39 minutes ago, kevinfirth said:

I really dont know how much stock Asobo actually place in those votes anyway.

I also vote for all LOD/visibility issue threads i see in the official forum, the popping of scenery/aircraft is one of the most terrible things for me too in msfs2024 and almost game breaker (i have an old PC and don't use msfs2024 much so i'm not the best guy to comment on MSFS2024, but then i sometimes watch popular streamers with top of the line PCs and equipment that cost more than my car and, in their videos, i see the same issues). So yes, not sure how important votes are but when they do their monthly dev recap/videos they always put those lists sorted by votes so i guess it does make at least a little difference.

But then well, when you see the LOD issue thread posted above has less votes than 'please add beard to avatar' 😱🙊🤩😍😜 .. then well .. we realise it's a big world and we, here in this specialised forum, may not have the same priorities as the majority of the millions people playing the game.

🍻

 

Edited May 24, 20251 yr by Bad_T

6 hours ago, kevinfirth said:

I really dont know how much stock Asobo actually place in those votes anyway.   My guess is that persuasive influence from multiple developers about the technical issues and solutions would be far more likely to sway the powers that be.

From my perspective the entire voting scheme is ridiculous anyway. Why should users have to vote on which bugs or issues get fixed and in what order? A list of problems should be maintained, fixed as soon as possible and rolled out in updates. Period. 

On 5/23/2025 at 12:02 PM, MrBitstFlyer said:

I agree.  MSFS 2024 looks amazing, but looks shouldn't take away flight realism.

I responded to a post about LODS. One of the responses was to state it will be difficult to create a switch so PC users can increase viewings distances.  This hit me hard - for the first time I realised Xbox compatibility might always hold back MSFS viewings distances 

As a little test I flew across the Leeds Bradford Control zone.  MSFS 2024 looked great, but the airspace was dead.  Plenty of traffic on the TCAS, but none of it seen.  I replicated the flight in XP12.  As I entered it's control zone I could see three B737's holding short. Another B737 was starting it's take off roll. Looking left I could see an airliner on base ten plus miles away.  Underneath me I could see a police helicopter hovering. 

I'll be running MSFS2024 and XP12 for a while to see if the much better LOD distances in XP12 sway my choice of SIM going forward.  I have only admiration for what MS/Asobo have achieved with MSFS, but for me I want a flight simulator, not a game.  This LOD issue is a real problem in that regard 

 

we've just been so spoilt with MSFS visuals - XP can look incredible at certain moments (i think it's sky and clouds are now incredible), but just that "next-gen" feel of MSFS scenery where they've focused on rendering realistic looking landscapes with trees/grass etc - XP looks awful in comparison and that stops me switching still

On 5/23/2025 at 3:57 PM, Christopher Low said:

So the LOD issue is not a problem for MSFS 2024 native airports? As for Asobo making the decision as to how the base simulator operates, it is a major black mark on their CV if they have chosen to limit the LOD render distance just to get it to run on an XBox,

I have put up with the atrocious LOD's in MSFS since SU5 - the XBOX update.  It is the culling of air traffic when still close that has gradually got under my skin.  I have been testing XP12 for a few days and the world is alive with visible traffic.  XP12 looks awful many will say, but I just paused XP12 and stared at this scene...

XBOX compatibility is desirable for sales and thus third party addons, yet making users with powerful PC's suffer because of XBOX compatibility is not good.

Edited May 24, 20251 yr by MrBitstFlyer

Like this for instance?

 

 

11 minutes ago, BaronKen said:

Like this for instance?

 

 

Its a matter of opinion, but to me MrBitsFlyer image looks better 

On 5/21/2025 at 6:54 AM, udidwht said:

Did not the developer of GAIST ships join in with Asobo for 2024 and include his package??

AFAIK they were just helping with the live traffic data side. The default models are made by Gaya

Edited May 24, 20251 yr by Tuskin38

6 hours ago, BaronKen said:

From my perspective the entire voting scheme is ridiculous anyway. Why should users have to vote on which bugs or issues get fixed and in what order? A list of problems should be maintained, fixed as soon as possible and rolled out in updates. Period. 

They don’t fix them in order of popularity, it just helps them see what the community thinks is important. There have been several times where they’ve fixed bugs not even on the list, or extremely far down

18 minutes ago, Tuskin38 said:

They don’t fix them in order of popularity, it just helps them see what the community thinks is important. There have been several times where they’ve fixed bugs not even on the list, or extremely far down

I would presume that time and difficulty are factors, as well as if other related issues and sub-issues have to be solved first before a particular problem can be properly addressed.

1 hour ago, Tuskin38 said:

They don’t fix them in order of popularity, it just helps them see what the community thinks is important. There have been several times where they’ve fixed bugs not even on the list, or extremely far down

I get that and I know you're correct that many bugs and issues are fixed that aren't on those lists, but I find that entire idea unnecessary, hence my comment.

GAIST v7 installed yesterday.

Notes say LODs revised for 2024.

I'm certainly noticing ships a LOT further out than before.

On 5/23/2025 at 5:57 PM, kevinfirth said:

However, the main issue of models not appearing at all, is NOT Asobo's fault.  It is that the developers of those models did NOT include in them the necessary LODs to enable the sim to show those models under certain circumstances.

If that is the case, why do I not see ANY airborne traffic further away than a couple of miles, regardless who created the aircraft?  MS/Asobo must also have been lazy with their own default aircraft!

4 hours ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

If that is the case, why do I not see ANY airborne traffic further away than a couple of miles, regardless who created the aircraft?  MS/Asobo must also have been lazy with their own default aircraft!

What resolution do you run at?  Here's the SDK: LOD Selection System

Edited May 26, 20251 yr by kevinfirth

With the bounding sphere shown, you can get an idea of the screen space ratio that is used to calculate the LODs, as it's simply the ratio between the size of this bounding sphere and the vertical size of the screen:

You can see from the above that the LOD that the simulator thinks it needs to show is a function of how the model itself is built, and the vertical screen size of the user. 

Edited May 26, 20251 yr by kevinfirth

MinSize

As described in the Model Definitions section, each 3D object used by the simulation includes an XML file that describes its various LODs (unless you are using Simplygon to generate the LODs), for example:

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?>
<ModelInfo version="1.0" guid="">
    <LODS>
        <!-- Highest LOD -->
        <LOD minSize="80" ModelFile="MyModel_LOD00.gltf"/>
        <LOD minSize="30" ModelFile="MyModel_LOD01.gltf"/>
        <LOD minSize="20" ModelFile="MyModel_LOD02.gltf"/>
        <LOD minSize="13" ModelFile="MyModel_LOD03.gltf"/>
        <LOD minSize="8" ModelFile="MyModel_LOD04.gltf"/>
        <LOD minSize="5" ModelFile="MyModel_LOD05.gltf"/>
        <LOD minSize="1" ModelFile="MyModel_LOD06.gltf"/>
        <!-- Lowest LOD -->
    </LODS>
</ModelInfo>

In this file description the minSize attribute is the minimum vertical screen size (in %) of the bounding sphere that is required for the LOD to be displayed (its default value is 0). In the example above, MyModel_LOD00.gltf would be displayed only when the vertical size bounding sphere of the object reaches 80% of the screen size.

If the modeldef info doesnt contain a defined model to display at the necessary ratio , the simulator wont display anything.