PG vs handcrafted landmarks

[Dominique_K 10,152]

Yesterday I had the typical experience of a simmer with a lowish hardware and internet environment. 

I wanted to check the Nîmes arena and Maison Carrée. I couldn't because the flow of data was not enough. No PG allowed 😃 !

I went to glorious Scotland and flew from my  old base in P3D in Plockton to the splendid Eilean Donan Castle and here it was !

I suppose that PG being a semi-industrialized process is less costly for MS to add stuff ?   But at the end of the day, what I can enjoy are the handcrafted landmarks ! 

Could we say that PG is overrated or rather not ready for prime time ?

Edited June 20, 2023 by Dominique_K

[tup61 1,660]

The idea behind PG is that you can (more or less) automatically 'model' entire cities in 3D 'in one go'. Creating an entire city this way might take less time than creatine ONE castle by hand. Modelling an entire city by hand with the amount of detail PG can do would take months and months if not years and years. 

However... that's the theory. The problem is that even though PG (and similar tech) can look pretty good and convincing the implementation of it in MSFS leaves a lot to be desired... I am not sure why but PG in MSFS looks absolutely terrible when you compare it to some of the Googe Earth 3D cities. Perhaps they use a different tech, perhaps it's because of the servers, I don't know but for me personally (!) PG in MSFS is highly overrated and NOT ready for prime time yet. I have it turned off permanently since I prefer the clean look of 'autogen' and handcrafted 3D models.

[pmb 5,138]

According to my experience, it's not so much the technology of PG as such (as @tup61 states) but the way it's implemented. There are cities like Tokyo where it works really, really well (for me) and I wouldn't miss it. There are others (you know, L...) where it's an eye sore indeed. 

The result certainly depends on quite a number of factors: Internet connection (100 MB/s here), power of the local machine, momentary server speed/access, quality of raw data, type of processing... Another effect to mention is the color mismatching between PG and the surrounding which I feel should - and could - be avoided,

I hope Asobo will make progress when they are going to rework previous PG cities for the next SU (whenever this will see the light of the sun).

This said, I always have PG on, despite its shortcomings. I tried to switch it off a couple of times, but had it on again after a few minutes already. The generic buildings, while razor-sharp, just don't make the specifics of the city for me.

Kind regards, Michael

[superspud 451]

As above, bits of Japan work well. Many other places... do not.

London has been a jagged sludgefest from minute one. 

I would vastly prefer cleverer autogen. If there was a way for autogen to draw on colour and shape from their photogrammetry data and apply it that would be my favoured option. 

[edpatino 1,987]

PG is the most efficient way to represent cities and landmarks. I'm sure it'll be improving over time. It's the correct strategy in my opinion. I always fly with PG ON, independently of the area I'm flying.

The use of 3D handcrafted landmarks is probably the best solution in terms of the graphics quality, but it implies: (1) The design and availability of the 3D models, (2) The use of a high amount of computer resources including disk space, (3) A powerful graphics card, able to represent those 3D models that depending on their amount could cause high graphics memory usage and heat. Obviously, it would be practically impossible to have entire modeled 3D cities, something PG can easily provide.

The only place where PG does not work well for me in MSFS2020 is the city of Rome, in which the vegetation is also not acceptable, as it covers too much of its buildings. London is probably another example of bad PG, as some users have reported in the recent past, but fortunately there's a collection of 3D modeled landmarks available. Sometimes, the combined use of PG and external 3D landmarks is the best solution, but the choice would depend on the areas you commonly fly.

[Shack95 2,675]

I agree that there‘s room for improvement. Especially cranes, trees and taller modern buildings with clean lines tend to look terrible. On the other hand, sometimes it looks stunning depending on place, lighting, altitude and of course hardware. Some or the more recent Bing PG cities look very nice, I‘d say they’re even on par with Google. So yeah, it‘s bit of a mixed bag.

[michdb8 49]

for me the biggest problem of PG big cities is the night light where buildings are too dark i hope they find a way to add night textures to the building in a better way so you can see lights far and not like now where you flight over big cities and looks like power outage all over the area

[MrFuzzy 2,124]

4 hours ago, Dominique_K said:

Could we say that PG is overrated or rather not ready for prime time ?

I keep it on 100% of the time, cities are much more realistic with PG on for me... I have a 600 Mbps fiber connection though.

MS ideal recommendation is a 50 Mbps connection (which, of course, should also be stable and consistent). If your connection is slow or inconsistent, you may expect melted or badly morphing PG. 

Oh, and of course it would be impossible to have everything hand made...

Edited June 20, 2023 by MrFuzzy

[Christopher Low 5,416]

27 minutes ago, michdb8 said:

for me the biggest problem of PG big cities is the night light where buildings are too dark i hope they find a way to add night textures to the building in a better way so you can see lights far and not like now where you flight over big cities and looks like power outage all over the area

So there is no lighting in any of the PG buildings in FS 2020?? I guess that is to be expected, but it must make PG cities look rather strange at night.

[Dominique_K 10,152]

I agree that my poor connection is partly at fault. I also agree that  PG gives a better sense of the layout and atmosphere of a city. I keep PG on except when MSFS wants me to shut it off.  Which is often these recent days.

Does MSFS optimize the PG constructs well enough before ‘dumping’ them in the scenery ? In another thread about the vegetation transparency bug, @bobcat999 speaks of  »half-assed attempt sometimes ». Is PG one of them ? 

 

[michdb8 49]

27 minutes ago, Christopher Low said:

So there is no lighting in any of the PG buildings in FS 2020?? I guess that is to be expected, but it must make PG cities look rather strange at night.

there is lights but too much dark and  he LOD is very short to be visible at normal departure or arrival.

in this example in New York the empire state is had made landmark but the rest is PG

Edited June 20, 2023 by michdb8

[BaronKen 147]

1 hour ago, michdb8 said:

for me the biggest problem of PG big cities is the night light where buildings are too dark i hope they find a way to add night textures to the building in a better way so you can see lights far and not like now where you flight over big cities and looks like power outage all over the area

Yeah, I agree with this. I would like to see Asobo increase the the intensity of the building lights twofold. Even though the PG building lights might not have the colored lights that many skyscrapers have in real life, it would improve the nighttime appearance of cities a great deal.

[Alvega 2,126]

11 hours ago, tup61 said:

The idea behind PG is that you can (more or less) automatically 'model' entire cities in 3D 'in one go'. Creating an entire city this way might take less time than creatine ONE castle by hand. Modelling an entire city by hand with the amount of detail PG can do would take months and months if not years and years. 

However... that's the theory. The problem is that even though PG (and similar tech) can look pretty good and convincing the implementation of it in MSFS leaves a lot to be desired... I am not sure why but PG in MSFS looks absolutely terrible when you compare it to some of the Googe Earth 3D cities. Perhaps they use a different tech, perhaps it's because of the servers, I don't know but for me personally (!) PG in MSFS is highly overrated and NOT ready for prime time yet. I have it turned off permanently since I prefer the clean look of 'autogen' and handcrafted 3D models.

I agree, it's always off for me too.