I'm done with MSFS photogrammetry!

[qqwertz]

54 minutes ago, bobcat999 said:

So luckily, turning off photogrammetry isn't a show-stopper.  

Hmmm. If anyone could have a look at default EDDK without PG on, I would appreciate it. If I do that on my system, I get a forest instead of a major airport. Runways are still there, but you can only see them when you are standing on it on the ground. From the air, I only see trees with some approach lights in it. With photogrammetry on, I can see EDDK in its entirety.

Peter

[edpatino]

I always have my PG set to ON. No issues, but of course it all depends on your personal taste.

[Bobsk8]

I have PG on all the time, and fly all over the world in MSFS 2020. 

[VeryBumpy]

If PG is turned off, where is FS2020 supposed to get its ground textures from?

[cobalt]

17 minutes ago, VeryBumpy said:

If PG is turned off, where is FS2020 supposed to get its ground textures from?

PG has nothing to do with ground textures. In fact, even when PG is on it affects only only a very small percentage of the earth's land surface.

 

[blueshark747]

Fortunately the sim looks just as good with PG off...ENJOY!

[Scottoest]

I have never had an issue with PG, but then I also wipe out my rolling cache after each WU, make sure my LOD is set properly to ensure the PG looks its best, and understand the limitations of it (ie. it's not going to look great right up close) - especially some older PG.

If I'm flying at "normal" heights, it looks fine 95% of the time.

[cobalt]

2 hours ago, bobcat999 said:

Good.  In your frustration, you came here for a discussion and to see if others concur with your view and experience similar feelings - I get it.
Don't ever let the bullies shut you up.  The forum would be a pretty boring place if some of them got their way. 
The ones asking for threads to be shut down are the worst - wannabee moderators.  they seem incapable of just skipping over a thread or post they don't like. The ultimate display of insecurity I think.  

Anyway, as for photogrammetry, I feel it is a great concept but not always the best implementation unfortunately.
So, I dip in and out.  I like to see the cities if they are done well, but the blobby trees and rocks can be jarring to the eye as you say, so I always turn it off for bush flying or cross country.

As others have said, the Autogen on top of the Bing maps data does a pretty good job in general, and I get a small but noticeable performance increase from it. 
So luckily, turning off photogrammetry isn't a show-stopper.  I just see it as an option for different use cases.  I am interested to see what they have done to improve the implementation with MSFS24.

Ouch! I don't believe anyone has suggested that anything be shut down. I was merely asking whether the OP's post was useful. Apparently some think it was, so that answers my question. Let's move on ...

Edited August 23 by cobalt

[Ixoye]

Aren't all WU PG updates except for the Airports?

[MrBitstFlyer]

1 hour ago, Scottoest said:

If I'm flying at "normal" heights

That could be any height depending on the aircraft.

[spilok]

11 hours ago, sd_flyer said:

If you done with something why do you care if someone else agree or not? LOL Do whatever makes you happy! 

I'm happy!

[The_Flying_Potato]

2 hours ago, blueshark747 said:

Fortunately the sim looks just as good with PG off...ENJOY!

I turned my PC off and didn't enjoy it at all.

[bobcat999]

2 hours ago, cobalt said:

Ouch! I don't believe anyone has suggested that anything be shut down. I was merely asking whether the OP's post was useful. Apparently some think it was, so that answers my question. Let's move on ...

Sure. OK then. I apologise.

My post was just offering the the guy some sympathy with his frustration, and maybe more in the way of support against a general tone in the forums just lately, of trying to put people off posting by making them feel silly, just because they have a different view. 

The OP's title for the post was definitely a bit dramatic, but I always read your posts here, and I know you are intelligent enough to recognise the guy was actually just struggling with his frustration, and maybe fishing for some sympathetic help. 
Not everyone uses such precise language as you and me might, especially when frustration creeps in - I am sure you recognise that.

And you are right; the subject does come round again maybe far too often, but my view is it can still be useful to chew over where we are from time to time - No harm done.

As least for me it has opened up the question - what will 2024 bring in terms of photogrammetry?  Will it be any different, or better enough to stop some peoples frustration?
For me, it isn't so much frustration, but disappointment with the look of the photogrammetry trees compared to the look of the buildings (which can look superb at times). 
I hope they can find a solution for that, at least good enough to stop the photogrammetry threads coming round and round again!  

[spilok]

Now see how nice that is when you actually have something to say. Welcome to the discussion. 

[cobalt]

1 hour ago, bobcat999 said:

Sure. OK then. I apologise.

My post was just offering the the guy some sympathy with his frustration, and maybe more in the way of support against a general tone in the forums just lately, of trying to put people off posting by making them feel silly, just because they have a different view. 

The OP's title for the post was definitely a bit dramatic, but I always read your posts here, and I know you are intelligent enough to recognise the guy was actually just struggling with his frustration, and maybe fishing for some sympathetic help. 
Not everyone uses such precise language as you and me might, especially when frustration creeps in - I am sure you recognise that.

And you are right; the subject does come round again maybe far too often, but my view is it can still be useful to chew over where we are from time to time - No harm done.

As least for me it has opened up the question - what will 2024 bring in terms of photogrammetry?  Will it be any different, or better enough to stop some peoples frustration?
For me, it isn't so much frustration, but disappointment with the look of the photogrammetry trees compared to the look of the buildings (which can look superb at times). 
I hope they can find a solution for that, at least good enough to stop the photogrammetry threads coming round and round again!  

I think we are on the same page, no problem. I do sympathize with the the OP's frustration, but he wasn't asking for help, he was making an announcement. The thing about photogrammetry that is different from most other issues in MSFS is that you can go to Options and turn PG on or off with the flick of a switch, even in mid-flight. So if you don't like it, just turn it off. In contrast, most of the problems that we hear about in this and other forums are complex and arise from multiple causes -- CTD's for instance, which I have had to deal with ever since SU12. Suggestions on this forum and elsewhere have helped considerably, for which I am most grateful. Many issues that arise concerning scenery, performance, frame rates, etc., can be dealt with by changing one's settings in MSFS and/or the video card -- but not PG! That feature is strictly take-it-or-leave-it, with the hope that it will improve over time (in fact it already is). As you suggest, we might see some advances on this front in MSFS2024.