Just now, edpatino said:

And, btw, with VSync ON, as far as I remember, it gave me two options, 30 and 60 FPS. With 30 FPS looks way smoother to me.

Yes, I did set it to 30 FPS and it looks as smooth as smooth can be. Thanks again.

Hmmm....I’m still getting pretty smooth results even around Seattle or flying LAX to BUR with photogrammetry turned ON, with LOD turned DOWN to 150 from the prior 200, but render scaling turned up to 85 or almost my TV’s native 4K resolution if I Vsync and lock to 30 FPS.

Needless to say the picture is quite clear as well and my graphics card doesn’t seem to be getting that hot (sometimes as with XP11 the other day it went nuts with fans going full blast etc which makes me nervous).

I've tried PG off...it's not for me personally.  I can see how some would prefer the experience though, certainly. 

For me, I've settled on 100 LOD, as I have quite a difficult time telling the difference between 100 and 200, which I had been running prior.  I've got pretty much everything else cranked way up, including render scale to 150.  Everything looks and runs excellent now.  Very smooth.

With 200 LOD I was getting major frame rate drop at my local airports in the Boston area.  I'd sometimes drop into the mid teens while on the ground.  As soon as I got airborne, it would shoot back up, but lowering to 100 LOD seems like a fair trade for better ground fps.

I honestly can't see flying MSFS without PG.  Its one of the things that make the new sim.

You should use the rolling cache and make it at least a 32Gig cache and then be prepared for melted buildings and very short 'houses' the first time you fly an area but by the second or third time the scenery WILL look much better.  Cities like Tampa and Orlando and Miami are all good -- look great and load fast.   LAX has always produced stutters for me so I just avoid it.  I can fly near it (12nm) without problem.

Edited November 28, 20214 yr by sightseer

11 hours ago, dogmanbird said:

Regarding the servers - the photogrammetry for the area I fly frequently (on east cost of aus) improved when SU7 released. The coastal buildings and rock formations are now much more accurately represented and detailed. It was a nice surprise. Sadly the bing data is still about 5 years out of date

Give the Google Map addon a go.  Super easy to use and the areas you fly may have very good data.  Even in the UK and USA,  Many areas in Google maps are far better than Bing.

I am one of those for whom MSFS is great using ultra graphics settings and with photogrammetry turned off, but is unflyable when it is on. I have tried lowering settings and other suggestions in this thread, but while I see some improvement, the sim is still unacceptably stuttery. The photogrammetry problem that some of us have --- most likely a server issue --  is recognized by Asobo and on their list of issues needing a fix, which I hope will happen soon. Meanwhile, I fly mostly in non-PG areas and having a great experience. Meanwhile, it is clear that this is NOT something that can be fixed by twiddling the settings.

Alienware Aurora R11, 32 GB ram, Intel i7-10700F, GeForce RTX 2080 Super, Ultra graphics settings

 

Edited November 28, 20214 yr by cobalt

I go PG on and off periodically.  200 LOD with OFF is very smooth for me at 2k.  200 LOD with PG on can be pretty choppy - but I'm guessing that's due to my older CPU.

Another big plus is continuity of satellite imagery with it OFF.

15 hours ago, dogmanbird said:

Regarding the servers - the photogrammetry for the area I fly frequently (on east cost of aus) improved when SU7 released. The coastal buildings and rock formations are now much more accurately represented and detailed. It was a nice surprise. Sadly the bing data is still about 5 years out of date

 

 

 

I agree scenery is more detailed in SU7.

Are you sure about the Bing data / Bing maps, in my case the in-sim scenery shows the solar panels on my house roof and latest extension to our house which was only completed at the end of 2019.

Also shows the new extension to Bundora Parade called Duigan Drive at YMMB which opened last year.

13 minutes ago, YMMB said:

I agree scenery is more detailed in SU7.

Are you sure about the Bing data / Bing maps, in my case the in-sim scenery shows the solar panels on my house roof and latest extension to our house which was only completed at the end of 2019.

Also shows the new extension to Bundora Parade called Duigan Drive at YMMB which opened last year.

Take a look at BWI airport near Baltimore, MD. Bing shows runway 4-22 still there, and 15L-33R is still in the middle of being updated. 4-22 was turned into a taxiway in 2014, and 15L-33R was completed in 2014.

The worst part of this is that none of the SIDS or STARS for BWI are usable in MSFS due to the missing runway.

4 hours ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

 Many areas in Google maps are far better than Bing.

Google is not that much better in Australia/NZ - I generally see no difference or Bing is better.  Seems to depend on where you are flying.

As for Photogrammetry, it matters if your familiar with a city in real life or through movies/photos but if your flying somewhere you are not familiar with, like say flying a Mig out of the old, now closed, cold war airbase near Khaborovsk in the Russian Far East it sort of does not really matter that much.

Edited November 28, 20214 yr by Glenn Fitzpatrick

I turned PG off once to see if it increased draw distance or reduced stutters and it did neither.  All it did was make the Tampa area look terrible so I turned PG back on and havent had it off since.

  I don't think it matters if you've never seen an area in real life -- you can see familiar buildings like Home Depot or WalMart or some fast food places.  Apartments and motels take on a wide variety of appearnces that you just cant get with the autogen.

I appreciate everyone’s responses...for now I’ve settled on LOD 150 and 80 render scaling of 4K and it’s generally pretty smooth with photogrammetry on, even around NYC, Boston, etc....I think I’ve traded some trees disappearing then popping back into view for stutters but that’s a trade I’m happy to make.

I see no performance difference with it on or off, I had a similar problem after WU5, but it disappeared after I reinstalled Windows.

10 hours ago, Glenn Fitzpatrick said:

15 hours ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

 Many areas in Google maps are far better than Bing.

Google is not that much better in Australia/NZ - I generally see no difference or Bing is better.  Seems to depend on where you are flying.

As for Photogrammetry, it matters if your familiar with a city in real life or through movies/photos but if your flying somewhere you are not familiar with, like say flying a Mig out of the old, now closed, cold war airbase near Khaborovsk in the Russian Far East it sort of does not really matter that much.

Agreed about Bing maps as the quality can be superb.  I fly mostly in western USA.  Around San Diego and Los Angeles Bing maps are great. Just a few miles up the coast Google maps are far better than Bing.

13 hours ago, sightseer said:

I turned PG off once to see if it increased draw distance or reduced stutters and it did neither.  All it did was make the Tampa area look terrible so I turned PG back on and havent had it off since.

  I don't think it matters if you've never seen an area in real life -- you can see familiar buildings like Home Depot or WalMart or some fast food places.  Apartments and motels take on a wide variety of appearnces that you just cant get with the autogen.

I am glad PG works for you. For me, the choice is (1) PG with realistic Walmarts and terrible stutters, or (2) PG turned off, which takes away the Walmarts but eliminates the stutters. Until PG is fixed, this is a no-brainer. I can manage to survive without the Walmarts. In fact I find the autogen to be fairly decent overall. 

Edited November 29, 20214 yr by cobalt