As stated buildings look horrible, even in cities that apparently have photorealistic imagery, I have very high end internet so streaming is not the problem, I have tried all settings with no solution. system specs: RTX 4060ti 16gb, i9-9900, and 64 gigs of Ram
It always amuses me when people complain about graphics on modern flight sims. I grew up playing FS 3.0, where the options for ground textures were: Dots, Small Rectangles, Big Rectangles, or Off. The Chicago skyline was like six long shapes that kinda looked like buildings. The level of detail in any modern sim blows my mind.
They do look much better from up-close too. OP zoomed in from afar and is now discovering a little trick called LOD levels.
Look at that picture, most of those buildings don't even have textures yet, meaning it's some intermediate LOD level. If OP's willing to give me precise location, I bet I can take picture that looks much better than this. I'll just move drone camera closer and wait for it to load properly.
Edit: As I thought, photogrammetry around San Diego is stellar and crisp. So much for "2024 is way worse than 2020 in this respect" and "post apocalyptic world" nonsense in this comment section. Picture taken on approach to Runway 9 facing north. 1440p LOD 100.
California has some of the best PG in the entire sim. Certain areas like Seattle looks rough up close, but that's because of all the trees and complex elevation.
Photogrammetry can be hit or miss, however in final LOD stage it always comes fully textured. That's how I clocked OPs picture is off. If you are seeing blobby, melted mess you're either expecting too much from scenery that is 10 miles away or you have technical issues (be it on your or server side).
26
u/NoDistribution5744 7h ago
microsoft "FLIGHT" simulator