Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Roy Warren

Time to enjoy what you have

Recommended Posts

21 hours ago, cobalt said:

If there had been a deliberate downgrading of the graphics, everybody would see it. No way around this. See March Hare above.

I don't think everybody would see it if it happened.

In fact, some people did not see it, which doesn't mean it didn't happen. No way around this.

btw: nobody can see a DELIBERATE downgrading: I see a downgrade, I observe that RAM usage was reduced, I notice that (A) the new RAM usage is compatible with the newly released 'box version, while (B) the old RAM usage was not, so I infer that it is quite unlikely that the RAM usage reduction is unrelated to the simultaneous 'boxes  version release.

Hence I think that, with a reasonable degree of confidence, I may conclude that the downgrade happened to fit into the limited 'boxes RAM.

Which is all good, if the RAM usage and everything else is taken back to SU4 levels in a reasonable timeframe.

This is because I want to see the sim (and the devs behind it) grow, improve, and prosper.

A.

Edited by ADamiani

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow .. days later thread is off the rails ... Shakes head.

I must have moved to the middle on these Sim is great / Sim needs to be incessantly complained upon opinions and find the extremes of both sides nauseating. Time to add add a few complainers to the list.

I will never say y'all cant complain. I COMPLAIN !!!! ALOT .. but when people start to complain at EVERY opportunity the message gets diluted and you lose the support that you need to move the message to the right people.

Last comment on this. I'm sure some will be happy about that. Not that it matters im a nobody in the grand scheme of things.

I just feel bad for the OP. Im glad hes enjoying the sim though. Everyone needs to find that part of the sim that they can say "You know what? Warts and all this aspect of the sim ain't too bad" Ill settle in and enjoy this for a bit. Ill complain later.

 


AMD Ryzen 5900X / Asus Strix B550 F Gaming Wifi / Powercolor AMD 6800XT Red Devil / 32GB Gskill Trident Neo DDR4 3600 / 2x ADATA XPG 8200pro NVME / Arctic Liquid Freezer II 280 / EVGA Supernova 750 GT PSU / Lian Li Lancool II Mesh Performance /

Viotek 3440x1440p Freesync / Schiit Bifrost DAC+ Schiit Asgard AMP /  Sennheiser HD 558 / Thrustmaster T.16000M + TFRP Rudders

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ADamiani said:

I don't think everybody would see it if it happened.

In fact, some people did not see it, which doesn't mean it didn't happen. No way around this.

btw: nobody can see a DELIBERATE downgrading: I see a downgrade, I observe that RAM usage was reduced, I notice that (A) the new RAM usage is compatible with the newly released 'box version, while (B) the old RAM usage was not, so I infer that it is quite unlikely that the RAM usage reduction is unrelated to the simultaneous 'boxes  version release.

Hence I think that, with a reasonable degree of confidence, I may conclude that the downgrade happened to fit into the limited 'boxes RAM.

Which is all good, if the RAM usage and everything else is taken back to SU4 levels in a reasonable timeframe.

This is because I want to see the sim (and the devs behind it) grow, improve, and prosper.

A.

I certainly sympathize with you and others who have seen a loss in graphics quality, but to insist that the problem you are experiencing must arise from some kind of downgrade in MSFS itself, rather than from local issues (settings, hardware, etc.) --- despite the fact that for many of us, MSFS is looking and performing better than we have ever seen it --- simply makes no sense to me. How can a downgrade possibly result in a significant improvement in both graphics and performance of the sim, for anyone? What does make sense is March Hare's detailed analysis above. If you can offer a point-by-point detailed rebuttal to him, I would be interested to see it.

Edited by cobalt
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, cobalt said:

I certainly sympathize with you and others who have seen a loss in graphics quality, but to insist that the problem you are experiencing must arise from some kind of downgrade in MSFS itself, rather than from local issues (settings, hardware, etc.) --- despite the fact that for many of us, MSFS is looking and performing better than we have ever seen it --- simply makes no sense to me. How can a downgrade possibly result in a significant improvement in both graphics and performance of the sim, for anyone? What does make sense is March Hare's detailed analysis above. If you can offer a point-by-point detailed rebuttal to him, I would be interested to see it.

