1 hour ago, abrams_tank said:

Look at this thread with photos from MSFS 2024 vs real life photos at the same location: 

Aside from the photo of the city (the first photo), it's virtually impossible for MSFS 2020 to generate that level of graphics and details that you see in the photos of MSFS 2024 in that thread.  MSFS 2020 can only match MSFS 2024 at these locations with custom scenery.  But we don't have custom scenery for the entire world, right?  This is where MSFS 2024 shines, in that if you fly outside the city, you get graphics and scenery like that thread shows across the entire world, albeit, it's outside cities where MSFS 2024 really shines the best.

And here is another video with obvious graphical differences between MSFS 2020 and MSFS 2024:

Cities are a different matter, because MSFS 2024 is using photogrammetry just like MSFS 2020.  The trees are improved in MSFS 2024, so that makes the cities look a little better in MSFS 2024.  And some of the patches of land also look a little better and more realistic in MSFS 2024, so in the suburban areas on the edge of a metropolitan city where there starts to be land, it may look better in MSFS 2024.  But for cities, it's not a huge improvement in MSFS 2024. The huge improvement is outside cities.

Having said that, if you fly at 30K feet in the air, MSFS 2024 may be slightly better than MSFS 2020, but not way, way, better. The graphics differences between MSFS 2020 and MSFS 2024 is mostly at the ground level, not at 30K feet in the air.

In any case, if you can figure out the locations of the photos in that Reddit thread, try going there with MSFS 2020.  It will look radically different in MSFS 2020 versus MSFS 2024.

 

 

impressive, but it seems when FS2024 is showcased it is nearly always ground level photos, there doesn't seem much to be gained for tubeliner pilots

I will buy in at some point, but I hope the much touted improved physics are the amazing leap we are being promised because otherwise the differences seem negligible at this point for IFR flying

when I tune into an FS stream, I always have to look for which sim is being used, it's often impossible to tell the difference

Edited February 20, 20251 yr by EGLD

1 hour ago, Christopher Low said:

No, I just haven't been obsessed with getting higher and higher framerates over the years, so I can cope with 30fps without seeing any imaginary slideshow

And the thing is – from my perspective – I can see the difference between 30FPS and 60FPS... in a game with complex character animations, that is. But locked 30FPS looks just as smooth in MSFS (again, to me) because there really is not much in the way of animation to focus on.

I mean, my eyes have been doing fine watching cinema movies at 24FPS all these years, too, without thinking dear god, this is just a horrible slideshow giving the illusion of motion.

6 minutes ago, EGLD said:

 

impressive, but it seems when FS2024 is showcased it is nearly always ground level photos, there doesn't seem much to be gained for tubeliner pilots

I will buy in at some point, but I hope the much touted improved physics are the amazing leap we are being promised because otherwise the differences seem negligible at this point for IFR flying

when I tune into an FS stream, I always have to look for which sim is being used, it's often impossible to tell the difference

Yeah, that's what I said in my comment:

Quote

Having said that, if you fly at 30K feet in the air, MSFS 2024 may be slightly better than MSFS 2020, but not way, way, better. The graphics differences between MSFS 2020 and MSFS 2024 is mostly at the ground level, not at 30K feet in the air.

If you like bush flying, low level helicopter flying, and just low level flying in general, MSFS 2024 is a huge, huge, improvement over MSFS 2020. At 30K feet, maybe not as huge of an improvement over MSFS 2020.

[img]https://i.imgur.com/9Dsb5dn.png[/img]

Far and away the best screenshot I have taken in ANY sim. Only visual add-on is the airport off in the distance. This is where I live and it looks like home more than 2020 ever did. Between the lighting, the trees (they do need a reduction in height but nowhere near as bad as when 2020 launched with porcupine mountains), the clouds and the rest of the ground scenery, there is absolutely a big difference between 2024 and 2020.

Note that this pic was taken from the SU1 beta after the loss of ground detail at higher altitudes was fixed.

Edited February 20, 20251 yr by Krakin

2 hours ago, abrams_tank said:

Cities are a different matter, because MSFS 2024 is using photogrammetry just like MSFS 2020.  The trees are improved in MSFS 2024, so that makes the cities look a little better in MSFS 2024.  And some of the patches of land also look a little better and more realistic in MSFS 2024, so in the suburban areas on the edge of a metropolitan city where there starts to be land, it may look better in MSFS 2024.  But for cities, it's not a huge improvement in MSFS 2024. The huge improvement is outside cities.

Ah yes, the trees are better. Just from what you've posted there I'd say most people have convinced themselves that 2024 is basically like looking at a new simulator, when in reality it is absolutely not that different at all. Very small cosmetic differences I can swallow but these superlatives being trotted out to make it sound like 2020 is far inferior are just nonsense really aren't they? 

25 minutes ago, El Diablito said:

Ah yes, the trees are better. Just from what you've posted there I'd say most people have convinced themselves that 2024 is basically like looking at a new simulator, when in reality it is absolutely not that different at all. Very small cosmetic differences I can swallow but these superlatives being trotted out to make it sound like 2020 is far inferior are just nonsense really aren't they? 

And you watched the Youtube video that I posted as well? I don't know what to say if you can't tell the difference between MSFS 2020 and MSFS 2024 in that Youtube video I posted.  It's like night and day, some of the differences shown.

