On 1/7/2022 at 1:33 PM, abennett said:

I just accidentally stumbled across a screenshot thread elsewhere going back to the launch of the sim.

I wish I hadn’t seen it because it’s just made me so depressed and angry at how the sim has been downgraded graphically since release.

One can scroll through the posts and clearly see how the clouds get significantly worse in terms of quality at SU5, and then just since SU7 are a total mess with all the ridiculous towering convective CB clouds on the ground basically but just over the airport where the METAR data is been so poorly rendered.

I really wish I hadn’t seen it, it made me furious. Anyone else get this kind of feeling?

Can somebody post side by side pictures for cases like this and also note the circumstances for each picture so we can account for the differences in variables (ie. were both pictures using live weather, or only one of the pictures was using live weather, and what dates the pictures were taken on)?

Just asking because I have been here since the launch of MSFS.  I don't notice a significant downgrade graphically from the version in August of 2020, to what we have now in SU7.  One thing I did notice graphically was that in one of the previous versions, the water in the ocean became super still and there weren't even any ripples at all, for calm weather.  This was fixed in a subsequent patch and now in calm weather, you can see some minor ripples in the ocean if your altitude is lower.

Aside from this, I haven't noticed a significant graphical downgrade myself. And while I haven't experienced a significant downgrade in graphics, the FPS has improved probably up to 40% for me when I fly with airliners (ie. the 787) compared to the launch of MSFS in 2020.  FYI, I use pre-selected weather sometimes, and I also use live weather sometimes. I run on 1080 with mostly high settings.

Edited January 11, 20224 yr by abrams_tank

14 minutes ago, abrams_tank said:

Can somebody post side by side pictures for cases like this and also note the circumstances for each picture so we can account for the differences in variables (ie. were both pictures using live weather, or only one of the pictures was using live weather, and what dates the pictures were taken on)?

Let me suggest a simpler task: can you find any stratus clouds and post a screenshot (or indeed any non-cumuloforms)?

I have to ask anybody again who’s seeing no degradation in clouds: are you getting any variety in cloud type since SU7? A lot of us are only getting puffs trying to represent all cloud types now, and that is a real degradation from what we used to have.

30 minutes ago, scotchegg said:

Let me suggest a simpler task: can you find any stratus clouds and post a screenshot (or indeed any non-cumuloforms)?

I have to ask anybody again who’s seeing no degradation in clouds: are you getting any variety in cloud type since SU7? A lot of us are only getting puffs trying to represent all cloud types now, and that is a real degradation from what we used to have.

Screen shots for comparison have to exist, haven't they? I am not convinced so far, but I have to admit that I can't tell stratus from cummulus from colander in real life.

49 minutes ago, scotchegg said:

Let me suggest a simpler task: can you find any stratus clouds and post a screenshot (or indeed any non-cumuloforms)?

I have to ask anybody again who’s seeing no degradation in clouds: are you getting any variety in cloud type since SU7? A lot of us are only getting puffs trying to represent all cloud types now, and that is a real degradation from what we used to have.

So I want to be clear that everyone has a different definition of "graphics downgrade."  This is a subjective term that can mean different things to different people.

For me, the exclusion of stratus clouds in SU7 is not a "graphics downgrade" but a possible downgrade of the weather generation engine.

The reason is, if you can find a picture from August of 2020 of cumulus clouds, and another picture in SU7 of cumulus clouds in the exact same location and same time, and both pictures are the same in graphical quality, then there is no "graphical downgrade" for my definition of this term.

To me, graphics is just that - graphics.  I would have to see a side by side comparison of an August 2020 picture with cumulus clouds and an identical side by side picture right now of SU7 also with cumulus clouds.

The fact that SU7 is missing stratus clouds is a downgrade of the weather generation engine, but the quality of the graphics is still the same to me.  Mind you, my definition of graphics is probably this definition:

Quote

A graphic is an image or visual representation of an object. Therefore, computer graphics are simply images displayed on a computer screen. Graphics are often contrasted with text, which is comprised of characters, such as numbers and letters, rather than images.

