This Update Has Been a Total Disaster!

I flew over New York last week (SU4) using the Icon plane, took a tour round the surrounding area and landed on the water close to the Statue of Liberty. I was getting a nice smooth 35 fps with very little stutter and the photogrammetry scenery looked superb.

 

Tried the same trip today with the Icon and it looks just awful, most of the buildings are popping into view as I look around and look nowhere near as good as before.

The draw distance is now hopeless (I have every setting I can set to high or ultra apart from Render at 100) and flying NW over the East river with central park in front of me I can just see a desert with no buildings rendering past the Hudson river. Last week I had buildings out to the horizon.

London is just as bad, looks like a desert, anything over 2 miles away is replace by a sandy flat landscape into which scenery magically appears as you get closer.

 

So for me SU5 = 5 more fps but totally immersion breaking scenery redrawing with lower quality textures and over exposed whiteout clouds.

 

Are you seeing buildings out to the horizon and not popping in and out of existence when you fly over New York and London?

 

As a matter of fact, just this morning with the SU5 update and the hotfix installed, I flew the TBM930 from KLGA over to the Verazanno Narrows bridge, up the Hudson River with side trips to view the Manhattan buildings at close range, and up to the George Washington Bridge. The trip was picture-perfect with FPS at 50-60 (locked at 60), smooth as silk, no popping, and certainly no loss of quality in textures. I have graphics settings on Ultra, terrain and objects level of detail both set at 200, photogrammetry on, and live AI traffic. And yes, buildings visible to the horizon. It looked terrific! I have also flown over Washington DC, London and Paris today, same result.

 

Why some of us are having such different experiences post-update, is hard to explain, but it must relate to computer systems, settings, and possibly other factors. I wish I knew the answer, and I hope one will be found.

Why some of us are having such different experiences post-update, is hard to explain, but it must relate to computer systems, settings, and possibly other factors.

It certainly would be helpful if people posting here, especially people posting about performance issues, would post their system specs in the space below.

 

Without knowing a poster's system specs, discussion of performance is kinda pointless.

 

Some of the most prolific posters here still don't post their specs; I find that puzzling.

Agreed. I had posted mine earlier, but here it is again. Alienware Aurora R11, Intel Core i7-10700F, GeForce TX2080 Super.

One thing for sure is there can be little debated now as to if ASOBO has been dumbing down the sim to fit Xbox. Its pretty obvious they are/did and then had the nerve to call them optimizations because it gave the PC a few more FPS.

 

I noticed this trend with the very first SU and was called among other things a "conspiracy theorist".

 

My PC upgrade was well over due and I don't regret it. But for people that went out and dumped money into high end PCs just for this game only to find out they just could have waited and bought an Xbox because that is quality everyone is going to get, yes they are angry.

 

All of these hard feelings could have been avoided if MS/ASOBO had just waited a year and released on both platforms at the same time. Then us PC guys would have never known the difference. If that had happened I suspect then most would be singing its praise and saying things like. "Ya a lot of things are buggy but they just released it. Give it a some time and it will get fixed"

Edited August 1, 2021 by natman1965

“But for people that went out and dumped money into high end PCs just for this game only to find out they just could have waited and bought an Xbox because that is quality everyone is going to get, yes they are angry“

 

I’m not angry :)

I did the big upgrade last year because of MSFS and even with the bugs.. I’m lovin’ it! The big update messed it up for most of us but they soon sorted most things out with the hotfix and personally I think it’s better than ever. In VR it’s so easy to forget I’m not in a real aircraft LOL

 

Regards

Steve

please tell me I'm not the only one who just clicked an update that is 44 Gigs in size???

please tell me I'm not the only one who just clicked an update that is 44 Gigs in size???

 

You most certainly are not the first

I'm not sure whether it's a total disaster. I haven't installed SU5 yet. I've decided to spend a few days reading forum posts and gathering a notebook containing settings, tweaks, and precautions taken that work and those that don't before trying it. I might even wait for Hot Fix #2.

