2 hours ago, Noel said:

This seems like it could be addressed by having two pathways when streamed data is requested, if coming from console, then 256, if from PC then 512, or what have you. It just doesn't seem impossible to have done yet would have kept everyone happier. I wonder what % of all MSFS 2024 users are on PC v console.

Yeah I'm not sure. Apparently a larger number is on console according to 1st party developers. That kinda makes sense as there is a whole new generation of people coming to the sim - and many have grown up on console. That, and buying PC parts is really for people with jobs LOL... you could take out a second mortage or buy a used car vs buying a high end PC.

You have to realize that it doesn't always have to be consoles versus PCs.

Microsoft's video game division hasn't been doing very well for quite some time now; perhaps it's not a matter of performance, but rather of conserving resources.

Edited Friday at 04:38 AM4 days by Aglos77

7 hours ago, Aglos77 said:

You have to realize that it doesn't always have to be consoles versus PCs.

Microsoft's video game division hasn't been doing very well for quite some time now; perhaps it's not a matter of performance, but rather of conserving resources.

From putting the idea to GPT that MSFS graphics were 'dumbed down' to accommodate consoles the response essentially was along the lines of it's much more nuanced than that. It made the comment that 256x256 tiles limit was a notion arrived at by community members with no official comments made to that effect by MS/A. The fact that there indeed are many areas of the world rendered at higher resolutions which fits with my own experience, that this argues against a 'global' reduction based on 256x tiles and that in fact tile size does not imply a fixed square area per pixel. And further, if it is the case that some areas are rendered at higher resolutions which absolutely is the case, this would imply those areas are off limits to consoles at some level, which really makes no sense if you're after accommodation of consoles, and especially since those areas are likely to be the most popular areas to fly in or around. It also made the point that satellite data quality varies as source data. I looked at multiple screenshots I took in 2022 of scenery in MSFS and I do not see any crisper, sharper areas than I already do now in 2024.

On 6/8/2026 at 2:38 PM, V1ROTA7E said:

But the ground ortho, no matter where i am or what server, are low rez.

100% a function of your internet or your PC settings and capabilities, or a combination of both.

2 minutes ago, Noel said:

100% a function of your internet or your PC settings and capabilities, or a combination of both.

256x256 is fact for non TIN/vexcel areas. On your screenshots you posted super wide and zoomed out pics - which make it difficult to tell how degraded 2024 actually is. I just went looking through my 2020 pics and when you get much closer to the ground (say 2000-300 agl), the difference is massive between 24 and 20. In 24 one has to run TLOD 400 to get close to what 20 offered at TLOD 200. And it's still not as nice as the 512 tile size that 2020 had. If you're only flying airliners or well into the flight levels, you won't think any reduction in quality occurred. But I'm predominantly a GA flyer, and the difference is huge sadly. It's odd that Asobo added a lot of really great ground level features like all the AI generated stuff, trees, rocks, cliff races, tessellation of the ground textures for tire tracks - amazing stuff. But it's a bummer they killed the high resolution of imagery. Overall I'm still far happier with 2024 as it adds many more things than 20 ever had, including much better atmospheric lighting, better flight model, much snappier loading of the sim etc...

I'm heading out of town otherwise I would do some comparisons - I didn't really label a lot of my pics though - it may be difficult to get a 1:1 comparison. I'll try when I get home.

Anyone who could possibly help me out by running a network diagnostic within the Map Enhancement program? 2020 or 2024 version does not matter since it does the same tests for both.

Reason for asking is that on two different systems it gives an error for one server everytime, and that is the server for 2020 that handles photogrammetry I believe since if I run the program (worked for a long time before this), my photogrammetry does not work within the sim itself. It works without the program, but a verification from someone else that confirms it would be appreciated.

9 minutes ago, ryanbatc said:

256x256 is fact for non TIN/vexcel areas. On your screenshots you posted super wide and zoomed out pics - which make it difficult to tell how degraded 2024 actually is. I just went looking through my 2020 pics and when you get much closer to the ground (say 2000-300 agl), the difference is massive between 24 and 20. In 24 one has to run TLOD 400 to get close to what 20 offered at TLOD 200. And it's still not as nice as the 512 tile size that 2020 had. If you're only flying airliners or well into the flight levels, you won't think any reduction in quality occurred. But I'm predominantly a GA flyer, and the difference is huge sadly. It's odd that Asobo added a lot of really great ground level features like all the AI generated stuff, trees, rocks, cliff races, tessellation of the ground textures for tire tracks - amazing stuff. But it's a bummer they killed the high resolution of imagery. Overall I'm still far happier with 2024 as it adds many more things than 20 ever had, including much better atmospheric lighting, better flight model, much snappier loading of the sim etc...

