Does anyone else find the rendering quality of the clouds in the far distance in MSFS 2024 is really bad?

The clouds up close seem just about the same quality as MSFS 2020 but they look so low resolution in the distance and on the horizon in 2024 whereas in 2020 they don’t seem to lose the quality no matter where they are drawn.

 

 

Edited January 14, 20251 yr by abennett

No, I do not think so

Sounds like you have an entirely different experience.  2024 has the best clouds I've experienced in flight sims.  Only thing missing is the turbulence hitting the clouds.

2 hours ago, abennett said:

Does anyone else find the rendering quality of the clouds in the far distance in MSFS 2024 is really bad?

Default and ActiveSky look good to me.

 

Interesting, I’ll try and get some screenshots, but it’s always hard to tell from a screenshot.

 

I definitely see really poor quality clouds on the horizon if there are no other clouds around me blocking the view of them.

2 hours ago, abennett said:

Does anyone else find the rendering quality of the clouds in the far distance in MSFS 2024 is really bad?

It is true in both 2020 and 2024. I created a post making the same argument and it was a heated debate. You are not imagining the melting buildings in the distance, the poor quality clouds, or flat terrain without a single 3D object. The visuals of both 2020 and 2024 degrade in the distance. They’re still the best sims in the market because there is limited or no competition.

Edited January 14, 20251 yr by Huascar

4 minutes ago, abennett said:

I definitely see really poor quality clouds on the horizon if there are no other clouds around me blocking the view of them.

It is not your imagination, it’s real. Both sims look great in the short distance, but they look very unrealistic from far distances. And it makes sense because there is a hardware limitation. You can’t have amazing 3D objects for vast distances. The only solution is not to look far and beyond. 

 

2 minutes ago, Huascar said:

It is not your imagination, it’s real. Both sims look great in the short distance, but they look very unrealistic from far distances. And it makes sense because there is a hardware limitation. You can’t have amazing 3D objects for vast distances. The only solution is not to look far and beyond. 

 

Yeah but I didn’t notice the degradation of the clouds in the distance so much in 2020. In 2024 it is super super obvious.

1 hour ago, Huascar said:

melting buildings in the distance

If photogrammetry is turned off, you will have sharp buildings. It also depends on the area with some photogrammetry being superb.

 

1 hour ago, Huascar said:

the poor quality clouds

The clouds in my videos above are not poor quality in the distance.

 

1 hour ago, Huascar said:

or flat terrain without a single 3D object

My videos above do not show flat terrain in the distance. I am using a TLOD of 300 and buildings go way off into the distance.

 

1 hour ago, Huascar said:

The visuals of both 2020 and 2024 degrade in the distance.

This is why the other debate got heated. If you are referring to photogrammetry I may agree with you depending on area. Everything else is sharp out to the horizon for me depending on the atmospheric conditions. Do you fond the building, clouds or anything else 'degraded' in the distance (taken shortly after release so ignore the terrain bottom left)?  Just trying to gauge what you deem to be degraded.

In the video below you already stated it is sharp out to the distance - do you see anything degraded?  Again, trying to deem what you are referring to as degraded, so it can be narrowed down to perception, system or configuration.

 

This probably needs its own topic but, IMO overall the clouds just keep getting worse. Sure sometimes they may look pretty, but it's all smoke in mirrors; there's no feeling of motion anymore when going into or out of a cloud deck - it's almost like this slow transition. Next time your climbing into an overcast layer notice how the ground stays visible mostly through the whole "layer" then the ground eventually fades out and voila, you're climbing out of the tops. This also applies to partly cloudy situation with cumulus clouds, its really weird because if you climb up into a layer of broken or partly cloudy puffs it looks like you should get over the cloud tops in 1,000 feet or so, but instead it just "keeps going" as if the layer builds as you climb (eventually you do get over the tops but there's just something off with the way the clouds are being drawn). Rubbish. Still no thunderstorms or towering cumulus and although they tried to implement cirrus clouds, it's a half-hearted attempt and it shows. All of this was not a thing before MSFS 2020 SU5, the clouds were much better back then.

Also I've noticed that if using live / historical weather (2024), the weather behaves just like using active sky.. instead of a "set world" of weather systems, there are transitions of weather areas now, and they are not gradual - you see clouds disintegrate or build up unrealistically fast. I suppose that's fine if you want historical weather and better than nothing, but I feel ActiveSky has them beat on the historical weather.

43 minutes ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

This is why the other debate got heated. If you are referring to photogrammetry

I think that’s largely the issue that it depends on where you fly. You know there are very few  select areas where MSFS looks decent, but the rest of the world looks pretty unrealistic and awful. 

11 hours ago, abennett said:

Does anyone else find the rendering quality of the clouds in the far distance in MSFS 2024 is really bad?

No.

Next!

14 hours ago, Huascar said:

You know there are very few  select areas where MSFS looks decent

I think there are a few poor areas, many decent areas and some truly amazing areas.

20 hours ago, abennett said:

Does anyone else find the rendering quality of the clouds in the far distance in MSFS 2024 is really bad?

I actually am quite impressed with 2024's clouds altogether.  As for appearance at distance all I can say is no it is OK for me, the other week I flew up to Brisbane using real weather setting and you could clearly see a storm moving in, the detail was great and made me divert to a clear airfield.

 

1 hour ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

I think there are a few poor areas, many decent areas and some truly amazing areas.

Don't forget, hyperbole is his first language in these threads.