49 minutes ago, Huascar said:

If you like your sim so much, why don’t you sleep with it?

Ad Hominem attacks are the tool of a debater who has no valid points to make.  
-B

I think that the OP and many others who obsess about visual errors m deficiencies in MSFS would be absolutely shocked if they ever got in a real simulator, meaning a level C or D device.  These are multi million dollar devices running on server racks with projection visuals that provide depth perception... But the visuals quality is roughly FSX / P3d.

It's funny to me, what people expect to have in a sub-$100 video game on a little PC.  

3 minutes ago, Huascar said:

Grass and mountains is what you have there. Set up to land on runway 19 at Washington Reagan National, clear skies, photogrammetry, 16 miles out, and show us the video.  You will see triangular trees and a disgusting horizon.  Don’t go to remote areas to show us  your sim, go to the cities in flat terrain (front view, full visibility)

I'll do that for screenshots, if you want video I'll give you a good flat rate of $35ph plus $50 callout fee. So one hour sim, half hour video upload. Call it a round $100 bucks?

I take PayPal.

Still waiting for yours though, I mean you DID start this fire lol.

20 minutes ago, sloppysmusic said:

You mean like this? 

Sorry wrong shot it's in original link though. 

Completely flat AND buildings? 

Catastrophic photo clearly showing the problem of a completely flat topography, buildings and trees in the radius.

1 minute ago, sloppysmusic said:

I'll do that for screenshots, if you want video I'll give you a good flat rate of $35ph plus $50 callout fee. So one hour sim, half hour video upload. Call it a round $100 bucks?

 

You mean you won’t show the beauty of 2024 in a flat city?  Keep in mind, clear skies, everything on max, and photogrammetry, front view, 16 miles from touchdown down.  Sure, I can pay you 100 dollars.  That’ll buy four airports?

Some flat terrain here, KATL to KJFJ AND some rather obnoxious photowhatjammacallit.

It WAS loading for the first time an yeh its looks ______ but I don't usually fly around cities much. If you want to change your post to 2020/2024 pg looks awful (did you do that already?) then yes it does depending on where you are.

I choose to fly where it looks best personally, if there is good I WILL find it.

https://imgur.com/gallery/msfs-katl-to-kjfk-photogrammetry-loading-issues-MVfGXDl

1 minute ago, Huascar said:

You mean you won’t show the beauty of 2024 in a flat city?

Hell no, I wouldn't be seen DEAD in 2024.

Read my history, NOT a fan.

Let's just take the (XP11 and XP12 with the ORBX TrueEart series) as an example to show them how realistic it is in the visual distance of buildings and trees as far as the eye can see. 

What is difficult for me to comprehend is how a benign criticism of both MSFS 2020 and  2024 could have caused such a visceral reaction.  It’s just a game guys!!

I haven’t given up though. I hope those deficiencies will be corrected. But to deny both simulators can look highly unrealistic from far away defies logic. Never mind all the green at FL350

8 minutes ago, Huascar said:

What is difficult for me to comprehend is how a benign criticism of both MSFS 2020 and  2024 could have caused such a visceral reaction

Probably because you did not include a single piece of evidence, such as that much asked for screenshot?

I'm not doubting what you saw, but saying the Asobe sims LOOK terrible is into UFO sighting rarity so, you will get the doubters without that selfie with E.T.

 

2 hours ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

Is this 2020 screenshot blurry in the distance in your view?

And when you look at PHOTOs of actual RW aerial views from on high it looks fuzzy as well because of all of the aerosols and so forth, looking thru acrylic windows etc.  I think the outside view is very decent and find it laughable comparing this against FSX!

Scroll thru these RW photos from on high:

Sightseeing at 35,000 Feet from Dallas to San Francisco - Travel Codex

Edited December 30, 20241 yr by Noel

1 hour ago, filou said:

Of course your photo is blurry, the radius around your plane. Generally mountains do not have these problems and they help balance the problem.  It's mostly trees and buildings on flat geography around your moving plane.  I'm not even talking to you about the photogrammetry with the completely melted horizon...

Their pictures and videos are self-serving. We know what these simulators look like outside remote areas. I still use 2020, but when it decides to look bad, it looks awful. 

Very easy to imagine perfection (rhetorically speaking) when you ignore performance demands and staying within budget.

8 minutes ago, sloppysmusic said:

Probably because you did not include a single piece of evidence, such as that much asked for screenshot?

I’d be happy to provide evidence but don’t forget my video. Send me your PayPal account. I can spare 100 bucks. That’s the easy part. 

32 minutes ago, Huascar said:

What is difficult for me to comprehend is how a benign criticism of both MSFS 2020 and  2024 could have caused such a visceral reaction.  It’s just a game guys!!

Bearing in mind you told someone to go sleep with their sim if they like it so much, what reactions you’re getting would you say are visceral?