46 minutes ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

I don't know why you have such a beef about it

It's your uses of certain words I find inaccurate, wrong, and even laced with negative connotation.  YOU call it 'over sharpened'.  That is 1000% subjective, the 'over' part.  Had you said with 'very sharpened or highly sharpened' there is no negative connotation and I would have no beef.  It's similar to your statement that 'it's a fact weather/clouds are improved in 2024'.  That too, is highly subjective.  You can say you find weather/clouds improved in 2024 no arguments there, or even that 'most' people find blah blah blah.  It's your choice of words and also the strange ignoring of the moon size reality.  You never agreed 2024 moon was too small until well after you tried to attribute this to my zoom level which would never improve this issue enough to matter.  That's all nothing more nor less.

Let's move on...

6 minutes ago, Noel said:

You never agreed 2024 moon was too small until well after you tried to attribute this to my zoom level which would never improve this issue enough to matter

Sigh.  It would not fix an MS/Osobo decision to make the moon too small, but a too small zoom setting in MSFS WILL make it smaller than it needs to be - that is my point I was making! 

7 minutes ago, Noel said:

YOU call it 'over sharpened'.  That is 1000% subjective, the 'over' part.

You like lots of sharpening, great.  It is YOU that have posted graphical anomalies that look like over sharpening to some of us - not only me that has commented about this.  

12 minutes ago, Noel said:

It's similar to your statement that 'it's a fact weather/clouds are improved in 2024'.  That too, is highly subjective.

No, it isn't, it is a fact. MS/Asobo have improved the algorithms and constants used for the passage of light through the atmosphere and clouds - the constants used in 2020 were incorrect.

Anybody preferring the clouds prior/after  the improvement is the subjective part.

1 hour ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

I find it crucial to have the correct FOV in a driving sim so all distances and speed are accurate.  I use TrackIR in iRacing that helps enormously with situational awareness. After all, the real drivers view is restricted by the helmet so they have to move their heads left and right too!

Correct...  Same as in the real car you should have to turn your head a bit to see the wing mirrors even though we have come to largely rely upon screens and camera systems already but the great thing about trackir in racing is the ability to disconnect the view from the direction of motion so you can properly look through a corner and pick out peripheral spots regardless of direction of travel...  Even the turn head with wheel option isn't adequate for how much you move your head in the car in real life however it's also shocking how small a range of motion you have when your Hans is connected.  Nothing like watching a driver feel all over the car for the sunglasses and gloves in their lap until they give up and call someone to come get the things out of their lap for them on the radio.  (not that i have ever done that 😉 ) 

 

17 minutes ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

No, it isn't, it is a fact.

MS/A have changed the algorithms, and some like the changes and some don't.  Those are facts, you're confusing fact with opinion once again.

4 hours ago, Noel said:

Yes of course and for that we get a greater sense of speed and a larger FOV.  Part of that is the width of the VC we're in in a desktop sim plane is very small by comparison to the RW so it helps bring in a sense of breadth and scale.  I look at these deviations from trying to mimic reality as using poetic license to make the experience better visually.  I'm also one who doesn't like dirty scratched windows in planes and prefer new and shiny over perhaps more realistic in appearance.

Amen to that. There was really no need for the EFB suction cup mark on the captain's left side window in the PMDG 777F

2 hours ago, Noel said:

MS/A have changed the algorithms, and some like the changes and some don't.  Those are facts, you're confusing fact with opinion once again.

Nope, the depiction is more accurate based on color science /coefficients/light scattering something else (I'm not the scientist here) - there was a very long thread on this with a real expert who showed MS/A what values to change (based on multiple published research papers), and it was so good that they implemented it in the core sim. They thanked the person who started the thread as well. 

So the fact remains that the new colors are more accurate - quantitatively, emperically. Subjectively, you don't like it, that's your opinion and of course that will vary. 

I'll try and dig out that thread for people to read. 

Edit - https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/replace-the-atmosphere-parameters-with-more-accurate-ones-from-arpc/607603

Edited March 8, 20251 yr by JonathanC

Just now, JonathanC said:

I'll try and dig out that thread for people to read. 

I read that thread and I like the way you frame the discussion referring to some facts and the history behind it.  How good of a job they did in implementing this in terms of coloration piece I'm still not convinced on yet, especially dawn/dusk.  When I say convinced I mean a better total subjective experience than 2020.  I'm finding more good than bad in 2024 in terms of weather/clouds/lighting as I put in more hours in 2024.  And the changes in terrain/mesh detail are very compelling overall.

 

 

40 minutes ago, Noel said:

I read that thread and I like the way you frame the discussion referring to some facts and the history behind it.  How good of a job they did in implementing this in terms of coloration piece I'm still not convinced on yet, especially dawn/dusk.  When I say convinced I mean a better total subjective experience than 2020.  I'm finding more good than bad in 2024 in terms of weather/clouds/lighting as I put in more hours in 2024.  And the changes in terrain/mesh detail are very compelling overall.