Meanwhile, figuring out how MS could commit the crime, which they call "SU5," against its loyal PC group is not the most perplexing mystery. Most perplexing is understanding how a scarce few posters claim graphics as good as they had before the update. If their experience is genuine, it sort of disproves the prevailing theory that Asobo severely dumbed down the graphics to make MFS "fit into the [X]box," but that theory is the only one that seems to make sense. I hate that the vast majority of PC users are devastated by the results of the upgrade, but it'll be fascinating to see how it plays out over the the rest of this year.

Edited August 2, 2021 by milleron

I'm not sure whether it's a total disaster. I haven't installed SU5 yet. I've decided to spend a few days reading forum posts and gathering a notebook containing settings, tweaks, and precautions taken that work and those that don't before trying it. I might even wait for Hot Fix #2.

Meanwhile, figuring out how MS could commit the crime, which they call "SU5," against its loyal PC group is not the most perplexing mystery. Most perplexing is understanding how a scarce few posters claim graphics as good as they had before the update. If their experience is genuine, it sort of disproves the prevailing theory that Asobo severely dumbed down the graphics to make MFS "fit into the [X]box," but that theory is the only one that seems to make sense. I hate that the vast majority of PC users are devastated by the results of the upgrade, but it'll be fascinating to see how it plays out over the the rest of this year.

 

Interesting that you have not yet installed SU5, yet describe it as a "crime". You refer to a "scarce few posters who claim graphics as good as they were before the update", implying that this group is a small minority. But it is well known that complainers about new products are invariably over-represented in any sampling because satisfied customers are much less inclined to report their experiences. Then, referring to those of us who are happy with SU5, you say "if their experience is genuine..", implying what -- that we are lying? If not that, then what exactly are you saying?

After Update 5 I have no problems. The only thing that aanoyes me is that when you are flying high all the landscapes now look bluish pastel and wasched out. also too bright. Not nice

Are you a member of the Asobo dev ops team? I mean really this MSFS platform is a joke. MSFS should have built on FSX. There is no reason for all of these hot fixes at all. Oh it is the Bill Gates way of doing business after all. Release a crappy product and say it is good enough. I paid over $100 for a simulator than runs far worse than it predecessor FSX. It is screwed up! The screwed developers and hopefully in turn screwed themselves! Xplane and Prepar are such a better deal in that they are at least stable! Update after update, I mean let down after let down. Stop defending those who are getting paid a salary to not do their job which is to provide an a least decent product for their customers.

Are you a member of the Asobo dev ops team? I mean really this MSFS platform is a joke. MSFS should have built on FSX. There is no reason for all of these hot fixes at all. Oh it is the Bill Gates way of doing business after all. Release a crappy product and say it is good enough. I paid over $100 for a simulator than runs far worse than it predecessor FSX. It is screwed up! The screwed developers and hopefully in turn screwed themselves! Xplane and Prepar are such a better deal in that they are at least stable! Update after update, I mean let down after let down. Stop defending those who are getting paid a salary to not do their job which is to provide an a least decent product for their customers.

No, I am not a member of the Asobo team, and I am not defending anybody. As a matter of fact, I had a frustrating two days trying to install the latest update, until it finally did, and I reported my experience on this forum. I happen to be one of those who has found the SU5 update to be a great advance in performance (50-60 FPS pracatically everywhere), on ultra settings, with no detectable loss in graphics quality. At the same time, I am well aware that many are having problems with it, and I regret that. I do think that one's computer specs have a lot to do with this issue. One thing is for certain: rants, raves, and accusations are not going to solve anything. Let's keep this civil and respectful.

