49 minutes ago, abrams_tank said:

So you agree bush flying is a part of flight simulation, but that an improvement in terrain isn't important for bush flying?

Doesn't an improvement in terrain benefit bush flyers?

Don't waste your energy, my brother. Sometimes, FOMO can cause people to do everything in their power to convince themselves that not trying something new was the best decision.

25 minutes ago, Noel said:

I'm running both sims maxed and while I do see the improvements which are substantial a lot of that is when you up very close to objects like trees and other vegetation and it's very appealing overall.  I let myself crash into the mountains behind Santa Barbara CA and was amazed at the detail.  But for me, it's not exactly where I would wish detail to be in a flight sim.  I'd farther rather see that put into cloud depiction.  That being said super quality cloud depiction with the current volumetric rendering is apparently so performance intensive it's not really within the realm of possibility at this point time, or so is my take.  But not all is required to be right on top of something to notice the change.  At KDEN where I live in 2020 the Front Range from a distance really looks weak in 2020 compared to 2024, in terms of detail.  All of this being said, and I'm only 12 days or so into 2024, if I had to throw one sim out and keep only one, it would be 2020 absolutely.  Not just for fully mature compatibility and overall maturity, but it's really excellent even compared to 2024 and performance is better in 2020...that would be compared to where I'm wanting to config 2024 so as to access these detail improvements.  That is my opinion on Day 12 or so and I expect it will change as I get more familiar with 2024.  

Thanks, Noel. That's a thoughtful assessment. Just the kind of info I needed, as opposed to the standard

HAVE YOU SEEN THE STONESSS or the TREEEEES? WHAT ARE YOU, STOOPID? OH, YOURE ONE OF THOSE TYPES.

Have a good weekend, guys, and enjoy your flying

 

 

 

21 minutes ago, Noel said:

Okay here's another person experiencing this to some degree.  What antialiasing method are you using?

16X is a cure for this issue as far as I'm aware 

31 minutes ago, El Diablito said:

16X is a cure for this issue as far as I'm aware 

Not here, unfortunately.  TAA fixes it but the perf impact is significant with TAA over DLSS4.

At 30K+ feet, what is most noticeable (for me) in terms of visual depiction improvements over 2020 (that are non-trivial):

• environmental lighting (big improvement... and that makes sense since the lighting engine was revamped)
• lighting of/in the clouds (very noticeable improvement)
• clouds depiction in live weather: there are conflicting reports here of course, but to me it definitely is overall improved especially the clouds density and them not being as "see through" as they were in 2020, more variety rather than cumulus-overload, and also much less volcanic ash looks which used to occur under certain lighting conditions and low sun in 2020
• new cloud types like cirrus
• better depiction of visibility, fog, haze, etc
• seasons
• ray-traced cockpit lighting
   

Of course given that I also love my low+slow flying, all the terrain-level improvements (which of course is where the most striking visual improvements are vs 2020) including 3D trees and the various different biomes etc are a big benefit. But given that I also need to traverse from ground level up-to/down-from 30K feet, I enjoy these visual improvements a lot when flying airliners too 🙂 ... and most airliner simmers are most engaged on take-offs and landings I'd say, so they're looking at the terrain/flora at lower altitudes enough to appreciate improvements there.
 

Edited February 21, 20251 yr by lwt1971

22 minutes ago, lwt1971 said:

At 30K+ feet, what is most noticeable (for me) in terms of visual depiction improvements over 2020 (that are non-trivial):

• environmental lighting (big improvement... and that makes sense since the lighting engine was revamped)
• lighting of/in the clouds (very noticeable improvement)
• clouds depiction in live weather: there are conflicting reports here of course, but to me it definitely is overall improved especially the clouds density and them not being as "see through" as they were in 2020, more variety rather than cumulus-overload, and also much less volcanic ash looks which used to occur under certain lighting conditions and low sun in 2020
• new cloud types like cirrus
• better depiction of visibility, fog, haze, etc
• seasons
• ray-traced cockpit lighting
   

Of course given that I also love my low+slow flying, all the terrain-level improvements (which of course is where the most striking improvements are vs 2020) including 3D trees etc are a big benefit. But given that I also need to traverse from ground level up-to/down-from 30K feet, I enjoy these visual improvements a lot when flying airliners too 🙂 ... and most airliner simmers are most engaged on take-offs and landings I'd say, so they're looking at the terrain/flora at lower altitudes enough to appreciate improvements there.
 

Pretty much. MSFS 2024 is the complete package. You like bush flying? Great, MSFS 2024 is the best for bush flying.

But if you like to fly at 30K feet, it's also great, because you may notice improvements during takeoff and landing (especially seasons, that's a big one).  And the better lighting, cirrus clouds, and improved cloud lighting, is something that you can notice at 30K feet.

1 hour ago, El Diablito said:

16X is a cure for this issue as far as I'm aware 

You talk about anisotropic filtering I guess, there is no such thing like 16x antialiasing...