Just watch the very first comparison in that Youtube video of the Amazon forest (there are 3 Amazon forest comparisons, but I am referring to the very first one), in the same spot in MSFS 2020 and MSFS 2024. That comparison alone looks like a 7 year difference in graphics technology (of course, it's a comparison at the ground level though, not 30K feet in the air):

Like, if you can't tell the difference between the first Amazon forest comparison (first of the three), I really don't know what to say.

Edited February 20, 20251 yr by abrams_tank

1 hour ago, March Hare said:

my eyes have been doing fine watching cinema movies at 24FPS all these years, too, without thinking dear god, this is just a horrible slideshow giving the illusion of motion.

As I explained in the post, it is the SIMULATOR that is tasked with giving the illusion of motion NOT the movie. The movie tends to let you believe you are observing motion and not moving yourself as you are obviously NOT in the scene. 

Movies that DO attempt to make you believe YOU are moving absolutely need 60fps minimum. For an example here is the trailer for the visually amazing Hardcore Henry. The entire movie is shot through the 'eyes' of the protagonist.  Watching it you very quickly get the adrenaline rush that actually trying to escape hundreds of enemies hellbent on killing you might give you IRL. Watch it at 24/30p at your peril.

 

AS I'm now in the phase of simming cycle dedicated to X-Plane 12, flying airliner flights in my other sim, I just found today yet another difference, for the better in MSFS, regarding the way fog is depicted in both simulators.

This morning there was dense fog at LPPT : 

LPPT 200830Z 09004KT 020V150 0050 R20/0175N FG VV001 10/10 Q1026

I fired up Xp12 and went flying the Toliss 32N, and sure taxxing was tricky, takeoff too, initial climb through the assigned SID, inside of the clouds but then, all of a sudden, blue skies all around with some cloud patches where the dense cloud layers were just one second before.

I decided to disengage the AP and manually flew back towards the airport, at a constant alt. After a few seconds the dense clouds / fog popped up again and I was again in IMC. 

Tried the same without Active Sky XP, used also default weather - NADA! Fog / dense cloud layers simply popped in / out ruining an otherwise really nice experience 😞

Although this is my Xp12 time, i decided to fire up FS 2024, took the chance to update it to the new beta, and started from LPPT, where there surely was fog, all along the SID, and, as I got away I could see the area still densely filled, but not turning into blue skies! MSFS wins !

MSFS also wins easily in the night skies with clouds which Xp12 does not show, unless there's Moonlight...

5 hours ago, jcomm said:

I tried DLSS4 and I like it. Have to update the sim to the latest patch and fetch the presets again.

I have solid 30 fps, which is somethings I was almost never able to achieve with P3D or FSX, and I'm only in the 3060 Ti and a 5600x with 32 GB RAM,

How did you deal with the DLSS ghosting in glass displays? I understand you also have a 1080p monitor.

35 minutes ago, sloppysmusic said:

As I explained in the post, it is the SIMULATOR that is tasked with giving the illusion of motion NOT the movie. The movie tends to let you believe you are observing motion and not moving yourself as you are obviously NOT in the scene. 

Movies that DO attempt to make you believe YOU are moving absolutely need 60fps minimum. For an example here is the trailer for the visually amazing Hardcore Henry. The entire movie is shot through the 'eyes' of the protagonist.  Watching it you very quickly get the adrenaline rush that actually trying to escape hundreds of enemies hellbent on killing you might give you IRL. Watch it at 24/30p at your peril.

 

I was being a little tongue in cheek, while also hinting that context matters. So I can see a difference between a 30 and a 60 FPS character action game. Conversely, I don't see any motion issue at a locked 30 frames in MSFS; it's perfectly smooth to me. The game context is different between the two genres. Just as Hardcore Henry is a different context in the movie world.

4 minutes ago, March Hare said:

it's perfectly smooth to me.

No one is disputing that it isnt smooth. It may well be. Its the feeling of fluidity that is missing at 30FPS, which is actually massive in a flightsim. Ask @MrBitstFlyer

6 minutes ago, Ianrivaldosmith said:

No one is disputing that it isnt smooth. It may well be. Its the feeling of fluidity that is missing at 30FPS

Good point. You can have a locked down 'smooth' solid 15fps or even 1fps, with zero stutters. Speed and smoothness are not the same!

A max fps of 60 for instance is no use if it drops lower during busy rendering. For arguments sake I reckon when discussing frame rates we should all be assuming we are talking about LOCKED non variable rates so we are talking about the same experience!

7 minutes ago, Ianrivaldosmith said:

No one is disputing that it isnt smooth. It may well be. Its the feeling of fluidity that is missing at 30FPS, which is actually massive in a flightsim. Ask @MrBitstFlyer

I'm not disputing anything, either. I was only making a passing remark about my experience with FPS.

I'm not sure how you're differentiating between fluidity and smoothness, either. Again, I'm not seeing any issue with 30 frames locked, so terminology is irrelevant to my subjective user experience, which MrBitsFlyer can't comment on.

3 minutes ago, sloppysmusic said:

Good point. You can have a locked down 'smooth' solid 15fps or even 1fps, with zero stutters. Speed and smoothness are not the same!

A max fps of 60 for instance is no use if it drops lower during busy rendering. For arguments sake I reckon when discussing frame rates we should all be assuming we are talking about LOCKED non variable rates so we are talking about the same experience!

Well, I did say locked from the start. Obviously a variable frame rate isn't smooth or fluid or whatever when it's jumping around.

7 minutes ago, March Hare said:

I'm not sure how you're differentiating between fluidity and smoothness,

https://www.testufo.com 

Thats the best way to describe it. Go run the test for yourself on a medium/high hz screen.