18 minutes ago, Cpt_Piett said:

 somewhat post-apocalyptic, melted apperance, if not rendered completely. Just have a look at the startup image when the sim is loaded 🙂

 

Many people say that and  it puzzles me. I do not find the Arc de Triomphe image particularly appealing but post apocalyptic ? It looks a good approximation of the Paris rooftops to me. 

1 minute ago, harpsi said:

OK, now I understand that internet connection counts. It is a sort of live scenery. 

All the MFS sceneries including the landcover images and elevation maps (aka mesh) are streamed from their servers not only PG. The sim works without internet but then looks awful.

6 minutes ago, pmb said:

I agree only partially here. What I agree to is a fantastic machine doesn't really improve it (while a really weak one certainly isn't suggested).

However, you can pre-cache (not the rolling cache but the permanent one) photogrammetry cities. I made a test in the London area and pre-cached a certain  extended region and flew above it with and without the pre-cache activated, and it looked exactly the same.

A glance on the present Paris "title image" shows that even MS has those crumpled buildings, and they certainly don't have a network bottleneck. In my mind, it's a general limitation of the present technology.

Kind regards, Michael

There is still a long way to go: building machine, getting the right monitor, testing the machine, overclocking processor if needed, installing MSFS, installing addons... In some time I will be back to your post. :)

8 minutes ago, Dominique_K said:

Many people say that and  it puzzles me. I do not find the Arc de Triomphe image particularly appealing but post apocalyptic ? It looks a good approximation of the Paris rooftops to me. 

All the MFS sceneries including the landcover images and elevation maps (aka mesh) are streamed from their servers not only PG. The sim works without internet but then looks awful.

I have fiber 100 MB. Hope to be enough...

1 minute ago, harpsi said:

I have fiber 100 MB. Hope to be enough...

No problem then. You need roughly speaking at least 10/15 MBps.

BTW try it  first without O/C the processor. MFS doesn't like it on some machines.

Edited May 20, 20215 yr by Dominique_K

  

56 minutes ago, pmb said:

I agree only partially here. What I agree to is a fantastic machine doesn't really improve it (while a really weak one certainly isn't suggested).

However, you can pre-cache (not the rolling cache but the permanent one) photogrammetry cities. I made a test in the London area and pre-cached a certain  extended region and flew above it with and without the pre-cache activated, and it looked exactly the same.

A glance on the present Paris "title image" shows that even MS has those crumpled buildings, and they certainly don't have a network bottleneck. In my mind, it's a general limitation of the present technology.

Kind regards, Michael

 

 

Possibly.  I will try caching again if you feel it helps.

But regardless of the reason, some areas are really good. The QLD Gold Coast for example.

Another one that seems pretty good is Pennsylvania in the US. The longish (20 minute)  clip below from Harrisburg Pennsylvania to Elizabethville then back to Millersburg on the Susquehanna River is mainly Photogrammetry areas around Harrisburg and is generally pretty good. London on the other hand is generally pretty melted.

 

 

 

 

Edited May 20, 20215 yr by Glenn Fitzpatrick

11 minutes ago, harpsi said:

Well, I don't like to fly big cities at all... No water, no rivers, no mountains, just flats and few monuments. So, no problem at all. 😉

Then I’m sure you’ll enjoy MSFS. With your upcoming rig you’ll rarely have performance issues in remote areas. I think many smaller, less frequented cities with photogrammetry makes the scenery stand out in a way that I haven’t experienced in other simulators. Off the top of my mind, Strasbourg and Aachen are such places. 

You can save scenery in on your local drives in the form of “manual cache”. For instance I’ve done this with Madrid, as I was flying there a lot recently. Performance will be better as scenery does not have to be constantly downloaded from MSFS servers. I’m not entirely sure if photogrammetry is downloaded, but it would be my guess. 

Edited May 20, 20215 yr by Cpt_Piett

But how MSFS downloads the scenery instantaneously? Is it the same technique as the real world weather but for cities?

10 minutes ago, harpsi said:

I have fiber 100 MB. Hope to be enough...