No it is not looking better than ever.

Yes in most situations it is performing better than ever. With a cost.

I do not agree with you, sorry.

And I really hope to see this sim improve in time, with no more regressions.

A.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So,  when do we get to see your answer to March Hare? The difference between your arguments and his, is that his is specific and detailed, while yours is just a vent, not constructive, useful, or logical.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ADamiani said:

No it is not looking better than ever.

Yes in most situations it is performing better than ever. With a cost.

I do not agree with you, sorry.

And I really hope to see this sim improve in time, with no more regressions.

A.

 

I have read the same  from you now more than 100 times. I understand you arguments. please let others enjoy the Sim and leave it for good now, Thank you.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, cobalt said:

So,  when do we get to see your answer to March Hare? The difference between your arguments and his, is that his is specific and detailed, while yours is just a vent, not constructive, useful, or logical.

Why should I answer to March? I totally agree when he says

"I wasn't happy, too, because I was satisfied with the FPS overall to begin with, and if I hadn't been I would have lowered some settings. Simple. I didn't want enforced drawing/popping in that didn't exist before. That was a genuine faux pas on Asobo's part; they should have introduced the new rendering slider option to begin with, to allow each user to tweak the rendering as we now can." 

I do not agree with this:

"So, they have listened to feedback again. They are always tweaking based on feedback, not to meet requirements of a different hardware platform."

I don't think so, but his opinion is quite respectable.

A.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, urthgental said:

I have read the same  from you now more than 100 times. I understand you arguments. please let others enjoy the Sim and leave it for good now, Thank you.

Pro tip: no need to read my posts while flying the sim. Just relax and enjoy your flight. I do enjoy it when everything works fine and looks good.

Pro tip #2: In an emergency, you can use the "ignore user" option.

In what way does some unknown guy writing in a Forum have an influence on your degree of enjoyment of anything at all? If you like it, have fun! Do you think that I should stop watching Aussie Rules Football because 99.9% people I know out of Australia don't like it? (Not to mention cricket).

A.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ADamiani said:

Why should I answer to March? I totally agree when he says

"I wasn't happy, too, because I was satisfied with the FPS overall to begin with, and if I hadn't been I would have lowered some settings. Simple. I didn't want enforced drawing/popping in that didn't exist before. That was a genuine faux pas on Asobo's part; they should have introduced the new rendering slider option to begin with, to allow each user to tweak the rendering as we now can." 

I do not agree with this:

"So, they have listened to feedback again. They are always tweaking based on feedback, not to meet requirements of a different hardware platform."

I don't think so, but his opinion is quite respectable.

A.

Do you also agree with the first part of his post, especially the first sentence? I repeat that section here:

"Yes, the accusation they have lowered quality to meet requirements of the console version is completely illogical for a number of reasons. One being that the recommended (top tier) specifications for the PC version -- the hardware it was developed for, for best graphics and performance -- are roughly on a par with the Xbox Series X hardware (RTX2080 on PC, with the Xbox X having an AMD equivalent; the RTX30xx series wasn't available when MSFS was developed). In some ways, the Series X console has architectural advantages, but either way it's the equivalent to what was the top end PC on the market at the time MSFS was developed with its ultra settings in mind.

Secondly, my PC, which is far inferior to the console (including Series S), is able to run MSFS on ultra settings at a smooth frame rate."

If you agree with March Hare and me on this, then there is no argument. The issue is whether, as some contend, there was an attempt to "dumb-down" MSFS to accommodate X-Box. This is clearly nonsense, for the reasons he states among others. Moreover there is absolutely no way I could be seeing the performance and graphics I see on ultra settings, if there had been any dumbing-down.

