2 hours ago, cobalt said:

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!

I gave my reasons, expressed in the clearest form, and you can find them in the past posts. The short version is that before su5, I had the sim of my dreams: performance was good, graphics spectacular. Then, a few things happened together: nerfed graphics, simplified lighting, reduced memory footprint (that coincidentally fits exactly in the small box capabilities, while before that I had observed a total memory occupation above 32 GB on some occasions), repeated ctds, while su4 had been rock solid. All this in the same day when the sim became compatible with the 'boxes. Nobody will ever convince me that it was a coincidence.

Back to flying. 

A.

 

26 minutes ago, ADamiani said:

I gave my reasons, expressed in the clearest form, and you can find them in the past posts. The short version is that before su5, I had the sim of my dreams: performance was good, graphics spectacular. Then, a few things happened together: nerfed graphics, simplified lighting, reduced memory footprint (that coincidentally fits exactly in the small box capabilities, while before that I had observed a total memory occupation above 32 GB on some occasions), repeated ctds, while su4 had been rock solid. All this in the same day when the sim became compatible with the 'boxes. Nobody will ever convince me that it was a coincidence.

Back to flying. 

A.

 

It probably wasn't a coincidence.  But it wasn't a crime, either.  It's perfectly understandable if they wanted the code to be basically the same between the 2 platforms.  And let's face it, they didn't exactly diminish the graphics to FS4 levels, either.  I personally can't see a difference, although I'm running at high end graphics, not ultra.  That might make a difference.  What I am seeing is much more fluid motion, which (to me) is essential for a believable simulation of flight. 

Asobo has already started to address the issue with the addition of the cache slider.  I think a little patience would be in order until we see what other things they come up with. 

I accept as true everything you describe about your experience. But it is very different from mine, as well as many others who have posted in this and other forums. Any general theory about changes engineered by Asobo in graphic quality must accommodate the entire range of MSFS user experiences, not just your own. Please note: I have run MSFS continuously on ultra settings for a year, with crisp high-resolution graphics, and still have them, in addition to much improved performance since SU5. If you (or anyone) can explain in detail how this could possibly be the case after a programmed degradation of the graphics, I am open to hearing it.

Alienware Aurora R11, 32 GB ram, Intel i7-10700F, GeForce RTX 2080 Super, Ultra graphics settings

 

Edited September 30, 20214 yr by cobalt

18 hours ago, bcuomo said:

It probably wasn't a coincidence.  But it wasn't a crime, either.  It's perfectly understandable if they wanted the code to be basically the same between the 2 platforms.  And let's face it, they didn't exactly diminish the graphics to FS4 levels, either.  I personally can't see a difference, although I'm running at high end graphics, not ultra.  That might make a difference.  What I am seeing is much more fluid motion, which (to me) is essential for a believable simulation of flight. 

Asobo has already started to address the issue with the addition of the cache slider.  I think a little patience would be in order until we see what other things they come up with. 

Never said it was a crime, although pushing a broken update that prevented me from flying (due to ctds) for the only two weeks I had free from work was not the brightest move on their part. But I hope to see the sim back to SU4 graphics level and stability (this is ok for me now). With current performance, if possible. I don't like forests appearing suddenly out of thin air, but apparently that will be fixed. I don't like the recurrent hiccup on final between 300 and 400 feet.

Let's see what comes next.

A.

I had CTDs every flight after SU5. I'd also found the Working Title Garmin beta in the marketplace, so I'd installed that. Coincidental, perhaps, but after I uninstalled the WT beta G1000Nxi, CTDs stopped. I really should reinstall it to try the current version, though...

Thanks, March Hare. Once again, local issues, local issues, local issues. Moral of the story.

Edited October 1, 20214 yr by cobalt

4 minutes ago, cobalt said:

Thanks, March Hare. Once again, local issues, local issues, local issues. Moral of the story.

Let's not  generalize. I had a totally vanilla MSFS (I like the steam gauges 172 with default scenery). It had been rock solid for many months before SU5. It started crashing with SU5. Stable again now after a hotfix.

