nope you can't have more then 13 different models otherwise ctd, before the update it was never a problem. Now I can live with this one, because in the end I think there will be proper AI traffic. But it has been changed with SU5.Anyhow if you don't see this fine, problem is I do. And I think that Asobo has not tested this SU5 update properly. I spend  a lot of money on this, and in 1 day al is broken. Again, still hoping it will be ok and I will give Asobo time for this, but it's not the right way to bring out patches. 

Take for example the Flybywire and Aerosoft CRJ customers are also disappointed. Asobo has left developers with a big problem

I am slowly being disillusioned as the days go by since SU5 came out. The first thing I noticed was how ugly/basic the water reflections were. This happened to alot of great games in 2005/2006 after the Xbox 360 and PS3 came out. They made alot of games for console and ported them to PC, leaving PC users with watered down versions or limited graphics options and settings.

The "performance upgrade" was basically forced lower sliders... looks like we got "consoled".  In the days leading up to SU5 I was worried about this happening. All of this should be optional.

3 hours ago, pilotter said:

nope you can't have more then 13 different models otherwise ctd, before the update it was never a problem.

More than 13 FSX models mixed with the MSFS models is what causes the crash, not the number of AI.

If you go back and look at the discord server you'll see I posted an image with 22 live traffic planes around KATL.

 

12 minutes ago, reignman40 said:

looks like we got "consoled".

We didn't.

Edited August 3, 20214 yr by Tuskin38

Actually quite an intelligent move. Degrade the sim a little to improve performance then start to tune as updates progress while maintaining performance followed by aesthetics.  🤷‍♂️ 
 

mike

1 hour ago, reignman40 said:

The "performance upgrade" was basically forced lower sliders... looks like we got "consoled".  In the days leading up to SU5 I was worried about this happening. All of this should be optional.

But we can crank everything up to ULTRA!!ONE!!!ELEVEN (formerly known as "LOW") and we get 70000FPS! 😄

1 hour ago, Tuskin38 said:

1 hour ago, reignman40 said:

looks like we got "consoled".

We didn't.

Maybe we did, at least for the time being (and if so, I doubt that will change anytime soon): 

Some people noticed that FS uses less RAM and also VRAM compared to pre-SU4 times (alas I didn't bother to check resource usage before, so I can't confirm that).  No matter what you throw at it, VRAM doesn't exceed 8GB and RAM usage is around bellow 10GB, which I can confirm.  The theory is that these are now fixed limits to RAM/VRAM usage to cater for the XBox S specs and architecture.  So if you edit usercfg.opt to crank up draw distance, increase resolution/scaling etc. this will not lead to better utilization of your hardware but only to more tightness within the allocated resources,with bad ramifications on performance. 

I can confirm that too, when I try Terrain_LOD 4.000000 in order to get the old draw distance back, I get a perceived performance penalty compared to the same draw distance pre SU5 ("perceived" because I have no hard data on how old and new Terrain_LOD values relate/translate) and my HP Reverb starts showing the typical "being in a black box" effect when turning my head, which is a (to me) typical indicator for "running out of VRAM" with this HMD, and the VRAM utilization actually remains capped at 8GB.  This "black box" artifact also happens when I use 100% render scaling (which costs VRAM), which is something that didn't happen before.  These performance penalties may not be that noticeable in 2D with lower resolutions leaving more headroom anyway, but this puts quite a limit on what is doable in terms of visual quality and utilization of high-end PC hardware.

Taking common practice into account, it seems a bit unlikely that they will maintain 2 codebases/branches, particularly after they seem to have worked so hard keeping it unified (and after giving cause to think they have trouble with branching/version control, which would be a reason why bugs are getting fixed, then returning next update, trees being shrunk and then growing again...).  That in turn would mean that the maximum in PC hardware utilization will always be defined by the lowest-spec'd XBox hardware targeted to run FS and buying a 16GB GPU worth about five XBoxes would only give slightly more performance than throwing the $$$$ for it out of the window.

I sure hope this is all completely wrong, and that trying to find ways to sugarcoat this is not the reason why they have such a hard time giving us a short statement/explanation on what the hell is going on. 

