4 ms·

What part didn’t you like about the graphics? I think the external shots looked quite good, especially the lighting through the clouds. I’ve never seen a real p

by hinoki 4y ago

What part didn’t you like about the graphics? I think the external shots looked quite good, especially the lighting through the clouds. I’ve never seen a real plane that immaculate, so that was a bit unrealistic. I also liked the haze/heat waves from the engine exhaust, but I think it actually looks more blurry in real life. The lighting on the interior views was unrealistic, but I think that’s a conscious decision to make the controls legible?

zokier 4y ago
Biggest problem with the graphics here is general unevenness. Some stuff looks really good which makes the less great parts stick out even more. Many textures shown here were bit low-res so that pixelation/blurriness is visible in closeups, in cockpit, plane exterior, and ground. Small thing but the tires looked very bad, sticking out like sore thumb. In cockpit you can also see (because the low-res textures) how some of the fasteners are just textures and not geometry, making them look bit off. > The lighting on the interior views was unrealistic, but I think that’s a conscious decision to make the controls legible? Maybe, but on the other hand DCS has fully shaded cockpits and I haven't heard much complaints about legibility there.
- Hawxy 4y ago
  I think the texture issues are due to the underlying plane model being a port from PMDGs previous releases on older simulators. If you look at a greenfield plane built specifically for MSFS like the Fenix a320 the texture work is immaculate.
sio8ohPi 4y ago
I think the video highlights FS2020 at it's best, and it looks very good to me. The problem is that it's a global simulator: this is a major part of its appeal and marketing. If you only ever plan to fly airliners between handcrafted payware cities, it will look pretty great. As soon as you start flying VFR outside those points, the generated terrain shows its limits. I don't fly it often, but when last I flew: * The generator couldn't handle windmills. You would see them as flat, projected images on the landscape with no 3d asset. * It can't handle boats. Again, they're rendered as flat images on the water. Marinas in particular look bad, because they fade out as they get away from shore. * It can't handle washes. You'll fly over the desert and see a glossy sheen of reflective water where the sim thinks there should be a waterway, but it's quite obvious that no water was present when photos were taken. * It can't handle meandering streams. You'll see that same glossy sheen cutting a straight line over the terrain, while the photographed stream meanders back and forth. * It can't handle bridges: you'll see cars drive right through the bridge and along the terrain underneath it.
- shostack 4y ago
  Some of these are fair criticism. There's a few key things missing for immersion, especially if you're flying low and slow. By contrast though, I mostly fly VFR in the Bay Area in the sim. I can see my house, complete with our car in the driveway (although I'm annoyed it has older imagery from before landscaping). When I went on a discovery flight IRL, I was stunned by how easily I could navigate from the air and locate my home. It was eerily familiar. Same when I went on a flight in Kauai. I was able to plan out photos in advance. I was equally stunned with how familiar the airport felt. This has all aided visual familiarity with the traffic patterns at these places, especially KSQL where you have to watch out for the bravo. Given recent improvements and where it's heading,I have nothing but high hopes and faith it will improve. Hell, we have an addon that adds more bird traffic. My only gripe is how expensive or subscription based some addons are that shouldn't be.

by hinoki 4y ago

zokier 4y ago

Biggest problem with the graphics here is general unevenness. Some stuff looks really good which makes the less great parts stick out even more. Many textures shown here were bit low-res so that pixelation/blurriness is visible in closeups, in cockpit, plane exterior, and ground. Small thing but the tires looked very bad, sticking out like sore thumb. In cockpit you can also see (because the low-res textures) how some of the fasteners are just textures and not geometry, making them look bit off. > The lighting on the interior views was unrealistic, but I think that’s a conscious decision to make the controls legible? Maybe, but on the other hand DCS has fully shaded cockpits and I haven't heard much complaints about legibility there.

Hawxy 4y ago
I think the texture issues are due to the underlying plane model being a port from PMDGs previous releases on older simulators. If you look at a greenfield plane built specifically for MSFS like the Fenix a320 the texture work is immaculate.

sio8ohPi 4y ago

I think the video highlights FS2020 at it's best, and it looks very good to me. The problem is that it's a global simulator: this is a major part of its appeal and marketing. If you only ever plan to fly airliners between handcrafted payware cities, it will look pretty great. As soon as you start flying VFR outside those points, the generated terrain shows its limits. I don't fly it often, but when last I flew: * The generator couldn't handle windmills. You would see them as flat, projected images on the landscape with no 3d asset. * It can't handle boats. Again, they're rendered as flat images on the water. Marinas in particular look bad, because they fade out as they get away from shore. * It can't handle washes. You'll fly over the desert and see a glossy sheen of reflective water where the sim thinks there should be a waterway, but it's quite obvious that no water was present when photos were taken. * It can't handle meandering streams. You'll see that same glossy sheen cutting a straight line over the terrain, while the photographed stream meanders back and forth. * It can't handle bridges: you'll see cars drive right through the bridge and along the terrain underneath it.

shostack 4y ago
Some of these are fair criticism. There's a few key things missing for immersion, especially if you're flying low and slow. By contrast though, I mostly fly VFR in the Bay Area in the sim. I can see my house, complete with our car in the driveway (although I'm annoyed it has older imagery from before landscaping). When I went on a discovery flight IRL, I was stunned by how easily I could navigate from the air and locate my home. It was eerily familiar. Same when I went on a flight in Kauai. I was able to plan out photos in advance. I was equally stunned with how familiar the airport felt. This has all aided visual familiarity with the traffic patterns at these places, especially KSQL where you have to watch out for the bravo. Given recent improvements and where it's heading,I have nothing but high hopes and faith it will improve. Hell, we have an addon that adds more bird traffic. My only gripe is how expensive or subscription based some addons are that shouldn't be.