The fact that an "object" is missing is not necessarily a downgrade in graphics, at least the way I define "graphics downgrade" (in this case, the missing stratus clouds from the weather generation engine).  But then again, perhaps everyone has a different definition of "graphics downgrade" so if that is the case, I can see why some people say there is a graphics downgrade while I don't necessarily see a graphics downgrade.

Edited January 11, 20224 yr by abrams_tank

18 minutes ago, abrams_tank said:

So I want to be clear that everyone has a different definition of "graphics downgrade."  This is a subjective term that can mean different things to different people.

Hmmmm, I’m not sure it’s quite as subjective as you’re trying to suggest. Trying to represent different cloud types with one cloud type would probably fit most people’s idea of a graphical downgrade in variety, if not absolute quality. Most people would consider it a significant graphical downgrade if all 3D objects were replaced by cubes to save on polygon budget, no matter how artfully the cubes were rendered.

23 minutes ago, scotchegg said:

Hmmmm, I’m not sure it’s quite as subjective as you’re trying to suggest. Trying to represent different cloud types with one cloud type would probably fit most people’s idea of a graphical downgrade in variety, if not absolute quality. 

Yeah, we're going around in circles.  That's a downgrade in the weather generation engine for me. 

Using the definition of "graphics" from before:

Quote

A graphic is an image or visual representation of an object ... ...

Nothing in that definition says an omission of a specific object necessarily means there is a reduction in the quality of graphics. This is what I mean "graphics downgrade" is a subjective term that has different meaning to different people.

Edited January 11, 20224 yr by abrams_tank

9 minutes ago, abrams_tank said:

Yeah, we're going around in circles.  That's a downgrade in the weather engine for me.

How do we experience that downgrade? The only way is in the graphical representation of the clouds, which have been made uniform where previously they had variety. Do we experience the downgrade in any other way?

12 minutes ago, abrams_tank said:

Nothing in that definition says an omission of an object is related to the definition of "graphics."  This is what I mean "graphics downgrade" a subjective term that has different meaning to different people.

Well firstly, I didn’t claim the downgrade was related to omission either. I said it was shown in how all cloud types are now graphically represented by one.

Secondly, if you insist on using that rather sparse definition, wouldn’t graphically replacing all variety of objects with one object (as in my replacing all objects with cubes) count as a degradation in the ‘visual representation’ of that object?

And finally, claiming ‘graphics downgrade’ is a highly subjective term meaning different things to different people immediately after trying to impose an extremely narrow definition hastily extracted from some tech website in the discussion is, erm, a bit rich…

14 minutes ago, scotchegg said:

Secondly, if you insist on using that rather sparse definition, wouldn’t graphically replacing all variety of objects with one object (as in my replacing all objects with cubes) count as a degradation in the ‘visual representation’ of that object?

I don't see it as replacing all versions of that object though.  I see it more like it's unable to generate that object (stratus clouds) because of an inherent flaw in the weather generation engine.

See?

Our definition of "graphics downgrade" is different.  I separate the weather generation engine into a separate category than you. You seem to be lumping the weather generation engine into your definition of the quality of the graphics.  For me, the weather generation engine is not a part of the quality of the graphics.

That's why "graphics downgrade" is a subjective term. It has different meaning to different people.

FYI, I come from a software development background.  I have also developed both 2D and 3D graphics before.  So my definition of "graphics downgrade" can be different from yours.

 

Quote

variety

FYI, "variety" does not necessarily equal quality in graphics for me.  MSFS currently has no seasons.  There is no "variety" of seasons in MSFS. Yet I think MSFS still produces the best graphics for a flight simulator, despite not having a variety of seasons.  For other people, perhaps their definition of "graphics quality" includes having a variety of seasons.  You seem to emphasize variety = graphics quality for you. For me, variety <> graphics quality.

Like I said, it's a subjective term. It has a different meaning to different people.