 

Alienware Aurora R11, 32 GB ram, Intel i7-10700F, GeForce RTX 2080 Super

Interesting that you have not yet installed SU5, yet describe it as a "crime". You refer to a "scarce few posters who claim graphics as good as they were before the update", implying that this group is a small minority. But it is well known that complainers about new products are invariably over-represented in any sampling because satisfied customers are much less inclined to report their experiences. Then, referring to those of us who are happy with SU5, you say "if their experience is genuine..", implying what -- that we are lying? If not that, then what exactly are you saying?

 

Of course, it's true that complainers are over-represented on online forums, but my experience goes back to the days when there was nothing but AOL, Compuserve, and Usenet, and there has never been an outpouring of grief even remotely as severe as what we're seeing with SU5. Essentially no one has decent graphics, and those with literally unplayable sims are legion. I feel it's safe to say that the percentage of users who've suffered significant downgrades is massive. But even if it's not >50%, the horrendous severity of the dismantling described in the threads on flightsimulator.com (numbering in the thousands of posts) thoroughly justifies calling it a crime against PC users.

I did not impugn the veracity of those who are satisfied. By wondering if their descriptions are genuine, I'm wondering if most of them are users with antiquated hardware who had previous graphics that were so bad that they're thrilled with their increase in FPS and lack the frame of reference to even see the massive degradation in graphics. They seem never to include their specs or include screenshots of their own to justify their opinion, which almost invariably boils down to "I'm good. I like SU5."

(I believe that you, personally, did include screenshots, which gave me hope, so my suppositions about supporters of SU5 certainly do not include you.)

Edited August 3, 2021 by milleron

I always show my specs and I have posted several sets of screenshots after the latest update. My longest flight was 54 minutes after the update, but no CTDs for me so far! My resolution is a fairly easy 1920X1200 (about 115% of 1080p), but my hardware isn't terribly antiquated!

Of course, it's true that complainers are over-represented on online forums, but my experience goes back to the days when there was nothing but AOL, Compuserve, and Usenet, and there has never been an outpouring of grief even remotely as severe as what we're seeing with SU5. Essentially no one has decent graphics, and those with literally unplayable sims are legion. I feel it's safe to say that the percentage of users who've suffered significant downgrades is massive. But even if it's not >50%, the horrendous severity of the dismantling described in the threads on flightsimulator.com (numbering in the thousands of posts) thoroughly justifies calling it a crime against PC users.

I did not impugn the veracity of those who are satisfied. By wondering if their descriptions are genuine, I'm wondering if most of them are users with antiquated hardware who had previous graphics that were so bad that they're thrilled with their increase in FPS and lack the frame of reference to even see the massive degradation in graphics. They seem never to include their specs or include screenshots of their own to justify their opinion, which almost invariably boils down to "I'm good. I like SU5."

(I believe that you, personally, did include screenshots, which gave me hope, so my suppositions about supporters of SU5 certainly do not include you.)

 

Thanks for your thoughtful post -- most welcome in the present climate! I do have to disagree with your statement that "essentially no one has decent graphics". Some of us are seeing great graphics since SU5 (I am one of them) and have so reported in this and other forums. In my case, I had great graphics before SU5 and still have them, along with an increase in FPS from around 25-30 to 50-60, and practically everywhere, and with ultra settings. I realize that for many this is hard to believe, but brother, I ain't lyin'! And as I just said, I am not alone. The only explanation I can come up with -- and I am certainly not a computer guru -- is that I have a reasonably good (not top-of-the-line, but pretty good) computer system, which I bought a year ago in preparation for MSFS, and so far it has proven capable of dealing with the demands put on it by the various upgrades including SU5. Maybe my day of reckoning is coming and the next Asobo update will do me in, who knows! Meanwhile, I do sympathize with all those having problems. My suggestions would be: (a) try running MSFS with no addons, and (b) consider upgrading your processor, video card, and/or ram. Good luck to all.

 

Alienware Aurora R11, i710070 chip, GeForce RTX2080 video card, 32 MB ram

Edited August 3, 2021 by cobalt

This is what happen when you try to take a potentially decent computer flight simulator and make it also work as a arcade console game....who would of thunk it?