27 minutes ago, lwt1971 said:

....and most airliner simmers are most engaged on take-offs and landings I'd say, so they're looking at the terrain/flora at lower altitudes enough to appreciate improvements there.
 

I fly my airliners "low and slow" precisely because I enjoy looking at the scenery. That being the case, the obviously improved ground detail in MSFS 2024 is certainly of interest to me. However, I am a fussy guy. I like things to be close to perfect, so there are elements of the new simulator that prevent me from switching any time soon. Incompatibility of PMDG planes is the obvious one. Less than perfect compatibility (as far as I am aware) of GAIST is another. Stuff like all of the traffic (air/sea/road) sliders being rolled into one also bothers me, and let's not forget the new system for setting up controls! I am also concerned about the aggressive LOD system. The distance at which scenery objects appear in MSFS 2020 is close enough already. I do not want this to be even worse.

Am I being over cautious? Possibly. The point here though is that I still enjoy the scenery and level of detail in MSFS 2020. I have lots of addon airports that work perfectly. I have two high quality airliners (PMDG 737-600 and 777F) that are a joy to fly. I know the faults of MSFS 2020, and have learned to tolerate them (well.....almost) I need a much bigger incentive to move than many other flight simmers (as my three years with P3Dv4 after the release of MSFS 2020 proves in spades).

Having said that, I cannot deny that improved flight dynamics and ground handling is something that I would very much like to experience. That is one weakness of MSFS 2020 that would be nice to see relegated to the past. These attributes are good enough in MSFS 2020 with the PMDG aircraft for me to be relatively comfortable, but I would love to see improvements (particularly ground handling, and also that annoying "rocking" motion that the 737 exhibits before it makes a turn; curiously this does not appear to be the case with the 777).

So, I will remain on my sturdy fence, and observe the progress of MSFS 2024 from a safe distance

47 minutes ago, lwt1971 said:

Of course given that I also love my low+slow flying all the terrain-level improvements (which of course is where the most striking improvements are vs 2020) including 3D trees etc are a big benefit

This opens up new vistas literally for me.  I've been glued to airliner flying for score using SLC + APL and envisioned 2024 opening up new kinds of GA flying, which is what I started with way back when.  And will have a look at aerial fire fighting and other fun stuff.  I think one of the realities for most is that 2020 is indeed a great sim on its own, and no doubt 2024 is a whole lot of 2020 plus some nice changes as you outlined.  I can see a day when it will make sense to say bye bye to 2020 but for now it's still a killer flight sim.  I'm in the midst of KBNA>KDEN and the reality for me is out the window it's pretty much identical to 2024.  And I've been pretty happy overall with 2020 cloud depiction and in some ways prefer it over what I've seen in some scenarios.

5 minutes ago, Christopher Low said:

So, I will remain on my sturdy fence, and observe the progress of MSFS 2024 from a safe distance

I bought pre launch, and installed only 14d ago or so.  If MSFS 2020 in its current state is the benchmark for the full flight sim package and so gets a score of 100, I would give 2024 a score of 74 for all of the things that are missing full compatibility.  Plus the UI is not very attractive to me compared to 2020's which is elegantly simple and clean by comparison.  Just my take others will feel differently.  Basic things like a mandatory walkaround which is not something RW captains would be doing every time up.  I found a nice utility for $5 on Simmarket to lose that piece thankfully.

3 hours ago, Krakin said:

Don't waste your energy, my brother. Sometimes, FOMO can cause people to do everything in their power to convince themselves that not trying something new was the best decision.

Yeah, it's like I say the terrain has improved in MSFS 2024 and it shows in the photos and videos, but then they go "it's just the trees," and I'm like no, terrain is more than just trees 🤣

But yeah, I totally get yeah 👍

 

Edited February 21, 20251 yr by abrams_tank

4 hours ago, Noel said:

Okay here's another person experiencing this to some degree.  What antialiasing method are you using?

So, for context, I was on MSFS 2020 with my GTX 1070 card, and TAA antialiasing, 1080p. I've since bought a RTX 4070 Super but have only used it to test VR flying briefly. I keep meaning to go back and compare 2D flying and see if the grid is noticeable with my new card in the same scenarios, with the same TAA native 4K. Then try DLSS.

Then it will be interesting to compare 2024 when I upgrade to the new sim in hopefully the next month.

A lot of people seem to be buying the 4070 Super. The 4070 Super Ti has 16GB of memory compared to the Super's 12. I bought the regular 4070 because it was smaller and fit into my small case and draws less power (my psu is 600 watts and it would be a bear to remove from the small case).

7 hours ago, El Diablito said:

Can we be honest here and just say there isnt much difference between the 2 sims?

No coz that wouldn’t be honest. That would be dishonestly ignoring the big improvements in sky colours, clouds, and lighting, and Ray traced shadows in the cockpit.

edit: as @lwt1971 laid out more eloquently

Edited February 21, 20251 yr by scotchegg

I must be doing something wrong. Even with ultra settings in 2024, the terrain is washed out, ground seems not near as sharp as 2024. Often disappointed with the 2024 graphics.