Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Donations

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

Flight Sim Profile

  • Commercial Member
  • Online Flight Organization Membership
  • Virtual Airlines

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Well, now they will answer because now its actuall paying customers which opened tickets at their zendesk. Its different now from alpha/beta. There is a much going on about this on official forums which is already monitored by asobo. I posted some screenshots as well. Thought you just might now abou that. Peace
  2. You are correct, indeed. One tile (1x1 degree of latitude and longituted) in Europe has approximatelly 300 MB at ZL15 which is much sharper than currently is i flying FL200+. At ZL16 we are looking at 1.5GB per tile, and image would be supersharp. Rough estimate would be that instead of 0,2 - 1,5 Mbps usage now (on flyover) could rise to 10 - 15 Mbps max. Player count demise is and will happen same as offloading of servers
  3. It isnt detailed at all. Its the same low resolution as is in current meta.
  4. Hmm. no 😀 Thats not how it works. You will see things smaller and maybe blurrier with distance, but not because the change of resolution as is a problem within msfs.
  5. Yes, this feature missing is weird coming from european based developer +atc yelling at me incorrect barometric pressures
  6. I will try to compare various aspects of both sims and to ignore your cold and dark war. Btw youre half-right because those two airliners (747 and A320) doesnt come close to cold and dark with half of systems not simulated/inoperative ‐---------------- I will compare current x-plane state with all the available addons up to date Camera -for me its almost equal, i liked x-plane a bit better using quick views. i have low standards as I dont record footage. Weather & visuals - MSFS by far (xenviro is trying hard with the nextgen volumetric clouds but its only halfway there) Ground textures - X-plane. MSFS is very nice up to 6000 ft AGL. Anything above, and especially FL300+ is ugly blurry mess. Sadly there is disproportionate ZL / flying altitude setting which makes the textures look worse the higher you are, which is exact opposite compared to x-plane photorealistic scenery where the higher you get, the sharper the image, because you dont get lower ZL based on altitude. I am ditching my 8TB drive full of orthos , and i love that i wont have to spend time on this with msfs anymore but i am very dissapointed with quality (hopefully they will add possibility in menu for this). Autogen - MSFS again by far (x-plane is comparable with its x-europe addon, but other than that It has no chance for msfss perfect objects combined with blackshark ai) Lightning, reflections - MSFS Jet liners - x-plane addons by far (sorry magknight, but even your 787 is better and more usable than msfs a320, 747). On the other hand compared to fsx, p3d default models they are on next level. In previous sims, planes didnt have half-functioning fmcs. Performance - imo uncomparable due to total difference. Off course there is still space to improve. --- Sims were tested on 9900K, rtx 2080ti, 32GB DDR4, mostly 4K resolution on various level of details, mostly ultra. --- this post is written by uneducated non english native speaker from soviet slovakia so please bare/bear with me. With love
  7. Yes its very blurry and it has nothing to do with settings. Its not a bug but MS's approach. There is disproportionate ZL / altitude setting in place (who knows why, maybe because they wanted to offload their servers). Anything above FL200 is unacceptably ugly. Its like creating orthos for x-plane using ZL12 . I agree with OP, weather, autogen is beautiful, but for me, airliner pilot only, textures are very dissapointing.
  • Create New...