Edited January 11, 20224 yr by abrams_tank

If stratus is flat-bottomed clouds (now I have a Queen song in my head), with no rising top when you break through, i.e. overcast, then I flew under and then over this cloud type yesterday. But no screenshot. I don't think they are gone at all; I just think people haven't encountered them, or not often. That might be accurate in itself, or it might be, as I've suggested, the incoming data for certain locations and/or periods of time is not quite right or outdated or actually predicting upcoming conditions that don't represent what's happening at the time of flight. I don't know. But I have seen what I believe is stratus cloud. I know simmers have said on the official forum that overcast is not represented any more, but I know I have encountered overcast conditions in live weather since the update, once or twice.

4 minutes ago, March Hare said:

If stratus is flat-bottomed clouds (now I have a Queen song in my head),

🎵Flat bottomed clouds you make the flightsim world go round🎵

It seems clear that different simmers are having different experiences. That's partly the nature of dynamic weather, I guess. Example, I've seen some say that every flight they are doing, they just see a wall of cumulonimbus everywhere. But I've done flights and seen no cumulonimbus, but other cloud representations. Some are saying that they are seeing obvious transitions, even after the update, between METAR and the forecast model away from airfields/ports. I must be lucky because I'm not seeing transitions any more, and after SU7 they were blatantly obvious.

25 minutes ago, abrams_tank said:

I see it more like it's unable to generate that object (stratus clouds) because of an inherent flaw in the weather generation engine.

Well I guess you might be viewing it as a back end technical issue whereas I’m viewing it as what is graphically shown to me on the screen, but if the flaw is only manifested graphically I don’t think it’s a meaningful, or even subjective difference frankly. I don’t even know how to address the idea that variety is no part of quality in graphics…

Even if we do just accept the difference in terms, do you feel the weather engine has been degraded?

12 minutes ago, March Hare said:

But I've done flights and seen no cumulonimbus, but other cloud representations.

Can you take a screenshot and post it here next time you see any clouds which are not cumuloforms? I’m really not trying to be flippant about this and genuinely very curious to know if some people are actually getting variety and some of us not.

5 minutes ago, scotchegg said:

Even if we do just accept the difference in terms, do you feel the weather engine has been degraded?

Yes.  I already said in my previous comments that if stratus clouds cannot be generated in SU7 (when they should be generated, given the weather conditions), then it would be a downgrade in the weather generation engine.  

Edited January 11, 20224 yr by abrams_tank

4 hours ago, abrams_tank said:

Can somebody post side by side pictures for cases like this and also note the circumstances for each picture so we can account for the differences in variables (ie. were both pictures using live weather, or only one of the pictures was using live weather, and what dates the pictures were taken on)?

Just asking because I have been here since the launch of MSFS.  I don't notice a significant downgrade graphically from the version in August of 2020, to what we have now in SU7.  One thing I did notice graphically was that in one of the previous versions, the water in the ocean became super still and there weren't even any ripples at all, for calm weather.  This was fixed in a subsequent patch and now in calm weather, you can see some minor ripples in the ocean if your altitude is lower.

Aside from this, I haven't noticed a significant graphical downgrade myself. And while I haven't experienced a significant downgrade in graphics, the FPS has improved probably up to 40% for me when I fly with airliners (ie. the 787) compared to the launch of MSFS in 2020.  FYI, I use pre-selected weather sometimes, and I also use live weather sometimes. I run on 1080 with mostly high settings.

I also have been here from day one and totally agree with the above from abrams_tank. If anything it is better.

2 hours ago, March Hare said:

If stratus is flat-bottomed clouds (now I have a Queen song in my head), with no rising top when you break through, i.e. overcast, then I flew under and then over this cloud type yesterday. But no screenshot. I don't think they are gone at all; I just think people haven't encountered them, or not often. That might be accurate in itself, or it might be, as I've suggested, the incoming data for certain locations and/or periods of time is not quite right or outdated or actually predicting upcoming conditions that don't represent what's happening at the time of flight. I don't know. But I have seen what I believe is stratus cloud. I know simmers have said on the official forum that overcast is not represented any more, but I know I have encountered overcast conditions in live weather since the update, once or twice.

The issue is there appears to be one cloud type in MSFS - cumulus.  All other clouds appear to be formed from cumulus.  Cirrus is missing entirely.  What you are seeing as stratus is actually flat cumulus lumped together to firm an overcast.