3 minutes ago, Huascar said:

I could upgrade to Nvidia 5090 next month or whenever it comes out, but the hardware will not fix the degraded building textures that one can observe from several miles away.  I used the term blurry because the texture gets so bad it’s almost blurry. 

From your Mahanttan example I understood clearly to start looking for a scenery problem a few miles ahead.

The Nvidia cards are costing more than the basic PC.

18 minutes ago, Huascar said:

I could upgrade to Nvidia 5090 next month or whenever it comes out, but the hardware will not fix the degraded building textures that one can observe from several miles away.  I used the term blurry because the texture gets so bad it’s almost blurry. 

I plan to get the RTX5090. But I also wonder what purpose this will actually serve. I'm not an expert but I really have the impression that we are facing a technological limitation of the Microsoft servers or a forced limitation for the Xbox. In any case, this is my personal feeling.

2 hours ago, Huascar said:

Wait, did I use the term rubbish? I think I said it looked distorted and unrealistic in the distance. Why would this offend or upset anyone?

You stated 'both MSFS 2020 and 2024 look dismally and universally bad'.  I don't think this in itself upset anybody

However, statements like this do...

2 hours ago, Huascar said:

because instead of treating flight simulation for what it is, a game, they have turned it into a religion. At least that’s my perception, based on their reaction to my post.  Offended and upset? Give me a break. Babies.

Many have tried to understand you issue and have responded respectfully.  Take your comment about the view of New York from JFK - this is the stage Osobo and technology are at.  It would be great if the Lod at 50 miles could be the same as 2 miles, but we just aren't there yet.  If this is a big issue for you, turn off photogrammetry for better looking buildings further out.

The same as your comments about the horizon compare to real life.  MSFS looks fantastic to my eyes on my system, but I appreciate it isn't going to be exactly the same as reality. You see this as blurry, but I certainly don't - I am amazed we are as this fidelity already.

Some areas of the MSFS world look quite poor, but that is a result of not all areas  being scanned at the same high resolution.  You seem to suggest this is abysmal, but it is just a fact of technological life today.

You don't seem to understand the gap between today's home flight simulator technology and reality. Reality on your home PC is a few years away so you'll just have to live with it, rather than ranting about how poor MSFS is.

2 hours ago, Huascar said:

instead of treating flight simulation for what it is, a game, they have turned it into a religion

Another comment from ignorance than is going to upset may. The simmers amongst us strive for realism, so to be told our enthusiasm is bordering on being religious is literally quite funny - this coming from somebody who can't accept many do not perceive your 'blurry' horizon problem you have. This is because we understand the concept of LOD and not everything, like Photogrammetry, is not yet perfect.

This video is over the San Diego area of the USA which looks sharp and stunning to my eyes.  If it doesn't to you, either your system, settings or expectations are off.

 

13 minutes ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

this is the stage Osobo and technology are at.  It would be great if the Lod at 50 miles could be the same as 2 miles, but we just aren't there yet.  If this is a big issue for you, turn off photogrammetry for better looking buildings further out.

You finally appear to have accepted the issue  exists instead of implying I am delusional. Buildings and objects look bad from a distance, especially in the cities. That’s why flying in clear skies is a terrible idea (melting and blurry buildings are more pronounced), 

MSFS can look good from short distances and in selected locations.  But by and large, it is not spectacularly beautiful. 

Yes, I understand the technological limitations but there’s nothing wrong with noting the problem. If something looks bad, I’ll say it.  Many in this thread have shared the same opinion. 
 

As for the offensive comments you claim I made, who started it? Go back and read the initial posts.  

58 minutes ago, filou said:

 

1 hour ago, Huascar said:

I could upgrade to Nvidia 5090 next month or whenever it comes out, but the hardware will not fix the degraded building textures that one can observe from several miles away.  I used the term blurry because the texture gets so bad it’s almost blurry. 

I plan to get the RTX5090. But I also wonder what purpose this will actually serve. I'm not an expert but I really have the impression that we are facing a technological limitation of the Microsoft servers or a forced limitation for the Xbox. In any case, this is my personal feeling.

 

You are correct, there is no hardware in existence that can fully handle MSFS 2020 and 2024 or else we wouldn’t be obsessing about using frame generation mods. These simulators will destroy even a 5090 graphics card, no mercy. 

Edited January 1, 20251 yr by Huascar

2 minutes ago, Huascar said:

You are correct, there is no hardware in existence that can fully handle MSFS 2020 and 2024 or else we wouldn’t be obsessing and using frame generation mods. These simulators will destroy even a 5090 graphics card, no mercy. 