I'm heading out of town otherwise I would do some comparisons - I didn't really label a lot of my pics though - it may be difficult to get a 1:1 comparison. I'll try when I get home.

Where did you get the 'fact' piece? What's 'non TIN/vexcel areas'? Fortunately for me as an airliner flyer I'm not seeing any significant degradation in image quality. Flying into EGLL just a moment ago, only a few thousand feet up it was gorgeous. What I never have done is zoom on down to point blank range to see differences in resolution, though as said in my original post at EDDH it was obvious there were low rez terrain compared to most of where I fly. As for the images I posted they were done by iPhone to my curved display, then cropped and were taken from where I will appreciate scenery from, not at point-blank range where resolution would be revealed. It's a little like my TV: 65", 4K, but when viewed from 13' away, 4K looks no better than 1080p. That's fascinating that you find the other attributes of 2024 compelling enough to offset low resolution, or it points to the idea you're not that adversely affected by low resolution until you really get down low. Exactly what part of 'high resolution' was 'killed'? Again, just flew into EGLL and it as was gorgeous as ever...

And the other reality: tile size does not determine square area per pixel in the tile. One can have 1 meter per pixel, or 32cm per pixel on a 256x256 tile if I understood the logic correctly. And, if the native image is very low resolution to start with as in low quality satellite imagery, it doesn't matter what tile size is used.

All this aside time marches on and I would predict resolution will increase down the road, perhaps when the new Xbox arrives...

Official architecture previews from GDC 2026 and subsequent leak data detail Project Helix as a console-PC hybrid powered by a custom AMD "Magnus" SoC built on TSMC's 3nm process. [1, 2, 3]

Graphics Memory and Bandwidth

Microsoft is implementing a unified memory pool designed to sustain 4K at 120 FPS performance targets. [1]

• Memory Capacity: Current industry leaks point to a massive 36GB to 48GB of GDDR7 memory. [1]

• Memory Bus: The platform utilizes a 192-bit wide bus. [, 2]

• Raw Memory Bandwidth: The combination of GDDR7 speeds and the 192-bit bus pushes estimated native bandwidth to roughly 864 GB/s. [1]

• Universal and Neural Compression: To drastically amplify effective bandwidth without relying on more expensive physical memory, Microsoft is leaning heavily into Neural Texture Compression (NTC) and a universal compression software layer. This allows data to compress tightly as it travels across the graphics pipeline, easing hardware constraints. [1, 2]

• DirectStorage + Zstandard Compression: Upgraded DirectStorage APIs bundle hardware-level Zstd decompression. Massive, high-fidelity 4K and 8K assets are uncompressed in real-time, streaming straight from the M.2 SSD to the GPU memory pool while completely bypassing CPU bottlenecks. [1]

Core Technical Architecture

• GPU Layout: Built on AMD RDNA 5 architecture, featuring approximately 68 Compute Units (CUs). For context, each individual CU is tracked to run roughly 65% faster than those in the current Xbox Series X. [1, 2]

• Hybrid CPU: Features an 11-core hybrid setup using Zen 6 architecture. This divides tasks between 3 high-performance cores (meant to stabilize high-refresh-rate PC gaming workloads) and 8 efficiency cores. [1, 2]

• Dedicated AI Co-Processor: A hardware-siloed Neural Processing Unit (NPU) sits directly on the SoC. Drawing just 6W of power, it delivers up to 110 TOPS to compute AI rendering independently without robbing performance from the main GPU. [1, 2]

Edited Friday at 04:39 PM4 days by Noel

10 minutes ago, Noel said:

Where did you get the 'fact' piece? What's 'non TIN/vexcel areas'? Fortunately for me as an airliner flyer I'm not seeing any significant degradation in image quality.

This answers everything from me for your end then. You're not looking outside nearly as much as I am. Even when up high there are many pics I have from 2020 where the ground was pretty sharp (not as sharp as XP12), but much better than the nasty low res we have now in 24 at altitude.

I'm a livery creator and I'm in the dev forums all the time - there has been plenty mention of the 256x256. Microsoft doesn't advertise the reduction in quality for obvious reasons.

TIN/vexcel... TIN is photogrammetry areas, which can be higher resolution than the rest of the world. Vexcel is the super high resolution TIN, in 2024 areas such as grand canyon, parts of the French Alps, Denver had a city update that's vexcel etc

59 minutes ago, ryanbatc said:

Even when up high there are many pics I have from 2020 where the ground was pretty sharp (not as sharp as XP12), but much better than the nasty low res we have now in 24 at altitude.