Edited August 4, 20214 yr by Captain Nuts

Sorry falscher Thread

Edited August 4, 20214 yr by holliwutt

11 hours ago, Captain Nuts said:

But we can crank everything up to ULTRA!!ONE!!!ELEVEN (formerly known as "LOW") and we get 70000FPS! 😄

Maybe we did, at least for the time being (and if so, I doubt that will change anytime soon): 

Some people noticed that FS uses less RAM and also VRAM compared to pre-SU4 times (alas I didn't bother to check resource usage before, so I can't confirm that).  No matter what you throw at it, VRAM doesn't exceed 8GB and RAM usage is around bellow 10GB, which I can confirm.  The theory is that these are now fixed limits to RAM/VRAM usage to cater for the XBox S specs and architecture.  So if you edit usercfg.opt to crank up draw distance, increase resolution/scaling etc. this will not lead to better utilization of your hardware but only to more tightness within the allocated resources,with bad ramifications on performance. 

I can confirm that too, when I try Terrain_LOD 4.000000 in order to get the old draw distance back, I get a perceived performance penalty compared to the same draw distance pre SU5 ("perceived" because I have no hard data on how old and new Terrain_LOD values relate/translate) and my HP Reverb starts showing the typical "being in a black box" effect when turning my head, which is a (to me) typical indicator for "running out of VRAM" with this HMD, and the VRAM utilization actually remains capped at 8GB.  This "black box" artifact also happens when I use 100% render scaling (which costs VRAM), which is something that didn't happen before.  These performance penalties may not be that noticeable in 2D with lower resolutions leaving more headroom anyway, but this puts quite a limit on what is doable in terms of visual quality and utilization of high-end PC hardware.

Taking common practice into account, it seems a bit unlikely that they will maintain 2 codebases/branches, particularly after they seem to have worked so hard keeping it unified (and after giving cause to think they have trouble with branching/version control, which would be a reason why bugs are getting fixed, then returning next update, trees being shrunk and then growing again...).  That in turn would mean that the maximum in PC hardware utilization will always be defined by the lowest-spec'd XBox hardware targeted to run FS and buying a 16GB GPU worth about five XBoxes would only give slightly more performance than throwing the $$$$ for it out of the window.

I sure hope this is all completely wrong, and that trying to find ways to sugarcoat this is not the reason why they have such a hard time giving us a short statement/explanation on what the hell is going on. 

I'm getting about the same VRAM and Memory as before the update. Maybe a little less, however, that can also imply they improved efficiencies with the new processes and not necessarily a downgrade.  

I'm using 13Gb of mem and 8Gb of VRAM @ 100% render

If I set render beyond 100% VRAM increases as it should to almost 13GB

 

 

 

Edited August 4, 20214 yr by joec63

Good grief, I have made a few flights today, but none more than 5 minutes because it looks so bad.  75% of my time was reading this forum and tweaking.  I removed all tweaks, flew again and just quit.   I fired up X Plane, flew in an Orbx TrueEarth area and flew for two hours very happy.  I fired up P3D in an Orbx TrueEarth Area and flew happy for an hour.  There are things in these two sims that can't match MSFS, but the visuals are currently much more pleasing to my eyes than the mess that is now MSFS.

I Think I'll join those giving up on MSFS until the next update comes out with my fingers crossed the visuals return someway to what we had at launch.  MSFS was SO GOOD at launch it is sad to see it in this state.  Currently tweaking has taken over from flying and I just can't stand it!  

12 hours ago, Tuskin38 said:

More than 13 FSX models mixed with the MSFS models is what causes the crash, not the number of AI.

If you go back and look at the discord server you'll see I posted an image with 22 live traffic planes around KATL.

 

We didn't.

Good grief that screenshot looks awful!  its not far from a black and white world.  The textures top left in the distance look so bad.  My God this is nothing like the sim I saw at launch.

12 hours ago, reignman40 said:

The "performance upgrade" was basically forced lower sliders... looks like we got "consoled".  In the days leading up to SU5 I was worried about this happening. All of this should be optional.

This is not what I’m seeing at all. And I’ll say it for the 999th time…the sim as it sits right now is head and shoulders above both P3D and FSX, regardless of what add ons you spend hundreds of dollars to buy, or what cfg files you endlessly tweak.

When I take off from the airport where I kept my C172 for years, I see the actual buildings and actual streets (with auto traffic) and the actual homes adjacent to the airport…not some generic representation or some developer’s attempt to represent them with generic (or even custom) objects.

The visuals in this sim are stunning. And that’s before I add the other changes and improvements from past versions.

