TLOD 150 - Though increasing it improves nothing
Texture Res - High

Anisotropic Filtering - 16X
Texture supersampling - 8X

Running on a 150mb download line. (I'm in the UK at the moment, not South Africa)

Is this a problem at their end?  Because these mountains remind me of FS98.

Edited November 25, 20241 yr by Langeveldt

looks like a streaming / server issue to me

27 minutes ago, Langeveldt said:

Is this a problem at their end?

I would say yes.  Streaming has improved since release, but it still needs improvement.

I have a similar problem with persistently low-res ground textures. It doesn't matter how long I wait or fly around; the ground will never increase in resolution. This has happened to me all over the world. Either something is wrong, or the streaming system is designed to maintain the best continuous level of quality and won't actually cache your surroundings. Preventing caching doesn't make sense to me though, so I think it is a bug. In MSFS2020, the system works fine on the same connection (and I am flying with third-party airports and aircraft in 2024, so those objects are not being streamed).

Check your network in the task manager.   My guess is that your bandwidth is way under utilised. 

 

I have the same issue.    Everything looks like FS95 as soon as I take off.   It also takes about 10 minutes to start a flight.

 

I can download programs from the MS store at about 100mbps, but MSFS hovers around 0 to 2 with the occasional burst to 10.

 

Might try a VPN...

I have had this happen once; took nearly 5 minutes of just waiting on the runway and then the textures loaded and it looked great. This is a bandwidth issue I think.

Definitely looks like the MS server did not properly serve you. Your computer is most very likely perfectly fine and not the issue.

Your mountains look like my mountains when I have Dynamic set (Graphics options) and the desired FPS is set higher than your system can deliver.  It appears the sim reduces TLOD when the FPS falls below the target you set.

I did a bunch of test cases yesterday in the A2A Comanche at 10,000' / 165 kts over the San Diego mountains.  Setting the dynamic target to 20 gave me beautiful detailed mountains with a Dev Mode frame rate of 25.

Setting the target FPS to 25 showed considerable loss of distant detail/resolution.  Setting the target to 30 made the mountains look like the ones in your image.

I just leave my dynamic target at 20 and consistently see a Frame Gen rate of 40 to 45.

Another dreadful-looking issue I have is that you no longer have the option to turn off the "dirt" layer that is put on top of everything like you used to in the usercfg.opt file. In fact I turned off all but one option in the post process section in the 2020 usercfg.opt file as I preferred the unprocessed look. As far as I know there is no way at all to do that anymore- the file in 24 does not contain those options. I would assume they are baked in somewhere now.

The mountain is still in the cloud and I’m not talking about mountain tops obscured by clouds.

As the sim settles in we can have excuses about the servers not being ready for release but in a few weeks if this is not fixed what will be the excuse then?  Likely it will turn to frustration, then realization, then resentment.

15 minutes ago, jspilot said:

…

As the sim settles in we can have excuses about the servers not being ready for release but in a few weeks if this is not fixed what will be the excuse then?  Likely it will turn to frustration, then realization, then resentment.

The excuse will be that they haven’t driven enough players away from the platform.
 

Only when enough players stop playing the game will the servers stabilize. 

Local SSD/NVMe storage is relatively cheap these days and it makes no sense to be so dependent on high capacity remote servers and very fast bandwidth for the sim to work acceptably.  The day MSFS2024 was announced as being mostly cloud based with a minimal local storage footprint I was very concerned at how it would all playout.  Regretably it seems those early concerns have turned out to be well justified.

Bruce

I have had everything working fine since day 2.

I wonder if those that had issues installing (i.e. stuck at 97%, etc.) have these persistent issues because of that, and wonder if a complete reinstall might help?

8 minutes ago, Los said:

I have had everything working fine since day 2.

I wonder if those that had issues installing (i.e. stuck at 97%, etc.) have these persistent issues because of that, and wonder if a complete reinstall might help?

I had a perfect install and I'm experiencing what others are reporting. Defiantly not an install issue. I'm on 1ghz fiber. There servers just suck.. 

41 minutes ago, Wise87 said:

I'm on 1ghz fiber.

Are you in the UK were most of the server issues have been reported?

I am in the southeast of the US. 100 Mbs cable internet and have so issues.