Photogrammetry

[Todd2 2,189]

I was not pleased with the photogrammetry from Naples or the previous from London.  First time I've ever turned photogrammetry off do you guys have it on or off. Naples had objects floating in the air which is of course not normal.

[ADamiani 470]

I agree. Quality control is totally unknown I am afraid.

BTW: I suspect there is some rule that says they have to release new content each month, ready or not, just to keep the game rolling. Too bad updates are mandatory, so they tend to break stuff and make people unhappy, and there is nothing you can do about it.

If trees are not fixed and PG looks bad, I'll revert to the standard version. At least we can uninstall World Updates.

A.

[Republic DC9 234]

I have a love hate relationship with photogrammetry.

I love how you can look down and see EXACTLY what is in real life, down to the logos on roofs and when landing and you see actual buildings (say, coming into KSNA) it can look incredible.

And sometimes it looks melted and silly and (maybe?) seems to cause more stutters, and I hate the jarring color difference between the normal photoreal and these areas.

But when flying in my local cities like Sheboygan and Milwaukee where I KNOW what they look like it’s hard to fly without it.

[MrBitstFlyer 3,899]

42 minutes ago, Todd2 said:

I was not pleased with the photogrammetry from Naples or the previous from London.  First time I've ever turned photogrammetry off do you guys have it on or off. Naples had objects floating in the air which is of course not normal.

I always have photogrammetry off because at low level it can look absolutely awful.  I much prefer the autogen because it is still in the right place, reflects light more realistically and is better for smoothness.

[sniper31 651]

52 minutes ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

I always have photogrammetry off because at low level it can look absolutely awful.  I much prefer the autogen because it is still in the right place, reflects light more realistically and is better for smoothness

Same for me. Every time I try and give PG another chance, I just cannot get past the melted buildings and monolithic trees and blocky bushes. And also, there are the solid bridges, overpasses and dock cranes. So, I keep PG off and for all the reasons @MrBitstFlyerstated, I am more than happy. 

[tup61 1,642]

56 minutes ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

I always have photogrammetry off because at low level it can look absolutely awful.  I much prefer the autogen because it is still in the right place, reflects light more realistically and is better for smoothness.

This. Well put. BTW PG can also look bad from a higher level or a greater distance. MSFS only has one disappointing feature: PG. I can't stand it. Awful. I also don't like to have different kind of scenery in one sim. So I have it OFF! 

[The Moose 1,178]

PG on.. always.      It's the best feature of the graphics engine.   Looking down at handcrafted buildings in a photoreal world just looks wrong.  the sooner the whole planet is covered in PG the better.

[RaptyrOne 1,459]

Problem right now is that “photogrammetry” does not equal “photoreal”. It is quite “unreal”. 

Italy is ugly. Not the real one, I love Italy, but it’s as ugly as a dogs bottom in the sim after WU9.

[MrBitstFlyer 3,899]

1 hour ago, The Moose said:

PG on.. always.      It's the best feature of the graphics engine.   Looking down at handcrafted buildings in a photoreal world just looks wrong.  the sooner the whole planet is covered in PG the better.

The whole world covered in distant triangles, melted buildings, tree 'things' and melted everything else? No thanks.

[GSalden 4,706]

Always on. Yesterday I took off from Linate and flew over the city. Looked very good.

At approach for Rotterdam the PG looked fantastic…

Sometimes it looks less good but most of the time it looks great here .

[andy1252 4,019]

Some of it is good, some of it is truly awful. I think it's mostly consistent, i.e. the good bits are always good and the rubbish bit rubbish, but I can't be sure - sometimes it feels like there might be an issue with server capability, in that places I thought were ok sometimes look a little off. I went through a longish period, six months maybe, of leaving it turned off but nowadays I run with it on, and just turn it off in flight if I find myself somewhere unpleasant.

[jimcarrel 688]

When this title launched, I ran "the melted blobs" for about 10 minutes, in 3 or 4 locations. Turned it off, been flying ever since without this. Plus I got a few more FPS. Not turning it back on. Didn't feel bad about it at all. Those who enjoy it (apparently you have more imagination than I do) I'm happy for you, but it just doesn't get me excited at all.

[andreh 125]

Is the melted buildings a performance/internet connectivity issue, perhaps?

[molleh 451]

i don't like the photogrammetry. my brain can't get around the strange non-linear interpretation (the "melted" look as many call it), even though it is cool having the real buildings and such.

[darshonaut 237]

I have it off. I don't care about it and when I happen to come near a photogrammetry area, I get better FPS with it off.