Really not that impressed by photogrammetry.

[captain420 3,099]

My GPU is the bottleneck in my system. Manually downloading and caching the area fixed these problems for me.

[Ianrivaldosmith 5,317]

4 minutes ago, captain420 said:

My GPU is the bottleneck in my system. Manually downloading and caching the area fixed these problems for me.

The whole problem with manually downloading the area is; it defeats the point in the sim. You're back to square one, in the fact that you need petabytes worth of storage to store the world. 

[captain420 3,099]

20 minutes ago, Ianrivaldosmith said:

The whole problem with manually downloading the area is; it defeats the point in the sim. You're back to square one, in the fact that you need petabytes worth of storage to store the world. 

For me personally I am perfectly fine with that. For the majority of the world it will probably be less than 5% of me coming back to the area. But for areas I frequently fly in, the manual cache will do wonders. I'm not looking to manually cache the entire globe.

[Slides 1,552]

36 minutes ago, Ianrivaldosmith said:

The VFR map, is, well, basic! 

GPS? Needs add-ons or work in progress? 

I needed none of that to have an amazing flying experience. The best sim experience I have ever had in fact and I have been simming for 20+ years. I was just flying using the roads and other visual markers as a guide. 

[Ianrivaldosmith 5,317]

2 minutes ago, Slides said:

I needed none of that to have an amazing flying experience. The best sim experience I have ever had in fact and I have been simming for 20+ years. I was just flying using the roads and other visual markers as a guide. 

Yeah, that is what I have been doing. For now...

[Slides 1,552]

2 minutes ago, Ianrivaldosmith said:

Yeah, that is what I have been doing. For now...

It will be a long time before I get bored of this. 

 

[captain420 3,099]

no need for vfr maps anymore when you can use the beautiful scenery as a reference. Things will only get better from here. Some great times indeed for the flight sim community!

[Ianrivaldosmith 5,317]

2 minutes ago, captain420 said:

no need for vfr maps anymore when you can use the beautiful scenery as a reference. Things will only get better from here. Some great times indeed for the flight sim community!

Massive need for vfr maps, if you’ve never flown in the area before, the scenery and landmarks mean nothing, if you don’t know what they are 😉 

[Slides 1,552]

I have driven over the road I was flying over in the video above dozens of times. It was instantly recognizable from the air. They even got the color differences right between the asphalt and concrete over the bridge sections. Amazing stuff. 

1 minute ago, Ianrivaldosmith said:

Massive need for vfr maps

You can print one out.

[Heavy Metal 83]

Agree, that the photoreal cities have their up- and downsides. I personally enjoy them a lot from a medium and close distance (although they have some baked-in reflections not looking too hot and some buildings still look a bit melted), but in case some people do not, as far as I can see, you can turn this feature of in DATA settings. I did not try it but I guess they would be replaced by autogen buildings like all other cities, too.

[Ianrivaldosmith 5,317]

2 minutes ago, Slides said:

You can print one out.

I’d rather just have one on the screen/iPad..... got navigraph, but that’s only for IFR.

[Gomoto 31]

Manually downloading does not fix the spikyness of the buildings in the distance. 

The spikyness is not disturbing in smaller cities or towns. But flying over New York for example it is a real problem with manual cache and without it. Buildings should be rendered as cuboid if build as such in any LOD.

[Snuffleupagus 327]

1 hour ago, Colonel X said:

I think you're misunderstanding something here. This has nothing to do with VRAM or even the GPU. The scenery rendering is done by the CPU. The sim is heavily CPU bottlenecked (as much as other sims), and the reason the LOD is rather low is that by extending that, the game would become unplayable on most PC's.

Even on Ultra, my 11GB VRAM barely gets filled up by 50%.

I’ve seen 9.5/11GB VRAM on my 1080ti being used. But rarely see CPU close to 100% (i7-9700k) so having a further LOD distance would be nice to see how it impacts the CPU. I honestly get better LOD distance on P3D than MSFS... 

[flying_w 58]

4 hours ago, patrickbc said:

Well I almost feel opposite. When I fly really close, the photogrammetry looks great. But from a medium distance of 2 - 6nm not so much.

 

Glad you are enjoying it, the great thing here is people who can enjoy it do enjoy it, and whilst I may not like some of it in no way do I think the simulator is terrible because of it.  Might be nice if the photogammetry part could be disabled and just regular photo ground tiles with procedurally generated cities were an option, but not sure if Bing can support that.  But either way, I'm more than happy.

[Claudius_ 326]

2 hours ago, Colonel X said:

I think you're misunderstanding something here. This has nothing to do with VRAM or even the GPU. The scenery rendering is done by the CPU. The sim is heavily CPU bottlenecked (as much as other sims), and the reason the LOD is rather low is that by extending that, the game would become unplayable on most PC's.

Even on Ultra, my 11GB VRAM barely gets filled up by 50%.

The real thing that fill up our RAM and VRAM is the render scaling, higher the value better the rendering, but it kills the fps. My value is 170 with about 30 fps, CPU @60%, GPU @96%.