I've been annoyed not with bad textures at altitude, but bad textures at a distance.  Mountains on the horizon looking like they've come out of FS98, and not distant horizon but near horizon.

Has this been a problem for others and is the altitude fix likely to make textures look a bit better at a distance?  There's a bit of a mush of awful texturing after the tree LOD runs out, and on distant mountains. 

The feedback loop for this deployment is about average given its size IMO. 

Regards

bs

11 minutes ago, Langeveldt said:

I've been annoyed not with bad textures at altitude, but bad textures at a distance.  Mountains on the horizon looking like they've come out of FS98, and not distant horizon but near horizon.

Has this been a problem for others and is the altitude fix likely to make textures look a bit better at a distance?  There's a bit of a mush of awful texturing after the tree LOD runs out, and on distant mountains. 

Painstakingly go through your Nvidia and MSFS display settings (find online guides if needed), you can try increasing LOD in UserCfg (not sure it helps, never A/B'd that part). It can be bandwidth related too, sometimes the servers are busier lately due to Xbox users playing. I wouldn't even try to judge it during the weekends right now. I don't think the differences are that huge on a monitor (as I've said all along), I'd find it hard to see, but we don't have the same eyes and i guess it depends on age. I play on a giant screen, so anything I see is exaggerated like 10x.

Edited August 5, 20214 yr by Alpine Scenery

Just now, Alpine Scenery said:

Painstakingly go through your display settings, you can try increasing LOD in UserCfg (not sure it helps, never A/B'd that part). It can be bandwidth related too, sometimes the servers are busier lately due to Xbox users playing. I wouldn't even try to judge it during the weekends right now.

I don't think the differences are that huge on  a monitor (as I've said all along), I'd find it hard to see, but we don't have the same eyes and i guess it depends on age. I play on a giant screen, so anything I see is exaggerated like 10x.

Reason I asked was I am already using LOD 5.0 which seems to improve things.  However at an FPS cost, when panning.  I was wondering if I'd be able to go back to LOD 2.0 and things still be relatively sharp.  I guess your guess is as good as mine. 

Just now, Langeveldt said:

Reason I asked was I am already using LOD 5.0 which seems to improve things.  However at an FPS cost, when panning.  I was wondering if I'd be able to go back to LOD 2.0 and things still be relatively sharp.  I guess your guess is as good as mine. 

Yah, I burned out on A/B'n, but some have said 2-3, some have said 4, 5 is a bit high. 
I have mine at 3 I think, it's not too bad.

The mountains will vary depending where you are flying, there are worse artifacts in some mountain ranges than others.

The oncoming weeks / months will tell if it is indeed true that M$ cares for PC users. For the moment, we have to trust what they keep saying at each public meeting: they do.

Facts will speak for themselves. If we have a PC version with upgraded graphics, lighting, and everything at least on par with SU4, if not better, and more upgrades as graphics cards and hardware in general allow, then we are ok and the future looks bright.

They (M$) really need to convince us that the SU5 fluke was just an incident due to some optimistic marketing plan. Not a minor incident btw, because pushing an unstable, bugged upgrade has no justification.

We will see.

A.

Oh and the most important thing I learned as a developer about 20 years ago is don't expect gratitude.

Regards

bs

And everything needs to be done yesterday, I am going to have to work all weekend now because I spent so much time arguing in this forum, I'm like a week behind at my job. I think I have my own SU circumstances to deal with at work, believe it or not (scary huh). So this is going to be deja vu for me, once here, and then next a release at work. I think  "discussing" with all of you has caused me to add 20 new bugs to my own code 🙂

Outta here for now...

 

Edited August 5, 20214 yr by Alpine Scenery

57 minutes ago, Alpine Scenery said:

Let us not forget some of the autopilot designs in REAL planes that have had bugs. I am not that type of engineer, but I never understood why they didn't implement a fail-safe hard pull like a fail-safe switch between the actual control systems and the AP. I guess it's so digitally driven and pilots would probably try the hard pull method too late, and knowing its there in the first place could be a distraction...

btw at least the TU134/A did it - if a plug in the cockpit was set from a blind connnector to a hot connector the autopilot servos would be disconnected from cables by squibs, non reversible and straigt foreward. Today you have the AP disconnect buttons, then the pilot has to fly the aircraft. But to get the point - IRL the software is woking and if not the aircraft type will be grounded if there is a critical design fault.

Best regards

3 hours ago, kaosfere said:

Totally.   That's been on my wishlist for a while, it looks like a lot of fun. 😄

  

That's a totally fair position, and while I disagree with your assessment I have no intention of arguing with you about it.   Like I said...  people are free to speak how they want to speak (within the rules of the forum, of course).   But with the hallowed "freedom of speech" comes an obligation to take responsibility for what one says.  It is a fact that some folks are offended by the casual usage of "gaslighting", and that it, at least originally, refers to something distinctively dark.

But people using words in new ways is how language evolves, and that's totally natural.  If this word is drifting to a differing casual usage, it's something one will have to adapt to.  But that doesn't make the internal tension as the process is happening any less real or valid.  I still think it's fair, and even helpful, to say "hey, you're using this word in a way that's problematic", as long as it's not used as an attack.

 

Oh man.   I'm trying to imagine various subsets of the posters here and how they would react to being personally involved in the Saga of Star Citizen.  😂

Oh man I was personally involved in Star Citizen...I finally was able to sell my account last year. I still have bad flashbacks. Oh man oh man what a saga...

4 hours ago, Alpine Scenery said:

Don't get too PC about a specific term as lightweight and commonly used in general talk by referring to it in its worst case scenario 

No, please do get ‘PC’ about it. The term was originally used only to describe that alarming scenario and should not be used to describe anything else. Particularly not entitled people’s misinterpretations of ‘my experience is fine’ as ‘your experience is not real’.

3 minutes ago, scotchegg said:

No, please do get ‘PC’ about it. The term was originally used only to describe that alarming scenario and should not be used to describe anything else. Particularly not entitled people’s misinterpretations of ‘my experience is fine’ as ‘your experience is not real’.

I thought we were past this, but ok... I used it once in referral only, not directly. My apologies then if I offended you, cheers...

 

Edited August 5, 20214 yr by Alpine Scenery

55 minutes ago, ADamiani said:

Facts will speak for themselves. If we have a PC version with upgraded graphics, lighting, and everything at least on par with SU4, if not better, and more upgrades as graphics cards and hardware in general allow, then we are ok and the future looks bright.

I believe "then we are ok and the visuals look bright" is fitting this list of prerequisites better? 😄

5 hours ago, Dominique_K said:

People who love the sim, good people, not cranks, not conspiracists

Do you honestly think that this is community is a wonderland of the morally pure? I don’t think so.

7 minutes ago, Alpine Scenery said:

My apologies then if I offended you,

Not offended but thanks.