6 minutes ago, cobalt said:

I don't really understand the frequent reference to "melted cities". It is true that photogrammetry close to ground level often gives this appearance, but from any reasonable altitude it generally looks great -- amazingly true to life. Who (except stunt pilots) flies a hundred feet off the ground anyway? For a long time I avoided photogrammetry because it severely impacted frame rates owing to a bug introduced by one of the earlier updates, but that has been fixed. Now I keep it on all the time, there is no effect on frames that I can detect, and the level of immersion is fantastic.   Just my take.

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

Try avoiding flying low over the stuff on approach to 27R at Heathrow.

13 minutes ago, Jazz said:

Try avoiding flying low over the stuff on approach to 27R at Heathrow.

Shouldn't the pilot on an approach be focused on the runway rather than the scenery?

Edited February 4, 20233 yr by cobalt

Just now, cobalt said:

Shouldn't the pilot on an approach be focused on the runway rather the scenery?

It's not real. You can look out of the windows without consequence😉

Hmmmm. I wonder what would be the reaction if a trainee on a simulator in flight school said that to his instructor?

 

28 minutes ago, cobalt said:

Hmmmm. I wonder what would be the reaction if a trainee on a simulator in flight school said that to his instructor?

 

its not real  🙂

Not sure if this thread is, either!

7 hours ago, cobalt said:

I don't really understand the frequent reference to "melted cities". It is true that photogrammetry close to ground level often gives this appearance, but from any reasonable altitude it generally looks great -- amazingly true to life. Who (except stunt pilots) flies a hundred feet off the ground anyway? For a long time I avoided photogrammetry because it severely impacted frame rates owing to a bug introduced by one of the earlier updates, but that has been fixed. Now I keep it on all the time, there is no effect on frames that I can detect, and the level of immersion is fantastic.   Just my take.

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

If you fly over cities with a reasonable altitude, you wouldn't be able to tell if PG is on or off. Cause even with PG off, cities look good then. Try it.

I would not be able to accept that apocalyptic look with photogrammetry on (or the solid bridges). ORBx experimented with photogrammetry in P3D with the Canary Wharf buildings in TrueEarth GB South. The end result was no lighting, and rubbish low resolution textures. Thankfully, I was able to replace these with the Canary Wharf 3D models from Aerosoft's VFR London X scenery package, and now it looks great!

Edited February 4, 20233 yr by Christopher Low

I never fly with PG on, for three simple reasons 1) it often loads the scenery slower than with it off  2) there is a great variance in quality 3) I hate seeing those awful pointed, half melted buildings as you approach the scenery. As for Bing data being on, yes of course, the sim has been built around using this so, among other things, it delivers accurate ground textures. I have tried PG on and off and when it works it can look amazing, but as I said above and as have others mentioned, there is too big a variance in quality for me to keep it turned on 

8 hours ago, cobalt said:

Hmmmm. I wonder what would be the reaction if a trainee on a simulator in flight school said that to his instructor?

 

🤣

Buddy, you may be taking our toy planes a little seriously.

I suspect that if a trainee told his flight instructor that he turned off PG in MSFS because it looked ugly when he looked out of the window the instructor would say...........

"What's PG?" 🤣

3 hours ago, Watsi said:

If you fly over cities with a reasonable altitude, you wouldn't be able to tell if PG is on or off. Cause even with PG off, cities look good then. Try it.

I agree, they do look good. Just not as good -- or real -- as they do with PG on. This is very clear if you fly over Manhattan with PG on and then off. With it off, the buildings are in the right place and with the right footprints, but they are autogen, and the difference is obvious.

2 hours ago, Jazz said:

🤣

Buddy, you may be taking our toy planes a little seriously.

I suspect that if a trainee told his flight instructor that he turned off PG in MSFS because it looked ugly when he looked out of the window the instructor would say...........

"What's PG?" 🤣

To some folks MSFS is just a game, while to others it's a simulator. But I am confident that to a flight instructor, learning to fly is not a game.

Edited February 4, 20233 yr by cobalt

3 minutes ago, cobalt said:

To some folks MSFS is just a game, while to others it's a simulator. But I am confident that to a flight instructor, learning to fly is not a game.

I'm not learning to fly, I'm playing with my toy planes as are the majority of long-standing simmers like me 😉

I like looking out of the window.

If you have safety concerns or feel I have committed the thought crime of not fully buying into the "flight sim is serious and real" dogma then feel free to report me to the FFSAA. Or.... Federal Flight Simulation Aviation Administration for negligence or not taking virtual aviation seriously enough 🤣

 

Jazz, I was referring to someone taking flight lessons from an instructor. As you say, simmers are doing it for fun, but in that context some of us are actually interested in trying to do it right -- landings especially. If you care to look at the scenery when you land, be my guest. No problem.

For many of us it's immersive entertainment, like a good book or film that draws us in so that we feel we're 'there'.  I do understand that flight sims are used to help train pilots too, but they tend to be heavier duty affairs than MSFS on home PCs.  Nevertheless we all have our own concepts of immersion, so behaving much like on a real flight can be part of that.  Or not, as we choose.  "We're all individuals..."