1 minute ago, lwt1971 said:

No, I didn't 🙂 ... But you keep doing you.

 

Len, stop.  Draw a line.  

As bad as FS2024 is, XP has, as always, zero upscaling technology, atrocious anti aliasing, awful clouds and water effects and 3rd rate graphics and scenery.

Pick your poison.

2 minutes ago, Greazer said:

zero upscaling technology,

It has FSR... You really shouldn't post incorrect information. Some poeple here believe the first thing they read. 

3 minutes ago, Greazer said:

As bad as FS2024 is, XP has, as always, zero upscaling technology, atrocious anti aliasing, awful clouds and water effects and 3rd rate graphics and scenery.

Pick your poison.

Picking your poison is pretty much what we are dealing with here. 

Just now, Ianrivaldosmith said:

It has FSR... You really shouldn't post incorrect information. Some poeple here believe the first thing they read. 

Since when does XP include FSR?  With some 3rd party hack solution.  It's not included for me.

1 minute ago, Greazer said:

Since when does XP include FSR?  With some 3rd party hack solution.  It's not included for me.

It's literally in the graphics settings menu... I think you need to get your facts straight before you start spouting rubbish. 

Edited April 16, 20251 yr by Ianrivaldosmith

2 hours ago, GoranM said:

Maya/Biología/Faruk usa física del mundo real para que la iluminación y las nubes se vean bien. Anoche tuvimos una larga discusión sobre esto, entre otras cosas relacionadas con MSFS, que se mencionó en este mismo hilo, centrada específicamente en su futuro (que él y yo coincidimos en que sería perjudicial para la comunidad de simuladores de vuelo). Faruk dijo que prefiere dejar que la física del mundo real haga el trabajo pesado, en lugar de crear algo que pueda interpretarse como visualmente atractivo. Si Asobo ha alterado su trabajo para 2024, entonces lo han cambiado por algo que no usa física del mundo real.

Si tú o alguien más piensa que se ve mejor ahora que antes, entonces prefieres algo fabricado con elementos visualmente agradables, y no algo basado en la física del mundo real. Claro que es cuestión de gustos, pero muchos preferimos imágenes basadas en escenarios del mundo real, y no algo fabricado, solo porque "se ve genial".

Para que conste, no tengo ni idea de qué modelo usa Asobo para 2024, ya que no lo tengo y no pienso conseguirlo por ahora. Así que mi opinión sobre las nubes y la iluminación se basa únicamente en lo que has dicho.

This has been going on for years in the world of photography and in the end the world of ultra-processed photography has prevailed, very spectacular but very far from reality. MFS has always been very cinematographic, for better or worse.

 

It seems the negativity spread fairly fast. Yeah, I could see why. 2024 had too many bugs. Avsim plays a large role in the sim community. That being said, all of us were extremely negative from the start. Even I was but eventually came around after redoing my control settings. 2024 is vastly different now and the only major issues I am having are a few plane addons not carried over yet.

14 hours ago, Ianrivaldosmith said:

That’s because the videos are BEFORE XP12.2 beta… do some due diligence instead of just believing the first thing you see/read. 

I just viewed two videos of XP12 2.2. cloud depiction:  this is more XP propaganda they might be better than before but that cherry picked screenshot you posted does not capture what I saw thru the entire videos which were every bit as 'blurry' as pre 2.2.  I challenged you to show just ONE video that would make the case and no response, and no wonder.  Go ahead, find one and rather than talk about this SHOW it.

8 hours ago, abrams_tank said:

It's something that LR hasn't figured out since the beginning of XP 12

I'm certain this has to do with performance as it does in 2020 and 2024--they can't do any better than they currently do and from what I saw it's well behind 2024.

Just now, Noel said:

I just viewed two videos of XP12 2.2. cloud depiction:  this is more XP propaganda they might be better than before but that cherry picked screenshot you posted does not capture what I saw thru the entire videos which were every bit as 'blurry' as pre 2.2.  I challenged you to show just ONE video that would make the case and no response, and no wonder.  Go ahead, find one and rather than talk about this SHOW it.

No videos will have Cumulus.

3 hours ago, GoranM said:

If you or anyone else think it looks better now than it did, then you prefer something that is manufactured using visually pleasing elements, and not something that is rooted in real world physics.  Of course, it's down to individual tastes, but there are many of us who prefer visuals rooted in real world scenarios, and not something manufactured, just because it "looks cool".

<<<That, is always the bases of the XP snobbery I started seeing when 2020 released and I dared to share screenshots on their forum.  Smug, elitist BS.

Obviously the terrain and ground textures don't look very good in XP without adding some addons. The lighting is quite convincing in the new beta, though.

Today I flew in the area of Newquay (Cornwall) in MSFS24. The coast looks absolutely stunning. Neither MSFS20 nor XP are very realistic there.

Edited April 16, 20251 yr by crimplene

On 4/15/2025 at 4:13 AM, Ixoye said:

I hate pop-in and wouldn't put up with it for more than 5 minutes

Just so's ya know:  I don't have any pop-in in 2024 but I'm well-tuned perhaps that matters.

The Cornwall coast looks pretty good to me in MSFS 2020.

The Cornish coastline is sublime in 2024. Gets a bit rough when you get to Devon 😉