Photogrammetry looks incredible in all the screenshots however unfortunately it looks like rubbish on my 50mbps internet connection. 

I turn photogrammetry off for this reason and am still extremely impressed with the quality I see below me. 

13 minutes ago, DModjo said:

Photogrammetry looks incredible in all the screenshots however unfortunately it looks like rubbish on my 50mbps internet connection. 

I turn photogrammetry off for this reason and am still extremely impressed with the quality I see below me. 

Rest assured, it looks like word not allowed on my 1000 mbps connection too.

Having said that: which of the available PG-cities actually DO look good (up close)? I do like to visit one, you know, just to see what it can be like. So far all PG-cities I tried were really terrible.

 

Edited February 1, 20224 yr by tup61

25 minutes ago, tup61 said:

Having said that: which of the available PG-cities actually DO look good (up close)? I do like to visit one, you know, just to see what it can be like. So far all PG-cities I tried were really terrible.

My country has a good amount of PG cities and of those, I know several cities quite well personally. And I have a very good internet connection as well. To be absolutely honest, I am seriously amazed at the quality the PG shows here. I can not only identify on first glance, but actually read real text on buildings when flying down low and slow.

So in my perception and for my country, the answer to your question is "all of them".

1 hour ago, tup61 said:

 

Having said that: which of the available PG-cities actually DO look good (up close)? I do like to visit one, you know, just to see what it can be like. 

 

Tokyo to name but one.

Quite frankly, apart from the UK i'm impressed with the PG in the sim, and I spend the majority of my time flying over it very low in a helicopter. Looks incredible. 100x better than autogen.  Very impressed with the Aussie cities so far.

4 hours ago, tup61 said:

Does EVERY topic on this forum has to evolve into an off topic argument?!?!?!?!?

Discussing the merits of different approaches how the world in a flightsim can be recreated is not off topic imho.

 

4 hours ago, mtaxp said:

What you need for VFR is what you see on your map, you can't see roof colors, nor specific landmarks buildings. You see mesh, landclass, roads, waterbodies, powerlines, major obstacles.

That kind of VFR experience is possible since the days of FSX, so should we not aim for more nowadays? 

E.g. take a look at the official circuit guidelines of LSZI here. To fly this procedure in VFR correctly, a good autogen scenery will not be enough. Not detailed enough (to be precise: details could be there, but they just look how they could look like but not how they really look), not precise enough.

 

4 hours ago, mtaxp said:

Anything beyond that is pure eye candy, and for eye candy autogen is MUCH better than photogrammetry imo.

Autogen is also FSX kind of stuff.

Photogrammetry is of course only for those, who like it better. The others can switch it off and enjoy the AI based autogen, which is by far the best approach offering global coverage.

Edited February 1, 20224 yr by mrueedi
added link

2 hours ago, tup61 said:

Rest assured, it looks like word not allowed on my 1000 mbps connection too.

Having said that: which of the available PG-cities actually DO look good (up close)? I do like to visit one, you know, just to see what it can be like. So far all PG-cities I tried were really terrible.

 

I had posted these shots of Seattle in another thread. Japan also looks good as others have noted, I'll try and get some new ones from Down Under...

I'm on fast internet here, but I do think filtering and port settings need to be published by MS / Asobo because that may why PG doesn't resolve for some... 

6 hours ago, mrueedi said:

6 hours ago, mtaxp said:

6 hours ago, mrueedi said:

The rest (building height, roof type and shape, roof color) will not be there in XPlane, even when they copy from MSFS data. So, the replication of the buildings in MSFS still is superior.

Then why:

https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/20/21376978/microsoft-flight-simulator-glitches-maps-bugs

https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/21/21395084/microsoft-flight-simulator-melbourne-obelish-openstreetmap-bing-maps-data-glitch

Because AI is not a 100% technology. It extracts the data right in maybe 99% of all cases. So a tiny number of issues like the ones you posted remain. These can easily be fixed manually anyway. Also, these particular glitches came from wrong OSM data. Not related to the AI technology. XPlane, which relies only on other data sources like OSM is affected more from those (unless fixed manually too).

 

6 hours ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

I am not interested in which is best.

Strange.

In relation to this thread I am not interested in which is best.  I am specifically answering a few posters that didn't appear to know the autogen in XP11 is updateable with MSFS data.

15 hours ago, Glenn Fitzpatrick said:

Whilst I agree to some extent., in areas you are familiar with the autogen differs a lot more than "somewhat" - in our local town my single story semi detached apartment is part of a three story soviet style apartment block, my friend up the roads car port is a little cottage and our local hospital has turned into an office building.

Autogen is fantastic for areas you do not know personally flying in some remote random part of the world. For areas you know well, the shape of the roof may be right but as often as not the rest of it is not quite there.

Photogrammetry when it is working properly is fantastic and spot on almost down to street level.

Yup, I agree. Photogrammetry and satellite is the future.  And the photogrammetry and satellite data, plus the post processing of 2D satellite data into 3D objects by companies like Blackshark AI, will only get better from here.  MSFS's other competition is miles behind.  

MSFS = 2020s technology.  MSFS's competitors = 2000's technology.

Edited February 1, 20224 yr by abrams_tank

33 minutes ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

I am specifically answering a few posters that didn't appear to know the autogen in XP11 is updateable with MSFS data.

Thats indeed interesting. Thanks for that hint.

Kiwi tour of the Gold Coast (with labels on) - MS did a great job with the PG in this update

Yeah that's the other thing....  my 200 mbps connection isn't even amazing for PG.  That combined with my older CPU - I think that's one of the large reasons I don't use PG....it's not very sharp until I'm right over it.

7 hours ago, mtaxp said:

Ugly is subjective

Dude, you're exhausting. 

2 hours ago, mrueedi said:

E.g. take a look at the official circuit guidelines of LSZI here. To fly this procedure in VFR correctly, a good autogen scenery will not be enough. Not detailed enough (to be precise: details could be there, but they just look how they could look like but not how they really look), not precise enough.

I was about to post the same thing.

Many fields I fly to IRL has a textual appendix to the VAC where very specific landmarks, buildings are designated as cues navigating in the proximity of the airfield or in the pattern. 

Autogen is next to useless for these VFR maneuvers.

2 hours ago, DylanM said:

Kiwi tour of the Gold Coast (with labels on) - MS did a great job with the PG in this update

 

Why is it that some of the PG buildings appear melted? I tried rolling cache size of 30 GIG and I still don't see the best results.

35 minutes ago, DJJose said:

Why is it that some of the PG buildings appear melted? I tried rolling cache size of 30 GIG and I still don't see the best results.

That still remains an issue with MSFS.

With my 600 mb IN connection I see it regularly on both fast view pc’s. In the past I tried using RC but that did nothing for me. Now I have none of the Caches enabled. At closeby the melted buildings are being corrected…

You could try manual cache for larg cities and see if that helps.