1 hour ago, andy1252 said:

Likewise, the other major irritant for me is the pretty lousy PG. It was definitely better in 2020 before that got retrofitted with the 2024 stuff. And yeah, yeah, I know I can turn it off, but if I have to do that I may have well stayed with P3D as far as I'm concerned.

I do not like PG, so I never use it. However, I can confidently state that the "autogen only" scenery in MSFS 2020 is light years beyond anything that can be seen in P3Dv4 (my previous simulator). The autogen buildings alone are worth the asking price in comparison. P3D autogen houses look like garbage close up, but the Blackshark autogen houses look infinitely better (and yes, a lot better than PG buildings at close range).

1 hour ago, andy1252 said:

Not particularly wanting to support the rather hyperbolic title or original post, I would just add one thought to the whole 2024 terrain/morphing/lods/visuals debate.

I've recently been spending most of my time getting my XP12 system set up and back into use, and also reinstalling all my P3D systems (v2 through v6); in the case of XP because I wanted to see what it looked like now, and in the case of P3D because I wanted to be able to use a whole bunch of my older aircraft that are not available for MSFS. I was also waiting for SU4 to go live, as I don't do betas these days.

With all the old P3Ds, and in fact I also got my FSX/SE out from under its cobwebs for the same reasons, although I've settled mostly on v4 and v5 with as much of my old Orbx scenery as I want in place, including True Earth where available, it is obviously the case that the whole terrain/scenery environment has leapt into a new generation with MSFS. I already knew that but it was a handy reminder to see even a pretty optimal P3D system by comparison again.

Now that SU4 is out, I have been back spending most (but not all) of my time in 2024 again. And for me, SU4 has been a really significant improvement, in that the whole scenery LODs a'popping thing has been reduced very significantly. Not, unfortunately, removed, but definitely substantially improved. 

Here's the "but", though. The issue for me is now that MSFS2024 is so good visually, that things that might be perceived as minor, or even just part of the package, in the older systems now really stick out for me in 2024. When the scenery does pop, it does so in a way that is very noticeable in my eyes, whereas in my reinstated P3Ds it tends to resolve into view in a more graduated fashion - it almost fades in and out rather than suddenly appearing/disappearing. And of course that popping effect is both unrealistic and far more noticeable, as the human brain is programmed to detect motion as a survival function.

I've seen the various discussions about the whys and wherefores of the cause of this, and have no comment about any of that. It's there. it happens, I can see it, but I can't do anything about it. I run high LODs and max settings at 4k on a big screen and I'm going to stay that way.

Likewise, the other major irritant for me is the pretty lousy PG. It was definitely better in 2020 before that got retrofitted with the 2024 stuff. And yeah, yeah, I know I can turn it off, but if I have to do that I may have well stayed with P3D as far as I'm concerned. PG has always been bad in terms of its misrepresentation of trees, with all those green concrete obelisks scattered around in variou locations, but that got a whole lot worse from day one in 2024 and seems to have been propagated back into 2020 now. Presumably something to do with not using Blackshark AI I guess.

Neither of those two things is enough to put me off 2024. It really is an absolutely stunning piece of work visually. I have no comment to make about other aspects of the sim, like flight models and so on as they don't interest me. I realise the best description for how I use a sim is that I'm a plane spotter at heart. I just like to see interesting and well modelled planes moving around over the best possible world below. 

My point here is just that the better 2024 gets, the more glaring the (actually pretty minor) faults become.

Bur these are stunning times to be simming, whatever your motives and pleasures, that's for sure.

VERY well said, sir!

I spent a few hours in Prepar3D over TrueEarth this weekend flying the still excellent MilViz T-38C.

and tho I still enjoy the addon, I didn’t enjoy the sim experience. 

I also dragged the fantastic A2A Civ Mustang out to get my inner Tom Cruise on. 

Same thing: wonderful addon, but it’s stuck in the wrong sim. 

Thought I might be being too critical. Jumped in XP 12 over TrueEarth and it was so much better in pretty much every way. 

My last flight of the weekend was in MSFS 2024 with a leisurely low altitude VFR trip in the A2A Sims Comanche. And I couldn’t understand why I had even bothered doing anything else. 

So P3D got uninstalled because the juice is no longer worth the squeeze. 😢

And I’ll keep XP 12 around for a few things it does better than MSFS. 

but with my limited available sim time, I’ll happily “put up with” the “frustrating” visuals & simulation in MSFs v2024. 👍

Edited December 17, 2025Dec 17 by UrgentSiesta

I mean, according to what I've read, after the FS2020 simulator update SU16, the terrain resolution has been reduced to 256x256, while before the update it was 512x512.

You can see this in the terrain of the Canary Islands, for example, when you compare images before the SU16 update with images after the update. Another example is the mountain Grossglockner in the Alps, where a steep slope shows a clear blur after the SU16 update. In similar image comparisons, the blur can be seen in many places. I have FS2020 landscape images from many different parts of the world and from my home country Finland before the SU16 update.

