6 minutes ago, captain420 said:

Oh looks, it's the X-Plane troll again. I don't even know why you even bother posting in the MSFS section if you have nothing to contribute.

I haven't played X-Plane for so long that I honestly have forgotten how it looked. I just remember everything covered in fog and the fps being horrible. It's possible I wasn't doing something right. 

2 minutes ago, Slides said:

I haven't played X-Plane for so long that I honestly have forgotten how it looked. I just remember everything covered in fog and the fps being horrible. It's possible I wasn't doing something right. 

That's the last thing I can remember about X-Plane, is that awful looking haze everywhere. Which is what I'm seeing in MSFS now mostly.

1 minute ago, Aristoteles said:

Completely agree. Blackshark buildings now look so Xplane-ish. LOD and illumination changes really are evident in autogen towns. 

If possible, can you please post comparison shots so for those of us who are no longer familiar with x-plane can make up our minds? Thanks

2 minutes ago, captain420 said:

Which is what I'm seeing in MSFS now mostly.

I'm honestly not seeing that at all. I can provide screenshots too.

Strange, could you show me, and let me know what area it's in. So I can compare with mine as well.

16 minutes ago, Slides said:

If possible, can you please post comparison shots so for those of us who are no longer familiar with x-plane can make up our minds? Thanks

I havent got Xplane installed since...years, but what I mean, is that in SU5 building sides, roofs, and overall appearance looks way duller. Evrything seems covered with a a yellowish tint. Chrimatic richness and vibrance is gone.

SU4 (this is what I loved about the sim, that chromatic richness, shadows, illumination....)

SU5 (way blurrier, homogeneous, less vibrant and hazy. It looks like a cheap photographic filter was applied on top and reflection/illumination richness was taken back to Xplane 11 vanilla times)

By the way, SU4 pic was taken with LOD 100 , SU5 with lod 300, and still....

Below pic is what I would consider an upgrade...can you get those Blackshark generated building towns to look like that now? 

Edited August 3, 20214 yr by Aristoteles

Aristoteles, between those 2 comparison shots. You can clearly see how dull and washed out the overall scenery is. SU4 looks much better. That's what I meant by this hazy, whitish hue to everything.

35 minutes ago, Ricardo41 said:

What issues?

No CTDs (I had a couple of CTDs when the sim booted into the "checking for updates" screen, since the hotfix these are gone), controls work fine. Performance much improved. Load times are much improved also.

Yes, the clouds are blockier (and pixelated at the edges), and then there is the occasional pop-in.

Keep up the good work Asobo/Microsoft, and (mostly) ignore the incessant complaining by a vocal minority.

Most important issue to me is: continued work on the G 1000 NXi and the G 3000.

As I posted in another thread: I took off from Biarritz, France,  and the city and the ocean looked exactly like I remember from the many flights I took there as a passenger.

I love message that starts "what issues" that then goes on two name two they've identified already 😂

31 minutes ago, Janov said:

So - two major flight simulators agree on the same level of haze now as realistic. And the user that wants to use his flight simulator to "take pictures of AI aircraft landing and taking off" does not like it. Hmm. Who´s opinon would I go with? 🙄

Haze is fine where and when appropriate. But on a clear, cold and crisp winters day I expect to be able to see as far as the horizon for instance? Days without haze do exist and it's then that the true beauty of the earth is revealed! (I'm having some trouble stopping myself from bursting into song here!😂)

Edited August 3, 20214 yr by jarmstro

13 minutes ago, Slides said:

If possible, can you please post comparison shots so for those of us who are no longer familiar with x-plane can make up our minds? Thanks

Sure!

Here is a shot over KLAX - everything default XP11.55, no add-ons.

God, that looks awful. Thanks for reminding me why I left X-Plane.

And that´s exactly what I meant with my previous comparison post. Autogen illumination in FS now looks a LOT more like XPlane. What, personally, hated. Even the overall hazey look and simple illumination resembles Xplane now.

Edited August 3, 20214 yr by Aristoteles

11 minutes ago, Aristoteles said:

SU4 (this is what I loved about the sim, that chromatic richness, shadows, illumination....)

SU5 (way blurrier, homogeneous, less vibrant and hazy)

By the way, SU4 pic was taken with LOD 100 , SU5 with lod 300, and still....

Wow. Those two pics are extremely different. Are you able to share the coordinates and altitudes for the pics?

Assuming that the two pics were taken in exactly the same conditions (a huge assumption), I would say that the first pic is unrealistically saturated and the second pic unrealistically unsaturated. Neither look perfect to me. 

The first pic looks slightly worse as it looks cartoonish or more game like to me but it make look better in motion. Hard to tell.

Even the cockpit in the JF Arrow is washed out. Looks really bad.

Yes, please post those coordinates. I would like to make some comparison. SU4 looks perfect to me on my HDR display.

Edited August 3, 20214 yr by captain420