Some interesting (and possibly surprising) poll results from another forum

 

Question: How is the U5 Update and hotfix behaving for you?

Results:

Same as before, 5.3% (18)

Better frame rate but worse graphics, 33.7% (114)

Better frame rate and graphics fine after some tweaks, 42.6% (144)

CTDs unusable, 11.2% (38)

I am leaving for FSX, XP, or P3D, 5.92% (20)

A bit worse LOD problems, 1.18% (4)

Edited August 3, 2021 by cobalt

. . . so I should finish my contributions.

 

Good news: After 4 days of anxiety, I think I can say that the Hotfix worked for me! Since 07/30, I've had only one CTD (and there may be an explanation for that one). I've put many of my add-ons back in Community, a few at a time. These included Orbx's Brisbane Citypack, which I have just flown at low altitude. (The "Eye of Brisbane" revolves!)

 

I have read a lot of posts in the past few days, and I feel for some of you who are back where I was before the Hotfix. It astonishes me that an update I conservatively described as a disaster (for me, anyway) could be so swiftly rehabilitated. I am not a programmer, but surely the infirmities in this update must have been known and anticipated before its improvident release. So kudos to Adobo et al. for cleaning up the mess! (But shame for making it in the first place.)

 

Other notes:

 

Going back to Main Menu takes a fraction of the time it used to (25 seconds this afternoon), and I believe the whole thing loads faster.

 

The water effects are an order of magnitude better (thereby mooting several of my prior posts). In moderate winds, I can now see whitecaps below. Bravo!

 

Too bad the date setting won’t go up – only down.

 

Too bad placing the cursor on some instruments merely tells you what they are – which you knew, right? For instance: it used to be that placing the cursor on the mixture or prop pitch showed you the percentage. Alas, no more. Pity. But on the whole, I can sleep at night once more.

 

Finally: After I reinstalled, I found an old note in my log book that contained graphics settings recommended on this forum. I had been using them happily since last September. No problem. But after the reinstall and Hotfix, I noticed that my graphics were much worse than they had been. Landscapes looked grainy, like old fast-speed 35mm film. Horizontal lines on buildings quivered. So I changed many of the recommended settings -- most importantly, I think, I put "V-Sync" back on, and I increased "Shadow Maps" from 768 to over a thousand. All good once again.

 

Afterthought: Can someone refer me to a source that explains the graphics settings -- what they do, what changing them might entail, etc.? (Oh, and have I mentioned lately that there's no manual?)

 

i7-8700 3.7 GHz

GeForce GTX 1070 Ti; 8GB onboard

AORUS Z370 Gaming 5 LGA 1151 ATX motherboard

16GB RAM

2 TB hard drive

27” MSI gaming monitor

https://www.shacknews.com/article/119932/microsoft-flight-simulator-2020-graphics-and-settings-guide

https://www.shacknews.com/article/119932/microsoft-flight-simulator-2020-graphics-and-settings-guide

 

Thank you, David. Helpful. I'll work on it.

Agree. Probably keeping it civil is a good idea. I have many questions for MSFS. I was hoping that they would have provided some representation at the FS convention in San Diego. (as of yet I have not seen Asobo on the list). I have some legit questions, like study level a/c support, AI liveries, expanded support for FS2 Crew and GSX and my biggest peeve underwater bridges and docks. I like it, but it just doesn't meet the level of maxed out that I am used too. I got this $2500 computer just for MSFS.

 

I mean, I don't know what you guys are complaining about. I for one love my new retro neon theme landing light fluro livery.

The most important thing for a flight simulator is that it is stable, that you can plan for a 10hours flight and don't have to worry you'd had a program crash along the route. I could accept that scenery resolution suddenly dropped, that the warning lights stopped working etc as long as I was sure that the flight continued.