Maybe, but how am I using just a 2080 card and not seeing any blurries? And I'm not using any frame generation. Understanding the limitations of your system is what I think your issues

2 hours ago, vonmar said:

Was this in MSFS2020, 2024 or both?

I see it "popping in" of scenery in MSFS2020.

I do not use AuotFPS and did not get MSFS2024 yet.

It says 2024 as described.

See below.

2 hours ago, Sonosusto said:

Found it to be hit/miss. Even using the AutoFPS app or not, turning up TLOD in 2024 usually was better but still had a lot of "popping in" of scenery.

This does happen in 2020 as well but I guess since I am able to turn 2024's TLOD up so much higher, I might notice it more.

Oh well. Both are good simulators. 2024 just happens to look better as default most of the time.

Sometimes, it looks worse, blurry etc. But meh.

The world is big. We are small.

And this is just a simple hobby.

11 minutes ago, Bigmack said:

Maybe, but how am I using just a 2080 card and not seeing any blurries? And I'm not using any frame generation. Understanding the limitations of your system is what I think your issues

TLOD set to 50, low settings?

6 minutes ago, Huascar said:

TLOD set to 50, low settings?

150-200 LOD

18 minutes ago, Huascar said:

TLOD set to 50, low settings?

I get excellent visuals in MSFS 2020 @ TLOD and OLOD @ 250/200 respectively using the 2015 specification PC that you can see in my signature. I run MSFS 2020 @ 1920x1080 resolution, with HIGH detail settings, TAA anti aliasing, render scaling @ 150, and I do not use any kind of frame generation or lossless scaling. I do not see any noticeable blurry textures or melted buildings in the distance, but then I always have PG disabled, and I never fly above 6000 feet in my PMDG 737-600.

Edited January 1, 20251 yr by Christopher Low

22 minutes ago, Sonosusto said:

It says 2024 as described.

See below.

This does happen in 2020 as well but I guess since I am able to turn 2024's TLOD up so much higher, I might notice it more.

Oh well. Both are good simulators. 2024 just happens to look better as default most of the time.

Sometimes, it looks worse, blurry etc. But meh.

The world is big. We are small.

And this is just a simple hobby.

Thanks for the reply and additional information.

Sorry I missed the 2024 .. initially looked for MSFS2024 ... my error.

4 minutes ago, Christopher Low said:

6000 feet in my PMDG 737-600

Your cruising altitude in a 737 is 6000 feet?

I have a top end 7950x3d system with 64g ram and a 4090

 

With a TLOD setting of 400, I see my ram usage go up to 58% and vram goes to 60%.

 

FPS averages 90 with FG in demanding situations.

 

Visuals are stunning.

 

I hope they get things worked out to where everyone can enjoy 2024.
 

 

1 hour ago, Huascar said:

You finally appear to have accepted the issue  exists instead of implying I am delusional.

I think it is the total opposite - I hope you are realising there isn't a problem as you describe it - it appears to be a limitation of MSFS technology at this point in time that you are unhappy with.  I wonder why you keep using inflammatory language like 'delusional'?  I have never stated that.

 

1 hour ago, Huascar said:

Buildings and objects look bad from a distance, especially in the cities.

Turn off photogrammetry if that particular feature of MSFS is not suitable for you.  It is not a perfect feature, with the quality varying in different locations.  Personally I have it turned off because I don't think the technology is quite there.

 

1 hour ago, Huascar said:

That’s why flying in clear skies is a terrible idea (melting and blurry buildings are more pronounced), 

I posted a video and asked for your opinion, but you completely ignored it.  I'll post it again because it shows long distances that I perceive to be sharp without blurriness  Do you find the video to show a sharp image, or a blurry one?

 

1 hour ago, Huascar said:

MSFS can look good from short distances and in selected locations.  But by and large, it is not spectacularly beautiful.

I perceive this video to show a sharp, non blurry and very beautiful scene - do you?

 

 

1 hour ago, Huascar said:

Yes, I understand the technological limitations but there’s nothing wrong with noting the problem.

Do you not realise how illogical this statement is - if you understand it is the current limits of technology on a home PC, it is not a 'problem' is it?  It would be different to say its a pity technology isn't advanced enough to make XXX better , but you described it in a very derogatory way.

 

1 hour ago, Huascar said:

As for the offensive comments you claim I made, who started it?

Who started it?  is that the level of discussion you are going for?  

Edited January 1, 20251 yr by MrBitstFlyer

35 minutes ago, vonmar said:

Thanks for the reply and additional information.

Sorry I missed the 2024 .. initially looked for MSFS2024 ... my error.

Well, hopefully I also didn't sound like a giant b u t t h o l e to you either. If I did, then my apologies.

Edited January 1, 20251 yr by Sonosusto