Is it my setup or London look terrible in the sim?

[Daube 354]

PG cities are sceneries on your computer, not on the servers, as far as I know. They are part of the base sim content, or world updates content. As a matter of fact, it was recommended (in the community, not by Asobo) to uninstall the PG cities from the content manager to help with the scenery loading smoothness in flight, wasn't it ?

So servers and / or internet provider have most likely nothing to do with melted buildings.

[Dominique_K 10,151]

1 minute ago, Daube said:

PG cities are sceneries on your computer, not on the servers, as far as I know. They are part of the base sim content, or world updates content. As a matter of fact, it was recommended (in the community, not by Asobo) to uninstall the PG cities from the content manager to help with the scenery loading smoothness in flight, wasn't it ?

So servers and / or internet provider have most likely nothing to do with melted buildings.

why then the sim should warn you that your bandwidth is not up to it ?

[Daube 354]

It's a very good question but I really have no idea 😕

[SierraHotel 985]

London for MSFS (and it's Free)

https://flightsim.to/file/3776/london-city

[Dominique_K 10,151]

14 minutes ago, Daube said:

It's a very good question but I really have no idea 😕

I suspect that a combination of a 3PD air traffic, nicely modeled Heathrow and LC airports, GAIST and an airliner à la PMDG is a bit heavy to swallow for the computer and coupled with a poor connection kills the PG. I have none of this and get a reasonably good rendering. 

Now all PG sceneries are not alike. I have seen poor results in Italy where only the modeling was I think the reason of melted roofs.

[fsiscool 252]

23 minutes ago, Daube said:

It's a very good question but I really have no idea 😕

Because most of the data is not installed but actually streamed. In Mark's post on the previous page TB's of data are mentioned.

[tup61 1,630]

55 minutes ago, Daube said:

PG cities are sceneries on your computer, not on the servers, as far as I know. They are part of the base sim content, or world updates content. As a matter of fact, it was recommended (in the community, not by Asobo) to uninstall the PG cities from the content manager to help with the scenery loading smoothness in flight, wasn't it ?

So servers and / or internet provider have most likely nothing to do with melted buildings.

Wrong.

Read this: https://flightsimulator.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/4755172779548-How-to-fix-poor-photogrammetry Most of the article is all about connection data, cache and other network related stuff. "Streaming Photogrammetry requires downloading large amounts of data regularly."

PG streams MORE data than non-PG scenery.

I have PG turned off since day one (or two 😉 ) and never look back (well, I did 'look back' a few times but I simply can't stand PG. Awful stuff.)

[F737MAX 5,737]

1 hour ago, SierraHotel said:

London for MSFS (and it's Free)

https://flightsim.to/file/3776/london-city

It looks nice, but it appears to be abandonware.

To minimise the chances of incompatibilities, performance drops and/or CTDs, I strongly suggest not installing/removing any installed add-ons that have gone 6 (certainly 12) months without an update. The Sim Updates change the base sim too much to rely on outdated mods working as well as they were originally designed or even at all.

[Daube 354]

28 minutes ago, tup61 said:

Wrong.

Read this: https://flightsimulator.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/4755172779548-How-to-fix-poor-photogrammetry Most of the article is all about connection data, cache and other network related stuff. "Streaming Photogrammetry requires downloading large amounts of data regularly."

PG streams MORE data than non-PG scenery.

I have PG turned off since day one (or two 😉 ) and never look back (well, I did 'look back' a few times but I simply can't stand PG. Awful stuff.)

Ok that makes sense, thanks.

I have PG disabled as well, despite having a nice internet connection. It's more the performance that's problematic on my old computer 😄

While the building shapes are indeed awful most of the times, I do enjoy the general rendering of the PG cities from a distance. Mostly thanks to better/richer colors, somehow. Autogen looks better in details when we get close, but PG looks better overall (as long as we don't zoom or get too close 😄 ).

[Dominique_K 10,151]

1 minute ago, Daube said:

but PG looks better overall (as long as we don't zoom or get too close

this ^^

[tonywob 4,770]

11 hours ago, Dillon said:

Glade most of the world doesn't look this way.  The popularity of FS would be a 180 from what it is today.  Asobo has to address this with 2024, I've lost hope much improvement will happen for 2020 at this point. If I was a simmer from the London area I guess I'd be on XP12.  What's crazy is a big chunk of the FS market is in Europe, you'd think they'd take care of one of their core audiences.

The photogrammetry data they licensed wasn't particularly good (Bluesky I think), hence they didn't have much to go off to start with, but it looks very much like you have a connection problem, as even on my relatively slow internet it at least looks way better than this. Photogrammetry has always been hit & miss for me, sometimes it looks great, other times blocky and not great.

[regis9 4,036]

I do find that PG looks its worst in the evenings (likely during times of heavier internet traffic) so I may have to bite the bullet and pay for a high tier of internet to see if it makes a difference.  Although my internet currently is advertised as having “350 Mbps download” speeds so that should be good enough on paper at least.  Next tier is 940Mbps.

[bobcat999 8,502]

3 hours ago, Dominique_K said:

why then the sim should warn you that your bandwidth is not up to it ?

Yes, the quality of the photogrammetry is obviously linked to internet bandwidth.  When flying with photogrammetry (not often) I can sometimes see the scenery buildings filling-in right in front of my eyes when my internet connection is slow.

I tend to fly with photogrammetry off as I prefer the consistency and smoothness (my connection is not always the best).  I find the auto generated buildings mixed with some of the scenery packs is quite acceptable.

I think some people are reluctant to try without photogrammetry because they get this confused with the Bing map imagery, which they want to keep, as it is a big part of the look of MSFS.  But obviously, they are separate things.

Good to see you back!

 

Edited January 17 by bobcat999

[GSalden 4,698]

Here I do not use a cache. Fast IN connection. Anyone tried downloading London manually into the cache to see if it made any difference ?

 

[gdjak 176]

18 minutes ago, regis9 said:

I do find that PG looks its worst in the evenings (likely during times of heavier internet traffic) so I may have to bite the bullet and pay for a high tier of internet to see if it makes a difference.  Although my internet currently is advertised as having “350 Mbps download” speeds so that should be good enough on paper at least.  Next tier is 940Mbps.

Higher max speeds don't necessarily affect minimum speeds when your ISPs network is congested. Still, can be worth a try.