why do the graphics look so bad in VR?

[Bubba Fett]

I purchased this game for VR flying. In VR the ground textures look very low resolution while they look far more acceptable starting the game without VR. In both modes the graphics quality is set to ultra (by default) so why such a big difference?
I understand that VR takes a lot more performance to run and if I had to turn down the quality to maintain framerate I'd be OK with that, but it's like I'm not even given the option since it looks bad right from the start. I've seen plenty of Youtube videos of people flying in VR and it looks much better than my game.

Is there some simple thing that I'm missing here?

[Jan (IPACS)]

Maybe you are not yet rendering with your graphics card, go to your Nvidia settings (or ATI) and select the aerofly executable to use your graphics card.
In the tm.log file you can see if the graphics card was actually used or not.
When your correct graphics card is used you can of course up the settings.

[Bubba Fett]

I don't see anything in the Nvidia controls for individual programs and have never had to look for it on any other games I've got. I have 15 VR games on steam and another 6 or 7 on the Oculus store and they all work great so I don't think it's a problem with my computer. Also, if it wasn't using my graphics card (RTX 2070) I would think my framerates would be a slideshow.
Elite Dangerous looks exactly the same in VR except that I can look around and everything's in 3D.
Also the planes and cockpits look great in VR, it's just the terrain textures. There also seem to be details like runway lights in the Non VR version that I don't see in VR
I thought it might be a VR setting, but I don't see much there.

[Jan (IPACS)]

Try updating your graphics card drivers, too. Have you tried the Vulkan renderer option?
To increase the resolution of the terrain textures you can download a high res. texture pack as DLC.

I've been able to run Aerofly on my laptop on the onboard graphics chip with decent graphics settings and relatively good FPS. It's not a slide show but it would be pretty low FPS in VR, yes.

[Dtraill]

There is worldwide scenery at very low resolution and then there are other areas that are meant to be looked at at low altitude. Are you flying in SW USA?

[Bubba Fett]

I did download one of the high res packs. While I wouldn't say it looks good at low altitude, it looks less bad. Once you're up a couple of thousand feet things look OK.

It's weird how you can have games like Elite Dangerous or No Mans sky that can have procedural textures that look good right down to ground level and you don't see accurate flight sims mixing procedural textures with bitmap textures to look good at altitude or ground level.
Use the procedural to add noise and details to the bitmap once you get below a certain altitude for instance.

[Jan (IPACS)]

The procedural generated worlds use algorithms that first of all invent a planet from scratch and thus can create any level of detail and it looks good as it builds on its own generated data. Such data doesn't exist with aerial images, you would first have to analyze the image to find lakes, wooded areas, roads, fields etc. to then be able to tell the difference and then add a refinement texture onto it. We're basically starting from zero to accurately place stuff in the correct places that they would be in the real world whilst the procedural generated stuff can be everywhere that you tell it to and it never looks bad. It just happens to look that way if it is generated. But there is no generation algorithm for our own planet earth. Or none that we humans know of :)

We have thought about taking data from open streetmap for example but even that doesn't cover all areas and it certainly doesn't have the same resolution or precision world wide.

[Bubba Fett]

I can certainly see why you wouldn't use procedural textures when trying to accurately depict the entire earth, but it seems to me that there would be a market for even relatively small areas that look good all the way to ground level.
While jetliners and small planes flying at altitude are popular with flight simmers, helicopters are also popular and tend to operate much closer to the ground where traditional textures are at their worst.
So why not a DLC of a smaller area where the satellite maps have been augmented with procedural textures. Obviously someone would have to go over the satellite photos and decide what areas are water, what are trees, what are grass, what are dirt, and what are roads.
Once it's done, the game engine could create the small details on the fly and give a much more convincing image at low altitude.
A DLC like this could possibly be packaged with a paramotor, an ultralight, and a helicopter. These are all low altutude slow aircraft that would take full advantage of the terrain and if the DLC sold well it could indicate a new market for terrain DLC's that nobody currently seems to be looking at.

I for one would love to fly over the map from GTA 5 in a realistic aircraft. So what' if it's a small map, with the right aircraft it's still a lot of ground to fly over and looks great at any altitude.

The authors of Deadstick seem to think there's a market for an entire flight sim built around low level flight.

[Nethiuz]

DLC Areas. Lukla and ORBX LOWI is absolutely stunning in VR

[vicen]

I also like to have many more detailed textures on the terrain when I fly low altitude. DLC are ok but I would like more resolution.