Compare MSFS 2024 and 2020 graphics across terrain, lighting, vegetation and cockpits, with fixes when the newer simulator looks worse.
Microsoft Flight Simulator 2024 generally looks better than MSFS 2020, especially close to the ground: denser vegetation, finer surface detail, seasonal variation and revised lighting make low-level flying more convincing. At cruise altitude the gap is smaller, while poor streaming, mismatched settings or older add-ons can make 2024 look no better—or temporarily worse.
Where is the graphics difference most visible?
Low-level flight and ground operations show the largest visual improvement in MSFS 2024. Its world rendering adds more small-scale surface detail and ground dressing, while vegetation has greater variety and seasonal presentation.
Both simulators still rely heavily on streamed aerial imagery and photogrammetry. MSFS 2024 cannot turn weak source imagery into a perfect city, so blurred ground textures, distorted buildings and outdated landmarks remain possible. Our focused scenery comparison covers those world-data differences in more detail.
| Visual area | MSFS 2024 | MSFS 2020 |
|---|---|---|
| Ground detail | More convincing close-range surface detail, vegetation and small objects | Still strong from altitude, but often flatter near the aircraft |
| Seasons | Seasonal vegetation and environmental changes form part of the world system | No equivalent native worldwide seasonal presentation |
| Lighting and atmosphere | Revised lighting, shadows and material response can produce a richer image | Still capable of excellent skies and volumetric clouds |
| Photogrammetry | Presentation can improve, but quality remains tied to source data and streaming | Has the same basic weaknesses when imagery or streaming is poor |
| Aircraft and cockpits | Native aircraft may contain newer visual assets | Quality varies widely between individual default and add-on aircraft |
| Airliner cruise | The extra ground detail is less obvious from high altitude | Can look remarkably similar under matching weather and image settings |
An aircraft imported from MSFS 2020 does not automatically gain sharper textures, extra polygons or improved cockpit displays in 2024. The package itself must contain those assets.
Why can MSFS 2024 look worse than MSFS 2020?
MSFS 2024 can look worse when streaming, graphics settings or add-on compatibility prevent its higher-quality assets from appearing correctly.
- Incomplete streaming: Slow or interrupted world-data delivery can produce soft terrain, late-loading objects and malformed photogrammetry. Confirm that online world data and photogrammetry are enabled and that no simulator data limit has been reached.
- Unequal settings: Comparing 2020 at a carefully tuned resolution with 2024 on an automatic preset is misleading. Render scaling, anti-aliasing, texture resolution, terrain level of detail, object level of detail and clouds all affect the result.
- Upscaling softness: Aggressive DLSS or another performance-oriented scaling mode can soften cockpit lettering, distant buildings and thin objects. Compare at the same output resolution and quality mode.
- Memory pressure: Insufficient graphics memory may cause texture downgrades, delayed loading or stutters. Our comparison of VRAM use in MSFS 2020 and 2024 explains what to check.
- Older add-ons: A compatible 2020 airport or aircraft may load in 2024 without taking advantage of its newer rendering features. It may also conflict with updated default scenery.
- Different conditions: Live weather, time of day, season and cloud cover can change contrast and colour enough to overwhelm the underlying graphics difference.
How should I compare MSFS 2024 and 2020 fairly?
A fair comparison uses the same platform, resolution, location, weather and camera position, with third-party content removed.
- Match the hardware and display. Compare both PC versions on the same machine and output resolution, or both Xbox versions on equivalent hardware. MSFS 2020 was never released for PlayStation, so there is no direct PS5 comparison.
- Remove add-on variables. On PC, test with an empty Community folder and default aircraft or scenery before judging either renderer.
- Fix the conditions. Use the same airport, date, time and clear-weather preset. Live weather is unsuitable because the scene can change between runs.
- Match individual settings. Do not rely only on preset names. Set render scaling, anti-aliasing, terrain and object LOD, clouds, textures and anisotropic filtering deliberately. Our guide to the graphics settings that matter in both simulators provides a practical baseline.
- Let world data load. Pause at the test location until terrain and buildings have resolved, then use the same cockpit or external camera angle.
Does the better graphics quality reduce performance?
The added ground detail in MSFS 2024 can cost performance, particularly around dense airports, vegetation and complex aircraft. The result depends on whether the limiting factor is the CPU, GPU, graphics memory or internet connection rather than on one universal frame-rate penalty.
If textures become blurry, reduce texture demand before assuming the renderer is defective. If frame rate falls mainly near the ground, terrain LOD, object LOD, traffic, vegetation and clouds are more likely targets. Lowering render scaling should be a later step because it softens the entire image, including cockpit instruments.
Which simulator has the best graphics overall?
MSFS 2024 has the stronger graphics platform overall, especially for bush flying, helicopters, ground operations, seasonal scenes and native 2024 aircraft. MSFS 2020 remains visually competitive at airline altitudes and can surpass default content when equipped with a particularly detailed, mature add-on.
Choose 2024 when low-altitude world detail and environmental variety are the priority. Keep 2020 when established add-ons, predictable local storage or limited streaming bandwidth matter more. Graphics are only one part of that choice; our summary of the broader differences between MSFS 2020 and 2024 covers the other practical trade-offs.