59 minutes ago, sobor said:

I live in Western Canada, and FS2024 is less realistic than 2020. There are way too many trees. The graphics are otherwise almost the same; whilst impressive for a simulator, they are not close to real life. There is a simulated building where I live, but the structures are unrealistic.  It may be better in the more populated areas, but frankly, the graphics in 2024 are no improvement and are even worse than in 2020. 

I am from Western Canada as well.  MSFS 2024 is way more realistic than MSFS 2020, especially for Banff and Jasper, and the Vancouver metro area.  My biggest complaint about MSFS 2020 is that there isn't enough tree variation, and you see the same type of trees everywhere. Often, it's that "green cauliflower" type tree - I would see this often in Western Canada in MSFS 2020, and that "green cauliflower" type tree is an eyesore.

In MSFS 2024, the trees actually look more accurate, especially with respect to Banff and Jasper.  The river/stream that runs parallel to Highway 1 in Banff also looks way better and more realistic in MSFS 2024. I remember that river/stream was rather ugly in MSFS 2020. But I actually had a blast flying on that river/stream in MSFS 2024.

For metro Vancouver, again, the trees are more closer to the actual trees in metro Vancouver for MSFS 2024. The patches of land also looks way more realistic, as there are patches of land and farms around the Surrey & Delta area.  The one issue I have with metro Vancouver in MSFS 2024 are the gigantic trees in downtown - but when I installed SamScene3D Vancouver, those gigantic trees were removed by SamScene3D Vancouver's scenery so it's not a big deal (if you are a true Vancouverite and MSFS simmer, you would have bought SamScene3D Vancouver when it first came out).  There are also some trees that the photogrammetry engine couldn't differentiate, and improperly turned those trees into "photogrammetry trees," but I think this was an issue with the World Canada Update from MSFS 2020 anyways, so I don't know that it's new to MSFS 2024.

All in all, Western Canada is immensely better in MSFS 2024, versus MSFS 2020, because the trees type is more accurate and the patches of land are also more accurate.

 

 

Edited November 24, 20241 yr by abrams_tank

On 11/23/2024 at 9:26 AM, Lotharen said:

It's so odd that people are having such massive swings in the visuals. Mine looks nothing like you describe. Night lighting seems far better than in the alpha but I believe the airport lighting needs to be turned down a bit. I was amazed that town/city lighting illuminated the clouds from beneath like it really would, ect. 

Not discounting your issues, mind you. Just find it so strange that the difference between two simmers is so large.

For me it isn't odd at all. My MSFS 2020 is working great. The only thing I need is a better ATC & AI Injector. BATC & FSHUD will soon solve the issue with the ATC and FSLTL & AIG have airliners available.

I had to see for myself if the upgrade to 2024 was worth it. There's so much that needs to be fixed or improved that it will be years before 2024 is complete. I'll monitor the progress and wish ASOBO the best.

On 11/23/2024 at 3:36 AM, GSalden said:

So which one looks more realistic to you ?

Well....vegetation is different...other then that....I read so much struggle currently.....let's wait and compare performances after all... 

On 11/23/2024 at 2:54 PM, flightyjoe said:

2020 whatever anyone tries to convince themselves, looks insanely good from the air, which is good as it is a flight sim..

I can't imagine anybody saying otherwise, and saying 2024 looks better is not denigrating 2020 in anyway.

In the same way, being able to walk around does not denigrate any other feature of 2024.

I do like the walking around idea. However what I've seen in youtubes, the first/third person view looks egdy. This could be smoothen out a bit I think.

4 hours ago, MarcG said:

I've been messing with graphics settings most of today and the servers being up the creek are still causing issues, terrain not loading in properly, liveries half loading, PG looking awful etc. (1gb broadband so not issues my end before anyone says it). Certainly may serve to wait until they're properly up and running before bothering with further tweaking, so far though when flying Low & Slow it's no better than MSFS2020, ground level is better, lighting is better (actually gorgeous, see below!)

 

2020 looks much better color wise and realistic.

 

Colors are more blended/muted in real life where 2024 has a too vibrant color pallet...

16 minutes ago, Kilo60 said:

Colors are more blended/muted in real life where 2024 has a too vibrant color pallet...

Nah, colours are great. Ironically had the same exchange with someone yesterday saying 2024 was too washed out.

