cobalt

Some of this (but not all), I have come to realize, is just people kind of putting on the rest of us to see what reactions they can generate, and this is always guaranteed to work. Of course there is a big difference between upgrading to a newer version of flight simulator, vs. upgrading Windows. The former is always optional, but the latter is not, once a deadline for conversion has passed. You can stay with FSX (or FS whatever) forever if you want; just don't lose the discs or the computer they run on! It does have the advantage that you own the scenery, which never changes, is not real-life, and is dated, but is nice to look at if you don't mind those limitations . Moving on from FSX to FS2020 and FS2024 is a huge change since the scenery now resides in the cloud and is vulnerable to server issues, but most simmers now accept this as a necessity, given the multi-terabyte storage requirements for worldwide detailed scenery. There will always be folks who decide to stick with a particular version and who deride later sims as inferior. I once spent a ridiculous amount of time debating a guy who thought FS9 was the greatest ever and FSX by comparison was junk. Was this a put-on? I'm doubtful, but it could have been.

Funny, I haven't seen any post that belittles MS2020 or claims it's terrible. I have seen many posts that point out the advances in MS2024 -- which are undeniably there -- while recognizing that MS2020 is still a very good sim and used by many people. Am I missing something?

Watsi, I understand everything you are saying, and I agree it is not a competition. But based on the posts I have seen in the past few months, I do have the impression that there is a degree of misunderstanding about the actual differences between MS2024 and MS2020. Some of the statements and/or assumptions I have read in posts here, are just not in accord with my experience with 2024 and 2020 (both of which I still have), and I think that in some cases it has to be the setups of individual users that need attention. As a result, some are missing out on what MS2024 actually does and doesn't do. I will just let it go at that.

So --- "trees/terrain mesh/vector data/seasons" (from your original quote) aren't important to you? Remarkable. But I take you at your word, as you seem to have very specialized flying needs. I do, however, wonder about some of your statements, e.g., "I don't see completely flat ground anywhere except for places that are actually flat (most of my flying is in hilly or mountainous regions)". Well, in FS2024 I rarely see completely flat ground either, so we should both be happy. You also say, "I almost never use default airports because the buildings and taxiway labels aren't accurate anyway." Taken literally, this would rule out 99+% of the world's airports for you. Is this actually the case?

No idea. MSFS is great as is, so I see no need for hdr.

No, it's not at all stuttery (what is "notchy"?), either at walking or at running speed.

On the issue of how FS2024 looks vs. FS2020, I beg to differ. The overall detailed appearance of FS2024, especially in ground textures is not just an improvement over FS2020, it is far better. And there are a number of features in 2024 that markedly improve the real-world experience vs. 2020 (for example, being able to step out of the plane and walk around, anywhere in the world!). In contrast to your experience, I find that FS2024 almost never crashes, I see no stutters, and the washed-out appearance you describe is a mystery to me. I have a 5-year-old computer and an ordinary video card -- nothing special, for sure. Something seems out of whack in your setup, for you to be seeing what you describe. I am one who stuck with 2020 longer than most, but for me 2024 is a game-changer.

What has long intrigued me is the fascination some simmers have with airports per se, to the point of their being willing to spend money on detailed hand-crafted versions. I have to wonder how much time they actually spend in flight, as opposed to exploring those airports. And are they similarly fascinated with airports in real life? One other question, out of idle curiosity: do train-simmers spend their money on add-on train stations (assuming they exist)? Just asking, not criticizing.

The answer to your question will depend very much on what matters most to you. To those who are not so much into scenery, and who are much more interested in other aspects of flying, MS2024 may seem not all that much of an improvement (although a close comparison of performance may surprise some 2020 users who haven't checked out 2024 lately). But to simmers who do care about scenery (except at high altitudes), and especially the degree of realism with which the real world is depicted in 2024, it's no contest. As a dedicated user of MS2020 from its inception five years ago, I am truly blown away by MS2024 (a cliche, I admit, but I can't think of a better descriptive term) in its current state. Both in the general appearance of the terrain and in its real-world accuracy MS2024 is a quantum leap, no doubt about it. In 2026 the current state of the art in photogrammetry is still evolving and getting better over time, albeit with room for improvement especially near ground level. In this respect only -- which applies to a tiny percentage of Earth's land surface -- the scenery in the two sims is comparable. Otherwise it is not even close

Alhough I still have MS2020 installed, after years of flying it and MS2024 concurrently, I no longer use 2020 and doubt I ever will again. The gap between the two in real-world scenery, performance, and in many other respects is huge, but one feature in particular is unique to 2024 and has me hooked. This is the ability (with a flick of a switch) to get out of the plane and walk wherever I want, on terrain that looks far more real than anything that came before, and then hop back in the cockpit and continue the trip if I wish. For an intrepid land-sea-air explorer like myself, this is incredible and adds a whole new dimension to simming. Old fightsims, like old soldiers, never completely die (there are some who never moved from FS9 to FSX!) and that's fine. The main thing is that we are happy with whatever sim we are using.

I don't see a problem in that area, but this is without pg. I don't think it's available there; am I wrong? In any case nothing looks blurry to me.

I am one of the (I think) relatively few simmers remaining who have both MS2020 and MS2024, and for a long while I continued to use both since there were some aspects of 2020 that led me to keep it around for a while. Now, however, the reality for me is that 2024 is superior to 2020 in almost every important respect. The problems that remain to be corrected in 2024 are, in just about every case, worse in 2020, so that it is hard to see any reason to stay with the older sim. The scenery in 2024 is fantastic, often even near ground level in photogrammetry areas, and 2020 cannot compete. Stuttering and similar issues are in my experience almost nonexistent now in 2024. I have moved on.

The piglets found that brick homes survive strong winds. Millions of homes in the USA are brick. Your point is?

Excellent advice, with one caveat: the quality of pg varies considerably in different (flightsim) locations, so I wouldn't just turn off pg everywhere. Before simply giving it the axe in a new location, I would try pg and then if necessary turn it off.