 

 

Edited by cobalt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, cobalt said:

Do you also agree with the first part of his post, especially the first sentence? I repeat that section here:

"Yes, the accusation they have lowered quality to meet requirements of the console version is completely illogical for a number of reasons. One being that the recommended (top tier) specifications for the PC version -- the hardware it was developed for, for best graphics and performance -- are roughly on a par with the Xbox Series X hardware (RTX2080 on PC, with the Xbox X having an AMD equivalent; the RTX30xx series wasn't available when MSFS was developed). In some ways, the Series X console has architectural advantages, but either way it's the equivalent to what was the top end PC on the market at the time MSFS was developed with its ultra settings in mind.

Secondly, my PC, which is far inferior to the console (including Series S), is able to run MSFS on ultra settings at a smooth frame rate."

If you agree with March Hare and me on this, then there is no argument. The issue is whether, as some contend, there was an attempt to "dumb-down" MSFS to accommodate X-Box. This is clearly nonsense, for the reasons he states among others. Moreover there is absolutely no way I could be seeing the performance and graphics I see on ultra settings, if there had been any dumbing-down.

 

 

As I already wrote and explained in detail a few times, I believe that the graphics were "simplified" to fit in the limited memory of a 'box. It is not illogical at all, quite the contrary. Your opinion is different. We don't agree but we can peacefully live with that. Maybe we agree on a million other things, all more relevant than this one.

Also, let's not forget the clunky, bugged, unstable release that was pushed on us innocent bystanders to meet the 'boxes deadline: that was not a brilliant move, whoever decided it (I strongly suspect that it was not Asobo, so who might have been, one wonders ....).

The whole problem will be solved when we get SU4 visuals with present performance, possibly without the nearly-systematic hiccup on final approach, which I really hate (I can't complain about stability with the present release).

I'm looking forward to that, because the product has very good potential, and I really like the idea of seeing it grow in time.

A.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Maxis said:

Wow .. days later thread is off the rails ... Shakes head.

 

Literally happens to every thread here. 


AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D | RTX 4090 | 48GB DDR5 7200 RAM | 4TB M.2 NVMe SSD | Corsair H150i Liquid Cooled | 4K Dell G3223Q G-Sync | Win11 x64 Pro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ADamiani said:

As I already wrote and explained in detail a few times, I believe that the graphics were "simplified" to fit in the limited memory of a 'box. It is not illogical at all, quite the contrary. Your opinion is different. We don't agree but we can peacefully live with that. Maybe we agree on a million other things, all more relevant than this one.

If you are right, then my MSFS has been greatly improved by a "simplification" that changed my FPS from 25-30 to 50-60 everywhere, while maintaining ultra-level graphics. Sounds like magic to me, but let's have more of these -- the more simplified the better!

P.S. I still wonder if you agree with March Hare's first line.

 

Edited by cobalt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, cobalt said:

If you are right, then my MSFS has been greatly improved by a "simplification" that changed my FPS from 25-30 to 50-60 everywhere, while maintaining ultra-level graphics. Sounds like magic to me, but let's have more of these -- the more simplified the better!

P.S. I still wonder if you agree with March Hare's first line.

 

He wrote "the accusation they have lowered quality to meet requirements of the console version is completely illogical for a number of reasons" . I already wrote that I don't think this is illogical. Quite the contrary.

I think this is it. We have different opinions, so be it. Back to flying (those who can fly) and work.

A.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ADamiani said:

He wrote "the accusation they have lowered quality to meet requirements of the console version is completely illogical for a number of reasons" . I already wrote that I don't think this is illogical. Quite the contrary.

I think this is it. We have different opinions, so be it. Back to flying (those who can fly) and work.

A.

The difference is: he gave his reasons, to which you have not responded point-by-point as I asked. You have expressed a "belief" that is unsupported by detailed reasoning. But I agree, enough of this surreal discussion. Back to flying my incredible "simplified-graphics" sim. Looking forward to even more simplifications from Asobo!

Edited by cobalt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Tom Allensworth,
    Founder of AVSIM Online


  • Flight Simulation's Premier Resource!

    AVSIM is a free service to the flight simulation community. AVSIM is staffed completely by volunteers and all funds donated to AVSIM go directly back to supporting the community. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. Thank you for your support!

    Click here for more information and to see all donations year to date.
×
×
  • Create New...