6 hours ago, Rimshot said:

I see your point. Assetto Corsa is a good example how long a game can last with mods. Looking forward to AS Evo though! Regarding MSFS I think after four years there's nothing wrong with releasing a new version. Money has to keep coming in, although they could also have charged for significant updates. In the old days a new flightsim version came out every two years. And it can even be worse, looking how EA handles things with new 'upgraded' sports games every year...

 

Was thinking more about this... Even if completely re-written portions of MSFS were technically feasible to be released as paid separate DLCs (atmospheric lighting engine, revamped ground handling, new flight physics, new other physics, etc etc) it's the client/server nature of MSFS that I think that would make this not feasible at all (and I'm talking just basic 2020-level client/server nature)

That is, while a few services are likely being shared by both 2020 and 2024, mostly they have two sets of services on the cloud side to serve 2020 and 2024 clients. Now imagine they start releasing features as multiple separate DLCs.. the possibility of variations on the client exponentially rockets from just two (2020 and 2024) to many. So even for a simple case of a base platform with 4 DLCs, the client variations can number into the hundreds (if I remember my math correctly that'd be 5! = 5 x 4 x 3 x 2 x 1 = 120 I think? 😅).. so being to handle all the different possible client combinations on the server side just makes it near impossible and impractical I think?

Given all the rewrites and updates and additions they did, the only thing that made sense was to release a new sim. I much rather they did this than force update 2020 of course, so at least those not caring for 2024's improvements or the messy/buggy launch can happily keep using 2020.
 

Edited November 24, 20241 yr by lwt1971

20 minutes ago, lwt1971 said:

so being to handle all the different possible client combinations on the server side just makes it near impossible and impractical I think?

Makes sense; even if MSFS 2024 did not exist, the variety of paid updates would be overwhelming like you say, assuming not everyone buys them all.

 

25 minutes ago, lwt1971 said:

Given all the rewrites and updates and additions they did, the only thing that made sense was to release a new sim. I much rather they did this than force update 2020 of course, so at least those not caring for 2024's improvements or the messy/buggy launch can happily keep using 2020.

I agree, I also think it was the best choice to create a new version. And I'm happy MSFS 2020 is still here. Just now I had a very satisfying experience in that sim. Everything looked very detailed and crisp. The preceding session in MSFS 2024 was nice, but I struggled with the streaming, resulting in blurriness here and there. Hopefully these server issues will be sorted soon.

1 hour ago, Kilo60 said:

2020 looks much better color wise and realistic.

 

Colors are more blended/muted in real life where 2024 has a too vibrant color pallet...

Couldn't disagree more.  Far more natural in 2024 both on the ground and in the air.  I was always tweaking 2020 to get the colours and light right, but haven't needed to touch 2024.  Again, not denigrating 2020 as we have all loved it for years, but 2024 has improved several areas.

Each day I load 2024 the visuals are looking better as they clear up the server issues.

1 hour ago, scotchegg said:

Nah, colours are great. Ironically had the same exchange with someone yesterday saying 2024 was too washed out.

Washed out seems to mean different things to different people. Everything for over saturated to black and white 😁  Washed out to me means under saturated.

Edited November 24, 20241 yr by MrBitstFlyer

The night lighting is broken in some cities, around Venice it was completely borked.

Every light was at an equidistance forming a perfectly symmetrical geometrical pattern.

It looked like a poka-dot city.

So yes, there are issues, but it just depends.

 

Edited November 25, 20241 yr by Alpine Scenery

Honest, Id say. I guess some of us caved into add-ons for 2020. Trees not varied enough or in odd places? REX fixed that. Lighting is off or not colored enough? REX atmos fixed that. FPS still an issue in high density areas? AutoFPS fixed that.

In due time, 2024 will receive its treatment./

2024 does look better than 2020 default, IMO. That's when the servers are working. Cranking TLOD to over 200 looked good but I got terribly melted building when flying around KPDX, KSLE and KEUG area. The airports (besides my kpdx) looked the same. Another flight (same load) resulted better buildings. Things will get better. 2020 sometimes has awful buildings as well sometimes. 

Looks are one thing, though.

Edited November 25, 20241 yr by Sonosusto

Lighting can be subjective as we all have different setups, settings, monitors, etc. 

Edited November 25, 20241 yr by Sonosusto