I have a 100 MB fiber connection, too, which usually is more than sufficient. (usually 25-30 MB/s is enough). However, I once tried to raise LOD over London way above the maximum  UI setting of 200 via the UserCfg.opt entry, and in this case I got a complaint the sim can't follow downloading and suggests to switch off online scenery (which you can ignore, but expect a bottleneck in this case, of course).

Edit: I agree, quality of Photogrammetry varies considerably. Tokyo is pretty good, London on the other hand pretty bad.

Kind regards, Michael

Edited May 20, 20215 yr by pmb

11 minutes ago, harpsi said:

But how MSFS downloads the scenery instantaneously? Is it the same technique as the real world weather but for cities?

For most of the world your system downloads a 2D aerial photography or satellite image and generates autogenerated  buildings that sort of match but are a bit repetitive and often the wrong height if you are a local. 

However they look fine if you are not familiar with the area.

Photogrammetry is different you are downloading 3D recreations of the real world.  The Gold Coast example above is a perfect example of photogrammetry, every house is different and matches exactly the real house in the real world.

 

Only a fraction of the current sim is photogrammetry and not all of the photogrammetry areas work properly, however the areas that do work well are amazing.

 

Edited May 20, 20215 yr by Glenn Fitzpatrick

15 minutes ago, Dominique_K said:

I do not find the Arc de Triomphe image particularly appealing but post apocalyptic ?

I’m not one of the staunchest opponents to photogrammetry and to be honest I didn’t really react to that image until it was extensively discussed. If there’s congestion on the servers (or poor internet connection at the user end) it can look pretty bad, as the objects are only partially rendered. 

Even with all things being optimal, I wouldn’t expect a perfect result flying over say Paris at 2000ft AGL at 350 kts.

10 minutes ago, Glenn Fitzpatrick said:

  Possibly.  I will try caching again if you feel it helps.

No, just to the contrary. I found pre-caching on and off does look exactly the same. At least in the London region which I tried. That's on my machine, my settings and my connection, of course.

There are several extended PM threads on the official forum with valuable insight. Unfortunatly, no one found a golden solution so far.

Kind regards, Michael

25 minutes ago, Glenn Fitzpatrick said:

For most of the world your system downloads a 2D aerial photography or satellite image and generates autogenerated  buildings that sort of match but are a bit repetitive and often the wrong height if you are a local. 

However they look fine if you are not familiar with the area.

Photogrammetry is different you are downloading 3D recreations of the real world.  The Gold Coast example above is a perfect example of photogrammetry, every house is different and matches exactly the real house in the real world.

 

Only a fraction of the current sim is photogrammetry and not all of the photogrammetry areas work properly, however the areas that do work well are amazing.

 

Can we expect more cities in the future? Or in other words, are city updates supposed to happen in the future?

1 minute ago, harpsi said:

Can we expect more cities in the future? Or in other words, are city updates supposed to happen in the future?

Each world update has added more photogrammetry to the area covered by that update.

As a former full time photogrammetrist (I used to make maps from stereo aerial photography) I've a keen interest in the application of this technology within MSFS.  Most mapping exercises involving 3d photography with photogrammetry are still to do with generating 2d maps - or photography - that is correctly scale adjusted.  This is so you can take accurate distance measures off it especially when changes of terrain elevation are involved.  The UK's national mapping agency, the Ordnance Survey, has been doing this for many many decades for example. Contours on OS maps all come from 3d photogrammetry source material.

3d rendered representations of buildings are but the latest evolution of photogrammetry.  I'd agree with the above comment about the the MSFS implementation being technology limited.  I'm not a fan of the "plasticine" look though I have to applaud the sheer ambition behind it all.

3d photogrammetry itself began long before the computer age though.  In the Second World War the technique was used to measure assorted targets and objects of interest and to make 3d models of same.  That other very particular game is now played with satellites as much as aircraft these days and no longer constrained to just visible light.

12 minutes ago, Humble Jim said:

As a former full time photogrammetrist

That’s very interesting to have a professional’s take. In your opinion, do you find there are significant differences between photogrammetry cities in MSFS?

I find that some cities have a monotonous, somewhat melted, or “plasticine” look. Where’s in other places the various buildings are clearly defined with natural looking colors.