 

 

Sure, of course they can improve stuff, and I'm not saying the sky and clouds are "done" and don't need to be improved. But they didn't just do this on a whim... there's science behind it, which I personally don't understand, but I like what I see

8 minutes ago, Noel said:

I read that thread and I like the way you frame the discussion referring to some facts and the history behind it.  How good of a job they did in implementing this in terms of coloration piece I'm still not convinced on yet, especially dawn/dusk.  When I say convinced I mean a better total subjective experience than 2020.  I'm finding more good than bad in 2024 in terms of weather/clouds/lighting as I put in more hours in 2024.  And the changes in terrain/mesh detail are very compelling overall.

Noel you of course feel this way and that's completely fair.. but one thing I can say for myself, and also based on a good majority of opinions I've heard so far, the atmospheric lighting in 2024 is certainly better and more realistic than 2020. And it makes sense since they completely re-wrote the atmospheric lighting engine (above and beyond the changing of constants they initially did in 2020). The new lighting engine is photometric with more accurate color grading, and each light source in the sim (from the sun all the way down to street lamps) being set with the actual physical light properties like intensity in lumens, temperature/color, etc.

Also light scattering and the interplay with the clouds is much better and more realistic now (i.e. when the sun goes down the lower altitude clouds don't get the same amount of sunlight as the higher altitude clouds, that wasn't simulated in 2020). All of this is why I find lighting and atmospheric colors during the sunrise/sunset/dusk hours to be better depicted in 2024.

I also feel depiction of visibility, fog, haze etc is better in 2024. And the live weather clouds have more density and are less transparent than in 2020.

One thing interesting about the new atmospheric lighting engine is that based on how it works it also fixed the horizon line problem in 2020. From a previous Q&A https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/september-2023-live-developer-stream-transcription/610612:

Seb: "So, basically, this is a precision issue related to the mathematical calculations we use in Microsoft Flight Simulator 2020. It’s a precision problem inherent to the method we’ve been using, and unfortunately, there’s no complete solution within this method. The only way to entirely fix it is to change the entire method of handling atmospheric scattering, essentially requiring a completely different atmospheric engine"

Seb: “This issue required a complete overhaul of the atmospheric engine. For those who are mathematically inclined, there are two integrals involved. In Microsoft Flight Simulator 2020, these integrals were pre-computed, which led to precision errors. In the rework of the atmospheric engine, everything is sampled in real-time, with the graphics card handling the computations, eliminating virtually all precision errors. This was a significant architectural change."
 

3 hours ago, Noel said:

MS/A have changed the algorithms, and some like the changes and some don't.  Those are facts, you're confusing fact with opinion once again.

The algorithms, constants and coefficients used to portray light in the atmosphere in 2024 are more accurate to real life. This is the fact I am referring to and you cannot argue against it 

Liking a more or less realistic portrayal of the light is the subjective opinion - this is personal choice and is down to the individual.

What I AM NOT SAYING is anybody liking 2020 more is somehow wrong in their choice of SIM.

 

2 hours ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

The algorithms, constants and coefficients used to portray light in the atmosphere in 2024 are more accurate to real life.   This is the fact I am referring to and you cannot argue against it 

And I wouldn't because those are actual historical facts unlike the emphatic statement, "2024 weather and lighting is better, it's a fact".   It's a fact that you believe it's better, and others as well, and another fact that some don't find it better.  That's all, keep facts clear from judgements and opinions.   And as said, not unlike your use of the word, "over" when it applied to sharpening.  "Over" is your judgement call, that's all.  The fact was, Noel uses high levels of sharpening.  Where that is too much (over) or too little is the judgement call.  

5 hours ago, lwt1971 said:

Noel you of course feel this way and that's completely fair.. but one thing I can say for myself, and also based on a good majority of opinions I've heard so far, the atmospheric lighting in 2024 is certainly better and more realistic than 2020.

I'm starting to lean there myself already after the initial lukewarm.  I'm one who takes a while when new stuff arrives on the scene.  I think there will be a bright future for MSFS 2024 and it's becoming easier to see why some abandon 2020 fairly quickly.   The 3 magnitudes of increase in polygon counts presumably don't come into play much if at all with voxel cloud rendering so MS/A didn't have all that much to work with compared to ground textures which are indeed often very impressive and add greatly to immersion for me even as an airliner flyer.

I'm sure not everyone is going to find it as impressive as I do, but I'm continually floored by how much fidelity you can get out of the sim.

On a bit of a whim I decided to go on a morning tour around Bohemia - for fans of Kingdom Come Deliverance - a journey from Rattay to Kuttenburg.
The ground detail and lighting particularly stood out. And yes we can argue about whether the farms should be like this in winter or not, or if the camera sometimes over-exposes detail (I'd agree that it does occasionally). But just the fact that this kind of detail spans almost the entire earth is just lovely.

Edited March 9, 20251 yr by Georgleboui

7 hours ago, Georgleboui said:

I'm sure not everyone is going to find it as impressive as I do, but I'm continually floored by how much fidelity you can get out of the sim.

I understand. For all it’s frustrations it more often than not delivers breathtaking scenes of familiar landscapes and skies.

Just after it was released I did the jump in a bug smasher and fly over your own house thing. I managed to land in the fields behind my home without flipping the plane over. I peered through the screen at the winter tree line at the bottom of the field and the distinctive shape of the hill rising behind it and realised I’d actually stood at this very spot a couple of weeks previously.

Uncanny….