My pc is also used for tedious numerical computations, so no overclock of any kind here: I need it stable, I cannot afford losing hours of work because I played with settings. Room temperature is always between 24 and 26 degrees, all year round, humidity is also controlled.

So "local issues" is not the moral of the story. "Unstable release, subsequently fixed" is.

Otherwise why did they push the hotfix asap?

Of course, addons, .ini files tinkering, CPU OC, GPU OC, RAM OC, hardware issues, can also cause ctds. Not what happened to me and many others, though.

A.

But not to everyone. Therefore, local issues.

5 minutes ago, cobalt said:

But not to everyone. Therefore, local issues.

So WT release a quick work-around / fix for the NXi caused by MSFS timing issues, that was causing CTDs, but these were local issues? 

And Asobo actually address some CTDs successfully after a hot fix, but these are local issues as well?

I had CTDs with the NXi until the hotfix release as well, but nothing now with the reworked version, so not 'local' issues for me.  And everyone probably did not use the same aircraft / NXi combination, so your reasoning is flawed on this point, and getting quite tedious with your constant 'fix your rig' attitude, but it seems you know this and don't care anyway, which kind of lessens the credibility of what you are posting when you do this.

I do care. But this whole thread got bogged down on the notion that Asobo "dumbed down" the graphics for SU5, which I reject both on the evidence I see, and on facts that others more knowledgeable than I have clearly presented. If some folks nevertheless believe this theory, so be it. That's all I have to say on this subject.

13 hours ago, cobalt said:

I do care. But this whole thread got bogged down on the notion that Asobo "dumbed down" the graphics for SU5, which I reject both on the evidence I see, and on facts that others more knowledgeable than I have clearly presented. If some folks nevertheless believe this theory, so be it. That's all I have to say on this subject.

I really find it hard to believe that you experienced no graphics downgrade in SU5, nevertheless, if that's what you see, ok. But please don't call it a theory, because I had the crashes (lots of them) which were real enough, the memory footprint reduction has been measured and verified (and confirmed by the devs), and the graphics and lighting downgrade has also been confirmed (and partly repaired with a hotfix). The popping forests are a fact, not a theory. I believe that this happened to fit the boxes, someone else may have a different explanation, and these are theories. But facts are facts. It's as if I refused to say that performance has improved.

A.

6 minutes ago, ADamiani said:

I really find it hard to believe that you experienced no graphics downgrade in SU5

Yes, for a brief period that was true for me.  Quite frankly now, visuals have largely improved over any prior period in MSFS' history.  It helps to have strong hardware to max visuals out.  Exactly zero CTD post hot fix, and only a couple before then.  I have to think many of the reports have had to do w/ hardware issues, not all for sure but many.

2 hours ago, Noel said:

Yes, for a brief period that was true for me.  Quite frankly now, visuals have largely improved over any prior period in MSFS' history.  It helps to have strong hardware to max visuals out.  Exactly zero CTD post hot fix, and only a couple before then.  I have to think many of the reports have had to do w/ hardware issues, not all for sure but many.

Yes as I wrote it is also stable for me now. Remembering the frustration of those weeks, I really hope that everyone can get it sorted.

Graphically, I still see a big difference w.r.t. SU4 in clouds, lighting, lod, and the popping forests bug is pretty annoying.

A.

On 9/30/2021 at 8:48 PM, ADamiani said:

I gave my reasons, expressed in the clearest form, and you can find them in the past posts. The short version is that before su5, I had the sim of my dreams: performance was good, graphics spectacular. Then, a few things happened together: nerfed graphics, simplified lighting, reduced memory footprint (that coincidentally fits exactly in the small box capabilities, while before that I had observed a total memory occupation above 32 GB on some occasions), repeated ctds, while su4 had been rock solid. All this in the same day when the sim became compatible with the 'boxes. Nobody will ever convince me that it was a coincidence.

that is simply not the case, it looks better, performs better... look inward

3 hours ago, CombatCustard said:

that is simply not the case, it looks better, performs better... look inward

It IS the case. Performs better, looks worse. This is what I and many others see. You don't. Good for you, enjoy.

I am not sure I understand what you mean by "look inward". Care to elaborate for a foreigner?

Thank you

A.