I have been flying with Photogrammetry off, because in most places, the default scenery is perfectly OK,

but as these pictures from NYC show, PG adds a lot, in those cities where the data is good!

Note: Orbx NY city scenery is active in both pictures

 

 

Edited September 5, 20214 yr by Bert Pieke

The bottom picture looks post-apocolyptic with all the trees over growing the buildings (mostly bottom right corner) is that with PG on?

I personally never use PG as I find it makes things look weird close up unless the particular area has been optimized for it. 🤷🏼

Bottom picture is PG on.

Yes, I also tend to avoid photogrammetry, not only because it can look kind of odd, but also because of those jungles of trees growing everywhere. It's like the area is a guy who hasn't shaved in 2 months......

Very unkempt/grungy. 😄

Photogrammetry mainly works fine for me, but tends to depend on the city to be honest some are good and some are pretty awful. The Queensland "Gold Coast" is an example of a good one that usually works well. At least for me.

It also works best between 1500' and maybe 7000' below 1500' you are far too close for it to ever work well and above 7000' it starts to get a bit pointless.

Photogrammetry, when it is working properly, makes a huge difference if you are personally familiar with the area.

Default generic scenery tends to do things like turn the local preschool into a multi storey office block.   Which of course does not really matter if you are randomly flying over Khabarovsk in the Russian far east, and have never actually been there yourself, but can really matter if it is a regional city near you that you visit in real life.

 

Edited September 5, 20214 yr by Glenn Fitzpatrick

I fly with PG on.  I just did a scenic flight over Barcelona and was so impressed with the PG.  Of course different areas have less quality but I still leave it on in those areas.

I always have PG on. I think the tall trees are there as a way for Asobo to make sure trees stay in view at longer distances instead of popping in and out as you get closer / further away. I can't think of any other reason Asobo would use trees that tall.

Hi,

Have any of you checked if Photogrammetry off minimizes CTDs?

Thank you.

 

On, always. 

Photogrammetry OFF also generates differences in the color of the ground in certain airports.

On,always even if I find that the rendering is not up to the level of a next gen simulator. It's magnificent potato fields on the horizon.

On since I built the new rig.

Not bad at all here in Portugal. Overall very close to the real thing.

I just wonder how much additional bandwidth ( .net and cpu / gpu ) it takes from the simulation cycles ?

Never even thought for a second of turning it off.

Edited September 6, 20214 yr by Tomaz Drnovsek

It is sometimes different to decide. Landing at airports with a lot of ugly formed PG trees visible on final is painful for my eyes. If you landed once at KBUR (ORBX) runway 33 you know what I mean. Concerning city buildings it appears PG to be better since the last update, but mainly because I could increase LODS to 4.5 or even higher. This helped in areas when PG of the city buildings were bad shaped from a distant view. It also depends on the PG quality of the city in general. Some are better than others. Currently I keep PG on most of the time. If I know that my target airport and the surrounding area is of low quality PG, I switch it off.

Edited September 6, 20214 yr by Nemo

Switched PG off after the UK world update. It was a huge performance hog for me and the LODs meant it looked weirdly pointy yet melted at anything other than close up, especially the non-Bing PG such as London and Paris. It's probably less of a framerate killer since SU5 but can't say I've missed PG as much as I thought I would, and it remains switched off.

Edited September 6, 20214 yr by ckyliu

PG on. No third party addon can give the same visual fidelity of seeing your own house, with its shape, the right color and so on. And it applies to hundred of cities world wide.