the seats, the carpets,  and everything they could to loose as much weight as possible

Just now, jarmstro said:

Far from minor to me though. It was like taking a car to a garage to get it tuned up and finding afterwards that although it went a bit faster they'd done it by stripping out the seats, the carpets,  and everything they could to loose as much weight as possible

Not from my own A/B testing with the sim.

Ok, I did run shortly another runs to test my issues yesterday and I can now say for sure, that some things are not as described here, at least not on my end:

- the issue with "ultra" settings persists, I do not get "ultra" settings when firing the sim up, only after jumping in the menue while the sim already started and switch to "low" and then back to "ultra". 

- it is irrelevant whether or not I put a "0" or a "3" to the texture quality section in the useropt.cfg, when I fire the sim up, "ultra" settings are not applied.

- of course, the moment I go in the menue and switch presets, all .cfg adjustments are gone and overwritten. Using "write protection" only results in the fact that the trick under point 1 does no longer work and I do not get "ultra" settings at all. 

- switching textures to "low" and back to "ultra" results in what I expect, the textures look best on "ultra". 

So, for me atm it is impossible to run my preferred settings, which are a mixture of mostly "ultra" settings but with things like fringe, sharpen etc. turned off in the config. Either I accept that I do not get "ultra", or I do the switch trick and loose my .cfg adjustments. A bummer, at least it is now on the list of noted bugs, sadly it is not amongst the things for the next hotfix....

7 hours ago, jarmstro said:

that SU5 looked better than ever.

It does for me. It’s not a myth just because you don’t believe it.

9 minutes ago, scotchegg said:

It does for me. It’s not a myth just because you don’t believe it.

If it's not a myth because I don't believe it then if I did believe it, it would be a myth.😀

18 minutes ago, scotchegg said:

It does for me. It’s not a myth just because you don’t believe it.

Yer but you posted you changed your montior presets , used an old driver, etc etc. to get it to look as it does now.

So you clearly did not think it looked better out the box did you................some myth!..right!

Here is what you said.

"

I thought so at first but then found out most of the visual degradations were recoverable:

• Object LOD can be increased in the cfg.
• Colorgradation can be disabled in the cfg.
• Monitor / Nvidia settings can be tweaked further for colours (simply setting my panel to ‘gaming’ mode made a huge difference)
• Reverting Nvidia driver to 466.77 virtually eliminated problems with the AA, cloud pixelation, and artefacting."

Edited August 5, 20214 yr by Nyxx

4 minutes ago, Nyxx said:

Yer but you posted you changed your montior presets , used an old driver, etc etc. to get it to look as it does now.

So you clearly did not think it looked better out the box did you................some myth!..right!

 

What? So what’s the standard driver and panel settings we should all use to evaluate if an update looks better for us or not?