Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Donations

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

347 Excellent

About cobalt

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender

Flight Sim Profile

  • Commercial Member
  • Online Flight Organization Membership
  • Virtual Airlines

Recent Profile Visitors

820 profile views
  1. This reminds me of a post a while back on this topic, in which the author said that he had been walking around outside his house and thought, man, those clouds up there sure do look unrealistic! I agree that the clouds in MSFS are amazing. Of course some will disagree, but my suspicion is that there is something wrong with their settings (or else they actually do have a problem with real-world clouds!).
  2. On the contrary: flightsim.to is a fantastic resource, far better than anything else around, which is exactly why they have "cornered the market". I, for one, am grateful to have it.
  3. The update process does nothing to the community folder. Some add-ons in the community folder might be affected by an update, but the process itself leaves the folder and its contents untouched. Proof: even if you remove Community entirely from MSFS (by renaming, for example), updates will proceed normally. Re-starting MSFS then creates a new Community folder.
  4. Or just google: msfs [specific area] scenery. Works very well!
  5. Just curious -- I see some ships on the Great Lakes, but far fewer than are showing up on Little Nav Map. Is this normal, and what might be the reason?
  6. I do care. But this whole thread got bogged down on the notion that Asobo "dumbed down" the graphics for SU5, which I reject both on the evidence I see, and on facts that others more knowledgeable than I have clearly presented. If some folks nevertheless believe this theory, so be it. That's all I have to say on this subject.
  7. But not to everyone. Therefore, local issues.
  8. Thanks, March Hare. Once again, local issues, local issues, local issues. Moral of the story.
  9. I accept as true everything you describe about your experience. But it is very different from mine, as well as many others who have posted in this and other forums. Any general theory about changes engineered by Asobo in graphic quality must accommodate the entire range of MSFS user experiences, not just your own. Please note: I have run MSFS continuously on ultra settings for a year, with crisp high-resolution graphics, and still have them, in addition to much improved performance since SU5. If you (or anyone) can explain in detail how this could possibly be the case after a programmed degradation of the graphics, I am open to hearing it. Alienware Aurora R11, 32 GB ram, Intel i7-10700F, GeForce RTX 2080 Super, Ultra graphics settings
  10. The difference is: he gave his reasons, to which you have not responded point-by-point as I asked. You have expressed a "belief" that is unsupported by detailed reasoning. But I agree, enough of this surreal discussion. Back to flying my incredible "simplified-graphics" sim. Looking forward to even more simplifications from Asobo!
  11. If you are right, then my MSFS has been greatly improved by a "simplification" that changed my FPS from 25-30 to 50-60 everywhere, while maintaining ultra-level graphics. Sounds like magic to me, but let's have more of these -- the more simplified the better! P.S. I still wonder if you agree with March Hare's first line.
  12. Do you also agree with the first part of his post, especially the first sentence? I repeat that section here: "Yes, the accusation they have lowered quality to meet requirements of the console version is completely illogical for a number of reasons. One being that the recommended (top tier) specifications for the PC version -- the hardware it was developed for, for best graphics and performance -- are roughly on a par with the Xbox Series X hardware (RTX2080 on PC, with the Xbox X having an AMD equivalent; the RTX30xx series wasn't available when MSFS was developed). In some ways, the Series X console has architectural advantages, but either way it's the equivalent to what was the top end PC on the market at the time MSFS was developed with its ultra settings in mind. Secondly, my PC, which is far inferior to the console (including Series S), is able to run MSFS on ultra settings at a smooth frame rate." If you agree with March Hare and me on this, then there is no argument. The issue is whether, as some contend, there was an attempt to "dumb-down" MSFS to accommodate X-Box. This is clearly nonsense, for the reasons he states among others. Moreover there is absolutely no way I could be seeing the performance and graphics I see on ultra settings, if there had been any dumbing-down.
  13. So, when do we get to see your answer to March Hare? The difference between your arguments and his, is that his is specific and detailed, while yours is just a vent, not constructive, useful, or logical.
  • Create New...