Go back to FSX or P3D if you disagree. 

So setting LOD to 3.0-4.0 , grainy off and test if textures sharpness settings need to be set the other way might be a temporary workaround ?

 

Edited August 4, 20214 yr by GSalden

37 minutes ago, neil0311 said:

This is not what I’m seeing at all. And I’ll say it for the 999th time…the sim as it sits right now is head and shoulders above both P3D and FSX, regardless of what add ons you spend hundreds of dollars to buy, or what cfg files you endlessly tweak.

When I take off from the airport where I kept my C172 for years, I see the actual buildings and actual streets (with auto traffic) and the actual homes adjacent to the airport…not some generic representation or some developer’s attempt to represent them with generic (or even custom) objects.

The visuals in this sim are stunning. And that’s before I add the other changes and improvements from past versions.

Go back to FSX or P3D if you disagree. 

May I quietly point out that I BOUGHT this game? And that they promised UPGRADES and this SU5 is a DOWNGRADE?

I am pretty tired of people saying "love it or leave it". 

I'm asking for the product I had two weeks ago. That's all.

And I don't see why I should go to P3D or FSX, that are not even on my hard disk.

A.

22 minutes ago, ADamiani said:

May I quietly point out that I BOUGHT this game? And that they promised UPGRADES and this SU5 is a DOWNGRADE?

I am pretty tired of people saying "love it or leave it". 

I'm asking for the product I had two weeks ago. That's all.

And I don't see why I should go to P3D or FSX, that are not even on my hard disk.

A.

Honestly, I don’t care what you think. There…I said it. And obviously you don’t care what I think. That’s fine.

I never said “love it or leave it”…so stop being melodramatic and putting words in my mouth.

What I said was that if you truly believe that visuals and use is better in P3D or FSX, then why wouldn’t you be using them? Why would anyone want to use software like the current version that is so “flawed” and so bad?

I’m just relating my experience and opinion. Ignore me if it bothers you. 

Edited August 4, 20214 yr by neil0311

12 minutes ago, neil0311 said:

Honestly, I don’t care what you think. There…I said it. And obviously you don’t care what I think. That’s fine.

I never said “love it or leave it”…so stop being melodramatic and putting words in my mouth.

What I said was that if you truly believe that visuals and use is better in P3D or FSX, then why wouldn’t you be using them? Why would anyone want to use software like the current version that is so “flawed” and so bad?

I’m just relating my experience and opinion. Ignore me if it bothers you. 

You wrote:

"The visuals in this sim are stunning. And that’s before I add the other changes and improvements from past versions.

Go back to FSX or P3D if you disagree. "

I do not have P3D or FSX on my PC, and never referred to either, so I think you have the wrong person.

If you didn't mean "love it or leave it", then it must be the language barrier.

Your opinion is totally legitimate. Saying "go back to FSX ..." is not. I think you see the difference.

Regards

A.

Edited August 4, 20214 yr by ADamiani

1 hour ago, neil0311 said:

This is not what I’m seeing at all. And I’ll say it for the 999th time…the sim as it sits right now is head and shoulders above both P3D and FSX, regardless of what add ons you spend hundreds of dollars to buy, or what cfg files you endlessly tweak.

When I take off from the airport where I kept my C172 for years, I see the actual buildings and actual streets (with auto traffic) and the actual homes adjacent to the airport…not some generic representation or some developer’s attempt to represent them with generic (or even custom) objects.

The visuals in this sim are stunning. And that’s before I add the other changes and improvements from past versions.

Go back to FSX or P3D if you disagree. 

I can take off and see actual buildings and actual streets, but absolutely nobody has complained about placement of any kind, so what exactly does that add to the thread?

I just flew over a large road in Los Angeles and counted two vehicles, even though my traffic is set to 100%

If I fly X Plane in an Orbx TrueEarth area, it is looking far better than MSFS to my eyes on my system (apart from clouds). Sharper textures further out, more believable colour.  MSFS to my eyes and on my system used to look incredible and I couldn't stop flying it.  At the moment I can't bare to be in the sim because it looks so bad AND the CTDs af regular intervals. I can't go into slew mode because it ctds.

MS  admitted the sim has many issues, so telling anybody yours looks great so just bog off to another sim, is appalling behaviour.  Bypass threads like this where people are discussing the issues if you just want to gloat.

Edited August 4, 20214 yr by MrBitstFlyer