On 5/1/2026 at 7:41 PM, KERNEL32 said:

Yep you got me there Krakin - so what I swear that I thought I listened to, I guess I didn't have enough coffee that day. I went through literally the last 4 or 5 dev updates insisting he said that... but you are correct. Sorry about that. But I can say for sure after watching many of dev updates today that he has been consistent in saying "once the bugs are mostly cleared up", and "keep voting on the wishlist", "get it to the top of the wishlist".

@Krakin I meant to include this too and finally had time to re-watch this stream to capture the statement. Here is where I think I misunderstood what Seb was saying: https://youtu.be/iA_b1BX60kw?list=PLHHNa7e7hf9MqQB-RV6bxHYiLcTQkgGfi&t=1455

Also here https://youtu.be/vS14eQEFMVU?list=PLHHNa7e7hf9MqQB-RV6bxHYiLcTQkgGfi&t=3903

"but I think in order to go further we need a bigger rework of the cloud system" - I took that basically as "not happening". But he really never said that. It was my assumption. Also he says repeatably about getting it higher on the wishlist. So let's all work on that!

 

 

Edited May 3May 3 by KERNEL32

14 hours ago, JYW said:

SU4 never looked this focussed and realistic to me. SU5 is the best service update so far for 2024 from my perspective 😎

That's what I'm seeing as well.  Part of this is probably due to being able to bump Texture Resolution up a notch and part because I can now set top TLOD to 400 in AutoFPS, but it sure is working on my system.

For those seeing something else pls note... Not posting this to negate your opinions, be argumentative or prove you wrong, but to provide another data point.  Make what you will of the information, but it does provide value to understand that not everyone is seeing the same thing in order to help understand what might be going on.  Also noting my location is SE US.  As always with 2024, server location likely plays into all this.

 

Scott

Edited May 3May 3 by tttocs

For many of these shots showing everything is ok - take a look at your clouds.  Now, can muted, blurry clouds be realistic at times?  Sure, but that's how clouds always look now.  I never see puffy clouds with well defined edges.  It is always that blurry white sky.  They look worse as you approach them.  Again, yes, clouds can certainly look like that in the real world, but that's the only clouds I get anymore.  

13 hours ago, Krakin said:

Guys, my third world internet is so crappy that I still haven't downloaded Asobo's scenery downgrade yet 😞

But, but, I've been reliably informed by the MSFS development expert and project manager cosplayers on avsim that any time I see a visual problem (or any problem) it must be due to MS/Asobo serving the "cOnSoLe KiDz" ??
 

Edited May 3May 3 by lwt1971

5 hours ago, lwt1971 said:

MS/Asobo serving the "cOnSoLe KiDz" ??

Pretty sure I said I hope not ... passive aggressive much?  Asobo did actually admit as much when they went into detail on their culling code adjustments ... soooo

17 minutes ago, SayAgain said:

Pretty sure I said I hope not ... passive aggressive much?  Asobo did actually admit as much when they went into detail on their culling code adjustments ... soooo

Oh, wasn't even referring to you or your posts, and didn't realize you were talking about consoles in them 🙂... my response was to other comments on this thread attributing any issues/degradations to intentional scaling back of the whole sim just for console users, which is a silly and tired talking point (i.e. from a previous comment on this thread: "MS/Asobo have further dumbed down MSFS2024 for console players in SU5", etc 🤷‍♂️
 

Edited May 3May 3 by lwt1971

40 minutes ago, lwt1971 said:

which is a silly and tired talking point

Agree, and I hope they aren't ... but it does beg the question why remove visual quality and not just provide an option for "less" visual quality and retain the already better visual quality ... just to check the box that say "improved performance"?  LM (P3D) PM/devs seemed to have the same fear during their day in the sun ... completely irrational to me and no idea why they proceed down such a narrow sighted path ... just so someone doesn't say I cranked up all the visuals on my top tier PC and still only got 15 FPS ... well duuh ... now wait for the hardware to catchup.  LM seemed to fear this "possible" comment like their jobs relied on it.

Most of us here know that rendering less = better performance and can also = less visual fidelity.  I'm not asking Asobo to change what they did to "gain performance" just asking they provide users with an option to "restore visual quality" and allow us to accept the FPS penalty (we're adult, we can handle the lower FPS, we understand).  So a user with a top tier PC can't crank up every possible graphics setting to "Ultra" and get 100 FPS ... yet ... boo whooo lets get out the violins.  Build for next generation hardware should be the objective (yes it is ridiculously expensive but that should change the objective).

When I hear people posting "I have everything maxed out at 4K res and 100 FPS" ... all I do is shake my head as we continue down the path of "optimization" at the expense of visual quality.  Don't get me wrong there are valid optimization but those don't surface as reduction in visual quality, they're more graphics pipeline adjustments and/or other coding optimizations.