TIN/vexcel... TIN is photogrammetry areas, which can be higher resolution than the rest of the world. Vexcel is the super high resolution TIN, in 2024 areas such as grand canyon, parts of the French Alps, Denver had a city update that's vexcel etc

I have quite a few dated 2022 from up high and don't see a lot of difference and the farther you go from any resolution texture the less blurry it becomes, unless Asobo actually lowers resolution as you go to high altitudes. I've always been struck by how little impact TLOD 100 is from 400 just looking at for example distant mountain ranges. Maybe now from what you're saying it makes a significant difference. Flying over Europe, over the mountains east of Santiago Chile and most areas of the US I see, as said early on, perhaps subtle degradation. And at taxi and takeoff it's all quite good still almost everywhere I fly.

If there are higher resolution areas, and if all this was done to accommodate console users, why would they take some of the choicest terrain to make TIN/vexcel such that console users would be duly disappointed? Again: square area per pixel is part of the logic here, not just tile size.

Edited Friday at 06:14 PM4 days by Noel

6 hours ago, Noel said:

100% a function of your internet or your PC settings and capabilities, or a combination of both.

lol, i've got a 3 Gigibit connection...def not my internet or pc.

My primary point is in very large part the degradation in texture resolution varies greatly by region. Further, it's critical to appreciate tile size does not determine resolution--what matters in any tile size is how much terrain is covered by the tile. Further still, while console architecture likely played a role in opting for 256x256 tile the rationale IS NOT to create low resolution per se, it likely has more to do w/ the value of using smaller tiles vis a vis how much data gets streamed in a unit of time. It may be part of the reason we have the performance we have today, which verges on perfection. And in the end, when you look at what regions have the highest resolution, those TIN/vexcel regions, it makes no sense to say Asobo went to 256x256 tiles, with and without lower detail, to accommodate consoles, and yet the areas of the world that indeed are highest detail (major cities and environs, much of Europe and the US, Japan, places like US Grand Canyon etc) and again I do not see any significant difference over 2020 in these areas, and then have consoles not be able to process those well because of their high detail. I think the primary rationale for 256x tiles has to do w/ the total impact on performance for all users, not just console users. So the 'dumbing down' to accommodate consoles (and lesser PCs) is really only one element that was considered. What I do know for sure is that as an airliner flyer I do not see any meaningful degradation in image quality, sharpness, etc on the ground in in the air.

3 hours ago, Noel said:

What I do know for sure is that as an airliner flyer I do not see any meaningful degradation in image quality, sharpness, etc on the ground in in the air.

Yeah, i see your point. But before, it really looked so much better..to the point i wouldn't even use photogrammetry because the tiles below looked that good. I will concede that photogrammetry looks phenomenal relative to 2020. Maybe their goal is to make the entire world photogramatic(?) so wasting resources on a higher zoom level would be moot if everything is already at a high photogramatic level.

23 minutes ago, V1ROTA7E said:

Yeah, i see your point. But before, it really looked so much better..to the point i wouldn't even use photogrammetry because the tiles below looked that good.

Thankfully, I can't relate to what you describe, at all. I have PG on currently but I often have it turned off to avoid its downsides depending on where we are. If the past was 'so much better', I'm stumped as to why it isn't absolutely obvious to me as well, as that is such a strong claim. But again, it's just too similar, or the same, from my vantage. Maybe it's down to where we fly most of the time. I managed to find a screenshot done in late 2020, flying into Fussen, Germany, and at that time, 2020, it was absolutely stunning as I'd never witnessed anything like that in my prior 30y of simming. So the other day I went back to that same spot in 2024 this time and as predicted, it really was essentially the same, except 2024 was sharper, clearer. That may have been time of year, time of day, and atmospheric haze in 2020 that was less so in 2024, at that day and time. I will take a screenshot for comparison and post them both here. What I would not contest is that if you go to point-blank range that is where it ought to be obvious and from Ryan's and your comments indeed I assume it is, at least in some areas. That being said I am one who since FSX days fly zoomed OUT, and that is a case of sacrificing a more accurate FoV, in trade for a faster sense of speed while low or taxiing, and also this always makes image quality a little sharper which is always a function of zooming out. As mentioned, I use primary scaling of 130, as well as the sharpness hack and AMD sharpener as well though at 60%. I wish I could post images here that reflect what my display generates but alas they're compressed and a little degraded.

2020 never looked good even with ME IMO.

dd

16 minutes ago, Noel said:

If the past was 'so much better', I'm stumped as to why it isn't absolutely obvious to me as well, as that is such a strong claim

I mean, with all due respect, you were satisfied with 30 FPS for a long time before upgrading…not saying you’re wrong, but just different standards.