IniBuilds EGGW Luton and PG disabled

[Christopher Low 5,400]

Can someone who has the IniBuilds EGGW Luton airport addon installed please try it with PG disabled? The IniBuilds website information for the airport states that it is not compatible with PG switched off, but I am curious to know how incompatible it is. Are there serious elevation issues at the airport with PG disabled?

Edited April 13 by Christopher Low

[regis9 4,042]

I can’t speak to Luton, but last night I tried flying out of their LAX scenery with PG off and hit a massive bump on the departure runway which shot me straight up…might be a similar issue as I know this can be a challenge when airports are designed for PG on.

[Christopher Low 5,400]

I sincerely hope that addon developers do not make a habit of this. I have no intention of using PG in MSFS, so I need my airports to be compatible with full on autogen mode.

[Tuskin38 6,681]

It's probably impossible to be compliant with both because of terrain differences.

  

5 minutes ago, Christopher Low said:

I have no intention of using PG in MSFS

Why?

Edited April 13 by Tuskin38

[Konterhalbe 296]

42 minutes ago, Christopher Low said:

[...] I have no intention of using PG in MSFS, so I need my airports to be compatible with full on autogen mode.

Same!
I tried PG and FPS dropped from 30-60 to like 10-15.

This was months ago; don't know if PG has still such a significant impact on my sim.

[AviationEnthusiast 65]

3 hours ago, Christopher Low said:

Can someone who has the IniBuilds EGGW Luton airport addon installed please try it with PG disabled? The IniBuilds website information for the airport states that it is not compatible with PG switched off, but I am curious to know how incompatible it is. Are there serious elevation issues at the airport with PG disabled?

It works just fine without PG enabled.

[AviationEnthusiast 65]

1 hour ago, Tuskin38 said:

Why?

I'm personally not impressed by the level of photogrammetry in MSFS and the issues it currently presents, namely melted buildings, spikes, worsened LOD ring in the distance and overall degraded picture quality up close compared to AG. Others might need the extra headroom that comes with using autogen instead.

It reminds me of the recent discussion on DLSS (DLAA). I watched a guy on youtube demonstrate the latest DLSS release and he specifically pointed out how little ghosting there was and I'm like... there's freaking ghosting all over the place! So I believe it when people say they don't see it. Lucky bunch!

In any case, until things improve at least, the rest of us poor souls are forced to disable photogrammetry and use TAA to reach the desired clarity.

Edited April 13 by AviationEnthusiast

[Christopher Low 5,400]

1 hour ago, Tuskin38 said:

It's probably impossible to be compliant with both because of terrain differences....

....and yet not a single other airport that I have installed is claimed to be incompatible with PG switched off.

1 hour ago, Tuskin38 said:

Why?

Konterhalbe mentioned the performance differences, but there are other reasons.....cities looking like war zones at distance/low resolution textures and visible artefacts at close range/visible colouration differences between PG areas and normal Bing maps/terrain issues at PG boundaries etc.

[Christopher Low 5,400]

50 minutes ago, AviationEnthusiast said:

It works just fine without PG enabled.

Interesting. I wonder what exactly they mean by "incompatibility" then? I guess I will just have to buy the airport, and go on a drone tour

[btacon 1,856]

FWIW. I turned Photogrammetry off two years ago and have not looked back. I could not be happier. 
 

YMMV. TANSTAAFL

-B

[AviationEnthusiast 65]

Just now, btacon said:

FWIW. I turned Photogrammetry off two years ago and have not looked back. I could not be happier. 
 

YMMV. TANSTAAFL

-B

Look is subjective but yeah, I absolutely agree. It looks so much better.

[Fiorentoni 4,444]

Just now, Christopher Low said:

Interesting. I wonder what exactly they mean by "incompatibility" then? I guess I will just have to buy the airport, and go on a drone tour

Their KJFK is unusable without PG. It has bumps in the runways that will catapult you 100 feet in to the air on landing.

I think they started to put this disclaimer into all of their products after people complained about KJFK and started saying that they want a refund because it was not said on the product page that it can be used with PG only. Doesn't mean there has to be a problem with EGGW, it's just a legal disclaime.r

[Christopher Low 5,400]

I activated PG just out of curiosity to see what all the fuss was about, but I quickly switched it off again. I think that MSFS in Autogen mode looks fantastic. I would love to see more City Landmarks addons though (Brussels for example).

Edited April 13 by Christopher Low

[AviationEnthusiast 65]

3 minutes ago, Christopher Low said:

Interesting. I wonder what exactly they mean by "incompatibility" then? I guess I will just have to buy the airport, and go on a drone tour

I'm not sure. Could just be a disclaimer to streamline their support.

[Christopher Low 5,400]

I wonder what percentage of the MSFS userbase has PG disabled? That would be an interesting statistic.