1 hour ago, Christopher Low said:

If anyone is putting me on ignore, then they have bigger problems than PG.

…🙂…

I myself usually fly with PG off.

However, with PG off, e.g., the skyline and the skyscrapers of Chicago skyline, that I know for decades, look like those in the mythical metropolis of Gotham City…🙂…architecturally neat and good-looking, but far from how they look in the RW…

I do not doubt that some iconic city skylines do not look quite right with PG disabled, but I would much rather have a 3D VFR Landmark city pack to cover this than PG. At the end of the day, I am more than happy with the autogen in the vast majority of areas. Others need the PG touch to make it feel more realistic. Both options are valid 👍

Edited February 3Feb 3 by Christopher Low

6 hours ago, Christopher Low said:

I do not doubt that some iconic city skylines do not look quite right with PG disabled, but I would much rather have a 3D VFR Landmark city pack to cover this than PG. At the end of the day, I am more than happy with the autogen in the vast majority of areas. Others need the PG touch to make it feel more realistic. Both options are valid 👍

True, Chris.

PG in my case remains off for now. However, I eagerly inspect (on the MSFS website) whenever MSFS puts out one of those City Updates, or when a member flies the locales with PG on, in the Screenshots Forum, such as for NYC, London City, Seattle, or Chicago.

I can so easily identify there most of the taller buildings in the Chicago skyline, having driven beside most of them …🙂…

However, PG does not look so good on my own simulation, and I don’t think it’s an Xbox thing alone.

So, I am content for now to see the generic (but decent) skyline, whenever I fly along (the local) Lake Michigan shoreline, have done so umpteen times…

The dense metropolis is not my thing anyway…being more a geographical and historical explorer in the SIM, where MSFS excels for me (with PG off). In RW, I’ve seen the Denver Rockies more times than the Denver City itself…🙂…

But, I agree, we have different (and valid) expectations from this SIM.

I have been flightsimming for a very long time, and the advances in autogen scenery in recent years are impressive and very nice. Given the current limitations in photogrammetry near ground level, I can certainly understand why many simmers fly with PG off. But what has made me a huge fan of PG despite its drawbacks, is that for me anyway, it affords a far better representation of the real world than is otherwise possible. Autogen, by comparison, great as it was in the past, just doesn't do it for me anymore; flying over Manhattan, Chicago, San Francisco, Paris, London, and smaller cities, I want to see real buildings, not imaginary ones however attractive they may be. Just a personal observation.  

I love Photogrammetry, I keep it on all the time.

I learned to ignore PG trees in many situations but when seeing them during landing in front of me (like in KMIA 27 approach) it is another story.

53 minutes ago, cobalt said:

I have been flightsimming for a very long time, and the advances in autogen scenery in recent years are impressive and very nice. Given the current limitations in photogrammetry near ground level, I can certainly understand why many simmers fly with PG off. But what has made me a huge fan of PG despite its drawbacks, is that for me anyway, it affords a far better representation of the real world than is otherwise possible. Autogen, by comparison, great as it was in the past, just doesn't do it for me anymore; flying over Manhattan, Chicago, San Francisco, Paris, London, and smaller cities, I want to see real buildings, not imaginary ones however attractive they may be. Just a personal observation.  

Yes, this is exactly what I wished to say above. 
You mention of Chicago downtown, that I’m intimately familiar with, both in RW and virtual world. I’ve closely examined the skyscrapers in both worlds, and your observations are on the spot.

However, the ugliness of the melted and mis-shaped buildings I know well, and a few of which I’ve visited, forces me to turn PG off. Maybe some day it will get better for me…

Meanwhile enjoy PG, if it works well for you.

42 minutes ago, Nemo said:

I learned to ignore PG trees in many situations but when seeing them during landing in front of me (like in KMIA 27 approach) it is another story.

My doctor once told me about something that was bothering me, “Don’t worry. Your brain will eventually learn to ignore it.”…

However, it’s hard to ignore (and un-see) the PG triggered mess sometimes…🙂…

Edited February 3Feb 3 by P_7878

On 2/3/2026 at 3:39 PM, P_7878 said:

Yes, this is exactly what I wished to say above. 
You mention of Chicago downtown, that I’m intimately familiar with, both in RW and virtual world. I’ve closely examined the skyscrapers in both worlds, and your observations are on the spot.

However, the ugliness of the melted and mis-shaped buildings I know well, and a few of which I’ve visited, forces me to turn PG off. Maybe some day it will get better for me…

Meanwhile enjoy PG, if it works well for you.

The thing is, I just don't see the melted and mis-shaped buildings in Chicago, that you see. Certainly the photogrammetry is better at higher altitudes (as it is in all cities), but even as low as a hundred feet AGL it still looks good to me, except for the trees, which are better than they used to be. Can you specify a particular building or two where you see melting? I suspect a server issue here.

On 2/2/2026 at 8:15 PM, P_7878 said:

…🙂…

I myself usually fly with PG off.

However, with PG off, e.g., the skyline and the skyscrapers of Chicago skyline, that I know for decades, look like those in the mythical metropolis of Gotham City…🙂…architecturally neat and good-looking, but far from how they look in the RW…

On the flip side, autogen is lit by the sun much more realistically than PG.  Pay your money and take your choice 

1 hour ago, cobalt said:

The thing is, I just don't see the melted and mis-shaped buildings in Chicago, that you see. Certainly the photogrammetry is better at higher altitudes (as it is in all cities), but even as low as a hundred feet AGL it still looks good to me, except for the trees, which are better than they used to be. Can you specify a particular building or two where you see melting? I suspect a server issue here.

It could be that I’m on Xbox (X), but I’ve heard that in many cities, whether PC or Xbox, it does not make a difference.

I sure see some (downtown) buildings retain their shape and look better (e.g., the Lake Point Tower, a uniquely Y-shaped skyscraper) which I’ve examined closely, loses its real shape w/o PG, becoming a generic one.

However, generally, I cannot count on PG in dense areas, so, have tuned it off for a while now.

I might investigate it again…

I recall London city is another place where melted buildings have been widely reported by PC users with PG on…same as in my experience…

I guess it is a matter of individual experience and systems etc.

Edited February 6Feb 6 by P_7878

London with ORBx London VFR landmarks and EGLC v2 installed looks excellent. I do not need everything to match the real world down to the last brick

3 minutes ago, Christopher Low said:

London with ORBx London VFR landmarks and EGLC v2 installed looks excellent. I do not need everything to match the real world down to the last brick

That’s good, Chris.

We are speaking of out-of-the-box MSFS experience w/o any add-on support, with PG enabled.

On 2/3/2026 at 4:20 PM, Nemo said:

 but when seeing them during landing in front of me (like in KMIA 27 approach) it is another story.

No bother here.

Some people have too high expectations. It's a limitations of the technology. 

Edited February 7Feb 7 by Tuskin38

14 hours ago, Tuskin38 said:

No bother here.

Some people have too high expectations. It's a limitations of the technology. 

except apparently it isn't, since they're working on it for SU5.