Unfortunately, I couldn't put the two Grossglockner comparison images here.

3 hours ago, kokelas1 said:

I hope MS/Asobo will restore the accurate terrain to the FS2020 simulator that was in the simulator before the SU16 update. It is hard to think about continuing the simulator hobby if a very important part, the simulator terrain, is unclear.

I have been a simulator flying enthusiast for over 40 years and would like to continue doing so.

If you want to lower your blood pressure, take a few demo flights in other sims. 😁🤙

terrain is fine in 2024

1 hour ago, andy1252 said:

Here's the "but", though. The issue for me is now that MSFS2024 is so good visually, that things that might be perceived as minor, or even just part of the package, in the older systems now really stick out for me in 2024.....I realise the best description for how I use a sim is that I'm a plane spotter at heart....

Your account is a testimony to how our personal perceptions vary in part by what our focus is on.  Being what I can imagine a plane spotter at heart is you likely be more apt to notice certain things that my focus ignores at some level.  I'm a 'fly for score' airliner flyer in large part so my focus is on trying to make sure I do all the actions outlined in Self Loading Cargo's rather robust scoring element which includes piloting as well as crew management.  Because of this I may well not notice some of those minor omissions or defects, and I'm thankful for that orientation as I walk away from every flight, nearly, with nothing but deep satisfaction and accolades to the producers and developers of MSFS series and their support community for the entire experience visually and otherwise.  

3 hours ago, kokelas1 said:

I hope MS/Asobo will restore the accurate terrain to the FS2020 simulator that was in the simulator before the SU16 update. It is hard to think about continuing the simulator hobby if a very important part, the simulator terrain, is unclear.

I have been a simulator flying enthusiast for over 40 years and would like to continue doing so.

You  could upgrade to MSFS 2024.   The terrain is very accurate in that simulator.

💣

2 hours ago, Christopher Low said:

I do not like PG, so I never use it. However, I can confidently state that the "autogen only" scenery in MSFS 2020 is light years beyond anything that can be seen in P3Dv4 (my previous simulator). The autogen buildings alone are worth the asking price in comparison. P3D autogen houses look like garbage close up, but the Blackshark autogen houses look infinitely better (and yes, a lot better than PG buildings at close range).

When you are at a place like KCGX you need PG or else Chicago won't look like Chicago.

dd

Then what Chicago needs is a city landmark package. A city full of 3D landmark models with high resolution textures is (in my opinion) superior to PG.

I understand the OPs dilemma. Why would MS/Asobo do this to the sim? Their reason was to bring commonality across the franchise. Seems like it was a decision that was made. No issues there.

OP, your anger is valid but I plead to you that you change your response to your anger. Don’t quit the hobby. It’s headed in the right direction. Stick with it. If your computer can handle msfs 2024, switch to the newer 2024. If not, hopefully you can get by with the newer scenery engine in 2020.

6 hours ago, St Mawgan said:

When it's not morphing in front of my eyes, it looks pretty accurate. 

I have had this problem a lot lately when I never did before. I thought it was just me...

35 minutes ago, Christopher Low said:

a city landmark package.

Agree with you there Christopher. I have always leapt on these packages whenever I see them come out, but I'm getting more careful these days. There are quite a few pretty ropey quality ones appearing lately. But the thing about the landmarks is a key point here. I thought I'd have a flight with PG off, following your comments and because I hardly ever change that setting. I went out of KSFO as that's where I do most of my quick "test" flights, and up towards the city. And yes, I was quite impressed by the quality of the general built-up environment in the suburbs, plus it was good not to see the awful PG uglifact tree blobs. In fact I was beginning to think that maybe I would try a few more flights like this, but then as I approached the city itself my perception altered. Things like the big broadcast tower (don't know what it's called), the Golden Gate Park and most of the shoreline and city buildings just felt bland to me. Better quality models than the likes of raw P3D sure, but I still felt like I was flying in a sim, rather than the quasi-real buzz I get normally. PG, unless it's having a particularly blobby moment, gives me a much greater feeling of "being there". 

I guess I'll just live with the blobs and continue to hope that the AI improves and the blobs turn back into vegetation (or get removed altogether - Bijan is doing sterling work in this area) 

1 hour ago, Christopher Low said:

Then what Chicago needs is a city landmark package. A city full of 3D landmark models with high resolution textures is (in my opinion) superior to PG.

It looks really good and I do have a Meigs addon.

dd

5 hours ago, andy1252 said:

I guess I'll just live with the blobs

That they exist is a puzzle to me.  It seems so possible to learn their basic structure via AI analysis or what have you, and turn them into the surrounding texture, or trees/shrubs, etc.  I keep PG off for that reason, and that I fly airliners so don't hang around long low down.  

8 hours ago, GACSavannah said:

I have had this problem a lot lately when I never did before. I thought it was just me...

It's much more noticable post SU4 for me. Some places are worse than others. Coming in to land at KPSP, the mountains melt into shape as you approach and there are strips of flashing textures coming through periodically, like it can't decide which one to use.