The culling of objects (not just AI air traffic landing gear) but overall is a significant offensive initials not allowed moment as objects within fairly close proximity appear and disappear ... frankly it looks ridiculous with such an aggressive culling.   

I don't have any issues with texture resolution resolving in SU5 and they seem the same as SU4, which is fine and MSFS 2024 has a great deal of visual wow factor ... but it's that wow factor that suddenly turns into ugh factor which makes the stark contrast that much harder to swallow ... going from oh Dang that looks fantastic to oh Dang that dive bombed into a visual mess quickly.

 

I might have made some progress on the clouds.  It might be ActiveSky doing something.  I turned off AS and went to default weather and I had more normal looking clouds.  Turn AS back on, clouds look different (worse or better is a matter of opinion, less defined which could be realistic at times).  At least I know I'm not seeing things.  I'm still not sure exactly what is going on between AS and default weather.  Conditions look really different between the two.  

Weather and clouds in msfs2024, I have no complaints. I mean canned default weather, not live. Month was March.

Swiss Alps.

LSZA Lugano (by Asobo/Orbx) 1,000 feet high.

to

LSPU Münster (by simultech)  4,400 feet high.

No snow on Lugano airport, lots of snow on Münster.

On Münster runways clear of snow, but most taxiways were not at this small airport, which seems right to me.

Mountains I flew over had tons of snow at 7,000 and 8,000 feet but none at say 3,000. The trees along the Münster runways had snow, but only on the top part of the trees. It varied tree by tree. I live 150 miles from Yosemite Park in the Sierras and this seemed normal and realistic to me. 

I had no problem with the clouds. Wispy at times, but sometimes you can't even see through them at all while flying through. Seemed great to my eyes.

But I haven't seen X-plane nor Prepar3D clouds which I have never owned. 

Edited May 4May 4 by Fielder

Don't worry—when the next generation of Xbox and PlayStation comes out, they'll fix the weather and the clouds.😃🤣

The culling is still too severe.  They said they would adjust it to be less aggressive in early SU5 notes, but I don't see any difference.  My belief is that this 'optimisation' was done for the consoles, in part at least, and this issue is also what causes the delayed rendering kludge when moving between cockpit and outside view and back, which I have not seen in any other sim since probably the late nineties.  It's absolute garbage.

Still, at least while the kids can marvel over their 240 fps, I have saved loads of money.  No point rebuying the PMDG 737 again and things like the TriStar, just to load them into a sandpit full of mud.  What's the point of spending loads of money on these things with a super accurate looking cockpit while I look out of the windscreen to see jets without wheels while my instruments slowly draw back in?  Absolutely no point I would say.

 

 

Edited May 4May 4 by bobcat999

1 hour ago, bobcat999 said:

My belief is that this 'optimisation' was done for the consoles,

The thing is though Bob there's a lot of very annoyed Xbox users, memory management seems to be a trending issue and it's worse than SU4 by most accounts. So it's not just PC users noticing regressions, it's consoles as well.

Generally it seems SU5 is a very "meh" update compared to what SU4 was, there's some good things in it but overall a sense of disappointment throughout social media, the official forums and elsewhere (as we know there is a world outside of AVSim!)

5 hours ago, bobcat999 said:

The culling is still too severe.  They said they would adjust it to be less aggressive in early SU5 notes, but I don't see any difference.  My belief is that this 'optimisation' was done for the consoles, in part at least, and this issue is also what causes the delayed rendering kludge when moving between cockpit and outside view and back, which I have not seen in any other sim since probably the late nineties.  It's absolute garbage.

Still, at least while the kids can marvel over their 240 fps, I have saved loads of money.  No point rebuying the PMDG 737 again and things like the TriStar, just to load them into a sandpit full of mud.  What's the point of spending loads of money on these things with a super accurate looking cockpit while I look out of the windscreen to see jets without wheels while my instruments slowly draw back in?  Absolutely no point I would say.

 

 

Sorry to hear that. It's pretty much back to pre SU4 for me now - very nearly an instant transition. 

5 hours ago, bobcat999 said:

The culling is still too severe.  They said they would adjust it to be less aggressive in early SU5 notes

Agree, and it’s not restricted to just AI traffic landing gear, the wheels on Jetways don’t render when one is about 300ft away (and this is at max LOD) either so we have floating jetways.

We have service vehicles that transition to terrible LOD (making it look like the vehicle switch to another carrier or even different type of vehicle) and this happens as little as 100 ft away.

I’m asking Asobo to provide PC users with a culling parameter.  

 

1 hour ago, SayAgain said:

I’m asking Asobo to provide PC users with a culling parameter. 

That's an excellent idea.  It would probably solve my biggest gripes.

Mine was all fine at SU3, and performance was still good then before this SU4 and SU5 'optimisation'.

Edited May 4May 4 by bobcat999