Having seen photogrammetry in all shapes and forms within the sim, from spectacular (Japan Update), to mediocre (some North American Cities), I do sometimes prefer the AI generated scenery, which looks better up close and generates at a further distance it seems. It does look a bit too clean up close and does not blend with the surroundings as well, but I find photogrammetry, aside its frequent rendering issues, too dark sometimes, like there is a permanent shadow on it. Even photogrammetry does not always blend well, as the patch of scenery with photogrammetry may have a different Color than the surroundings (often darker).

With the increasing improvements to the autogen and the addition of churches, I have high hopes it will look even better in the future. It is one of those striking MSFS achievements seldom talked about; the quality of the AI generated scenery. 

 

 

I have photogrammetry disabled since it’s most probably causing / supporting CTDs on my mediocre rig and I can live perfectly without it 

18 minutes ago, 767lover said:

With the increasing improvements to the autogen and the addition of churches, I have high hopes it will look even better in the future. It is one of those striking MSFS achievements seldom talked about; the quality of the AI generated scenery. 

Absolutely, and it looks very convincing as a whole. Contrary to other sims, where one of the usual approaches is to combine ground imagery (by Google or others) with OSM data using a relatively limited number of models from a library, I find the MSFS-AI (actually Blackshark.AI)-generated ground much more coherent. It's just all of a piece. Very well done, yes.

This said, it misses specific detail like POIs but also other characteristic features. Even if Asobo will add churches (not sure, where they will actually do), churches (as well as castles, palaces...) are something very specific and prominent. As are the high-rises in cities like London or Toyko. And that's why I have photogrammetry on.

As the OP states, I agree the quality of photogrammetry differing widely indeed. I hope, Asobo will return to the drawing board and revise photogrammetry display in the foreseeable future, as it's stated in their ToDo list.

Kind regards, Michael

I've got very mixed feelings about pg. I like to get down really low and look around the world, and close up most pg is horrendous. But if I'm up around 2000-3000 feet it can look quite impressive, and I guess if you're up above 10,000 feet or so it doesn't matter that much what the buildings look like either way. I'd prefer to see good quality modelling over pg any day though. And it's a real shame about the various green and grey stumps that appear all over the otherwise good bits of pg, like all around LA.

As I like to fly according to real world rules I will never get so close to photogrammetry that I will notice its flaws. 

So I vastly prefer it to autogen scenery.

 

Google has hundreds of squarkilometers of my immidiate real world location as PG. Down to the smallest villages . I wish that was in the sim.

Edited February 8, 20215 yr by Farlis

Yes. Me. 

Some day photogrammetry will be perfect. It's quite a way away yet. Autogen can look good from a distance and it looks vastly less horrid up close. 

The airports where it encroaches like Boston Logan look grotesque. 

3 hours ago, Farlis said:

As I like to fly according to real world rules I will never get so close to photogrammetry that I will notice its flaws. 

So I vastly prefer it to autogen scenery.

That's not quite trivial. If you properly land at CYTZ you can hardly escape the Toronto skylinie in photogrammetry with its flaws, well, as long as you don't close your eyes during taxiing... just saying.😉

Kind regards, Michael

I'd love for Asobo to add an option to fly with AI autogen, but have PG POI's. Shouldn't bee too hard to get right.

I am fine either way imho. If there is PG, i can see houses in the shape they really are and with the textures they really have. But of course it depends on the quality of it.

I consider MSFS autogen to be essentially an improved version (a bit more believable and accurate) of X-planes "plausible" cities, backed up with generally pretty high-quality orthos and other goodies.

My feeling is, if I accepted it in X-plane all this time, why would I suddenly turn up my nose at it now?

I find it perfectly fine in the vast majority of cases (the night-lighting on tall buildings can be really strange though) and most especially so with an added realism boost from some of the emerging hand-made (partial) cityscapes.

Like this, for instance:

 

Edited February 9, 20215 yr by HiFlyer

I’m one who used photo scenery with FSX and P3D, so I detest the generic textures and generic building autogen.

Photo scenery like Megascenery was better than the generic textures but still flat when at low altitude. The current photogrammetry solution provides a good 3D solution that’s much more correct for navigation and the immersion factor.