Save yourself a lot of time and just accept this is the technology we are dealing with.  Its light years ahead of generic buildings but it can look ugly low and slow!  So you either live with it or turn it off.

Some photogrammetry cities are better than others though. In the Dev livestream London always gets mentioned for being one of the worst in the game, there are also issues with Toronto. 
 

I expect London will get revisited soon, perhaps in one of the CUs this year. 

4 hours ago, 1Wolf said:

System Specs are:

5800X3D with cores optimized via PBO2 curve, AIO water cooled with NZXT Z73, temps almost never hit 80.  MSI RTX 4090 Suprim X 24G (The air cooled one, not the liquid).  Temps stay in the 70's.  MSFS & Windows 10 running of PCI Gen 4 M.2 SSD.  64 Gigs of 3600 RAM.

Prior to a month ago I was running a 5950X and RTX 3090 but the photogrammetry issue seems pretty much unchanged.

Unless even with the 5800X3D, the photogrammetry is just so absolutely CPU intensive that it can't keep up.  Unfortunately, on my AM4 board the 5800X3D is the best I can do.  I'm not at the point of swapping to the AM5 platform or intel to take advantage of the new faster generations of CPU.

Go to KFAR and check out that area...  that is the best PG I've seen yet in the sim.  Not sure why Fargo ND of all places is amazing but it is.  I'm going to post a pic as well and see how mine looks.

1 hour ago, ryanbatc said:

Go to KFAR and check out that area...  that is the best PG I've seen yet in the sim.

I believe the sheer number of buildings matters..  Edmonton is better than Vancouver as well.

Edited February 21, 20233 yr by Bert Pieke

1 hour ago, ryanbatc said:

Go to KFAR and check out that area...  that is the best PG I've seen yet in the sim.  Not sure why Fargo ND of all places is amazing but it is.  I'm going to post a pic as well and see how mine looks.

Looks nice, except near the ground -- same as other PG areas.

The help text when you turn on PG says that it can consume gigabytes of data.

sp

Edited February 21, 20233 yr by Sky_Pilot071

28 minutes ago, cobalt said:

Looks nice, except near the ground -- same as other PG areas.

It looks pretty dang good on my end.  I mean you're not going to get ultra clear perfect polygons.  In this pic my plane was about 1000 agl doing 240 knots... and I just dropped into drone view and I think I'm about 300 ft agl here

Does yours look similar?

FARpg by Ryan Butterworth, on Flickr

The reason is due to the LOD and when the sim loads the distant buildings. Unfortunately it usually doesn't load the buildings in soon enough. This is why the term melted buildings is so common.

The FIX....  Asobo would need to add an additional slider for "downtown skyline" That would load just the skyline high rises in sooner without having to load all distant scenery. This is honestly one of by biggest complaints about the sim and one of the biggest emersion killers. I'm very surprised Asobo has not improved this yet. 

9 hours ago, ryanbatc said:

I've found it's more about your system specs.   But internet speed matters too.  When I swapped to my 12700K especially I noticed PG loads a lot more clearly.  I have a 300 down connection fwiw.

Yes but when you did the upgrade did you turn up the terrain LOD setting? Noticed when doing that, the PG buildings look better the higher one sets this - especially 200+

3 hours ago, ryanbatc said:

It looks pretty dang good on my end.  I mean you're not going to get ultra clear perfect polygons.  In this pic my plane was about 1000 agl doing 240 knots... and I just dropped into drone view and I think I'm about 300 ft agl here

Does yours look similar?

FARpg by Ryan Butterworth, on Flickr

Yes, at that altitude I would say so. At ground level, this area looks like most other places with PG turned on, i.e. not great. But that's not a complaint -- to look this good only 300 feet AGL is remarkable.

8 hours ago, lzamm said:

This won't be much help if the Microsoft servers are the bottleneck. 

This, IMHO, is the issue. Most days, my PG looks fine for the cities (mainly US and Canada) I fly over. But inexplicably, on some days, with nothing changing at my end, skyscrapers look like melted Popsicles. 

Interesting reading through the experiences, advice, and observations of everyone in the thread.

Based on the posts here I'm going to try a few things tomorrow:

1) Crank my LOD setting up to 200+ and see if it makes a noticeable difference.  Right now mine is set at 150.

2) Try creating a manual cache for the cities I've been experimenting with and repeat the exact same flight.

3) Try flying over KFAR and see if what I'm seeing is similar to the pictures you guys posted.

I flew into KSEA over the weekend and all sides of the city from downtown to Bellevue and north into the U district were melted, it improved slightly on approach but flying over the city for a southern arrival was less than impressive. I'm going to turn mine off in future.

For me, PG in general looks good. Indeed not at ground level. The usual suspects like London, Paris, Vancouver, etc. remain bad due to bad data in the first place.
I even between the buildings in LA, I find it acceptable:

Does hard drive speed matter in getting PG to look good?