Normally I have PG off. But after World Update III and UK update I wanted to give it another try. To my surprise London city looks absolutely stunning during my short trip from Wycombe to London City airport. So I tried another flight in Vancouver area. Flying from Pitt Meadows towards Vancouver City was again a big disappointment. Vancouver City popped up relatively late and then again those pyramid or tent like buildings until I was pretty close. Too bad.

Is it normal to see such big differences when it comes to photogrammetry?

41 minutes ago, Nemo said:

Normally I have PG off. But after World Update III and UK update I wanted to give it another try. To my surprise London city looks absolutely stunning during my short trip from Wycombe to London City airport. So I tried another flight in Vancouver area. Flying from Pitt Meadows towards Vancouver City was again a big disappointment. Vancouver City popped up relatively late and then again those pyramid or tent like buildings until I was pretty close. Too bad.

Is it normal to see such big differences when it comes to photogrammetry?

Check Venice out with PG and without. PG is awesome! Check it out...it shows what PG could be all over the world.

49 minutes ago, Manny said:

Check Venice out with PG and without. PG is awesome! Check it out...it shows what PG could be all over the world.

Yeah, good idea, will check Venice (Italy). I'm only wondering why some PG renditions look so ugly while others do not.

2 minutes ago, Nemo said:

Yeah, good idea, will check Venice (Italy). I'm only wondering why some PG renditions look so ugly while others do not.

I am not 100% of what I am going to say now. So take what I say with a grain of salt.

My understanding of FG is, like anything else it has a resolution.  e.g,. Lets say an aircraft flies over an area North-South and then it flies East West over a building. While it takes 4 photos. Now these 4 photos of that single building goes into a function model that builds the 3D version of that building.

The same thing done with say 8 Photos of the Buidling... or 16 photos from different angle..now compare this 3D building with the previous one. I would wager the one with a higher resolution (the second set) is going to look better.

IMO, these higher resolution FG is available for area like Venice and we do not have that for many areas of the world.

7 minutes ago, Nemo said:

I'm only wondering why some PG renditions look so ugly while others do not.

There are a lot of technical variables which can really dictate the end result in photogrammetry. From the camera megapixel count to the amount and angle of photos taken of a single building to the aircraft path, altitude, use of LiDAR, surface material of object (glass is disruptive to photogrammetry since the algorithm can’t define it as a plane surface due to its high reflectivity), and all the way to the actual algorithm used to stitch the data together. 

They all come together to form a high-resolution mesh or something out of a world war movie. 

Also, photogrammetry data is heavily post processed as the first results have very high polygon counts (which is why google earth rips have terrible performance in sim) and also require tight LOD’s to optimize for performance (which is why the buildings ‘pop’ to its realistic form when you’re close)

1 hour ago, Nemo said:

Is it normal to see such big differences when it comes to photogrammetry?

How fast is your internet speed?

33 minutes ago, polosim said:

How fast is your internet speed?

very good, nominal 250 real 150-180 MBit.

1 hour ago, FAZZ3 said:

There are a lot of technical variables which can really dictate the end result in photogrammetry. From the camera megapixel count to the amount and angle of photos taken of a single building to the aircraft path, altitude, use of LiDAR, surface material of object (glass is disruptive to photogrammetry since the algorithm can’t define it as a plane surface due to its high reflectivity), and all the way to the actual algorithm used to stitch the data together. 

They all come together to form a high-resolution mesh or something out of a world war movie. 

Also, photogrammetry data is heavily post processed as the first results have very high polygon counts (which is why google earth rips have terrible performance in sim) and also require tight LOD’s to optimize for performance (which is why the buildings ‘pop’ to its realistic form when you’re close)

Venice PG looks really good. Main problem I see, are modern cities with many skyscrapers which look ugly on approach. London seems to be be a positive exception.

Edited February 21, 20215 yr by Nemo

18 minutes ago, Nemo said:

Venice PG looks really good. Main problem I see, a modern cities with many skyscrapers which look ugly on approach. London seems to be be a positive exception.

The reason they postponed for first time the World Update 3 was the Bing guys needed more time to implement a new technique for the photogrammetric cities they acquired. Maybe that’s it.

24 minutes ago, Nemo said:

Main problem I see, a modern cities with many skyscrapers which look ugly on approach. London seems to be be a positive exception.

New York or also known as the Big Ugly. From far it looks OK, from up close... man those building textures are just ugly.

4 hours ago, Nemo said:

So I tried another flight in Vancouver area. Flying from Pitt Meadows towards Vancouver City was again a big disappointment. Vancouver City popped up relatively late and then again those pyramid or tent like buildings until I was pretty close. Too bad.

I agree that Vancouver looks better from a distance with PG off, and the freeware Vancouver Bridges added.

Yes, you lose the unique building detail when you get closer, but gain a better overall appearance.

"PG on" delivers the awful harbour cranes, unfortunately.

Tough call...

Edited February 21, 20215 yr by Bert Pieke

On 2/21/2021 at 4:40 PM, Nemo said:

Normally I have PG off.

I dont have the game yet and Im close to buying it. I find this interesting. I have a weak PC and a not exactly a blazing fast connection. Would you mind posting a screenshot with PG turned off? Thanks 🙂

15 minutes ago, ThrottleUp said:

I dont have the game yet and Im close to buying it. I find this interesting. I have a weak PC and a not exactly a blazing fast connection. Would you mind posting a screenshot with PG turned off? Thanks 🙂

In most places, you will not see a difference... Get it installed and you will see for yourself 🙂

Edited February 22, 20215 yr by Bert Pieke

A lot of the issues with photogrammetry like melted buildings seem server related.  Though I have a strong suspicion if you had an overloaded server and cache was turned on you end up permanently caching the melted version until you clear your cache again.

Edited February 23, 20215 yr by Glenn Fitzpatrick

18 hours ago, ThrottleUp said:

I dont have the game yet and Im close to buying it. I find this interesting. I have a weak PC and a not exactly a blazing fast connection. Would you mind posting a screenshot with PG turned off? Thanks 🙂

London, PG off, Orbx landmarks on.