Mike I do believe that downloading all that from off of MS servers and to your hardrive are not what improved visuals/performance for you. I do believe it was the beta that you joined. When I joined the beta on day 1 that it was available, big improvements in visuals/performance happened for me. In other words I can use the same msfs2024 visual settings and get much higher stability and fps, or I can increase the visual settings and get the same performance as before I switched to beta.

I mainly run VR. I don't try to run 3 monitors like you do. 

10 hours ago, Sky_Pilot071 said:

BTW, what are we missing out on exactly? Is MSFS broken right now?

A 64gb roaming cache will solve any data problems.  PG or otherwise.

 

dd

No. You said in your post above .....

10 hours ago, Sky_Pilot071 said:

I fly around Denver, KBJC and the PG looks great on a 20mbs data line and a 64gb roaming cache.  Things look great.  Am I missing out?

dd

I simply responded that if things look great for you then you aren't the one missing out (so don't know why you would ask). Its the rest of us for whom PG looks terrible that are clearing missing our. Everything is amazing for you. Its wonderful. You live in a world of photogrammetry bliss. You're not missing out on anything. 

15 hours ago, KL Oo said:

I'm keen to hear how you go, but in my experience the metled photogammetry isn't as a result of internet speed....its something internal to how the system is processing the data.

Correct.

This can be easily observed when using AutoFPS. When the TLOD drops, the quality of the PG rendering drops as well. If your system can't process the data fast enough you will end up with the melted look.

2 minutes ago, Farlis said:

Correct.

This can be easily observed when using AutoFPS. When the TLOD drops, the quality of the PG rendering drops as well. If your system can't process the data fast enough you will end up with the melted look.

So, essentially you'd need 32GB video card, not a fast internet to unleash the full potential of the PG. 

2 hours ago, G-YMML1 said:

So, essentially you'd need 32GB video card, not a fast internet to unleash the full potential of the PG. 

Surely, the VRAM is a critical contributing factor to good PG rendition, but I would not think that is the only consideration. One thing, that I keep hearing here, also corroborated my own experience, is that the internet speed itself, unless it is precariously low, probably does not matter. As reported by others, I too, went up in internet speed (played the "loyalty" clause with my internet service provider after a decade or more of 100Mbps, to 500Mbps, free of increased fee). However, I think it did not improve my PG case (Note: I'm on Xbox X).

Here are the MSFS2024 System Requirements:

"Microsoft Flight Simulator 2024 requires at least an Intel Core i7-6800K/AMD Ryzen 5 2600X CPU, 16 GB RAM, 4 GB VRAM (NVIDIA GTX 970/Radeon RX 5700), and 50 GB storage. For a better experience, recommended specs include 32 GB RAM and an RTX 2080 or RX 5700 XT. The game heavily utilizes cloud streaming, making a stable 10-50 Mbps+ internet connection essential."

Plus:

"Microsoft Flight Simulator 2024 requires a minimum of 16 GB of RAM, but the recommended, more stable experience for high settings is 32 GB. For "ideal" performance, particularly with heavy scenery, add-ons, or multitasking, 64 GB of RAM is recommended."

Being one of the few Xbox users, here, I would also like to quote the following Specs:

"The Xbox Series X features 16 GB of GDDR6 RAM, optimized for 4K gaming with 10 GB running at 560 GB/s and 6 GB at 336 GB/s. The Xbox Series S has 10 GB of GDDR6 RAM, optimized for 1440p gaming, partitioned into 8 GB at 224 GB/s and 2 GB at 56 GB/s."

That might explain why PG is a hit-or-miss in my case, though, I've often heard similar sentiments from PC users too.

I do test PG occasionally. Below is a post I made, after City Update 12: Germany, though, habitually, my PG is always off. In this case, frankly, I still see (some) melted buildings, structures, and roadways, but it's acceptable and, in fact, good enough for me, to leave PG on, while flying in this area. However, generally speaking, in big metropolis locales, my experience is less than optimal.

Meanwhile, I am buoyed up by this bit of news:

"The next-generation Xbox (codename "Magnus," targeting 2027) is rumored to feature a massive upgrade to 48GB of GDDR7 RAM on a 192-bit bus. This architecture aims to support advanced AI, potentially utilizing a shared memory pool designed to handle both console and PC-style gaming workloads."

So, it's not the max 64GB as recommended by MSFS, but still close enough...🙂...We'll see...

Cheers...!

 

Edited February 17Feb 17 by P_7878

On 2/15/2026 at 5:58 PM, Stearmandriver said:

The only solution to the bad photogrammetry is to turn photogrammetry off.  Every single place I've ever tested looks better with autogen.  I don't know why MS/Asobo even bothers with the photogrammetry.  It's a performance suck for worse visuals.  (Gig Internet here).

I have to completely disagree. In my experience photogrammetry renders cities, and other areas where it is available, in close to real-life accuracy -- the only problems occurring very close to the ground where the melted-building syndrome persists (though I see gradual improvement over time, especially with trees). For altitudes at 100 ft. or more above ground, for me PG is the only way to explore the real world in flight simulation. FYI, I use wifi with about 100 Mbps and everything works fine -- no stutters. As many other have pointed out, the quality of streaming varies a lot in different areas, which would explain why so many love PG while others do not.  

On 2/15/2026 at 10:58 PM, Stearmandriver said:

The only solution to the bad photogrammetry is to turn photogrammetry off.  Every single place I've ever tested looks better with autogen.  I don't know why MS/Asobo even bothers with the photogrammetry.  It's a performance suck for worse visuals.  (Gig Internet here).

What annoys me even more is that developers like IniBuilds seem to prioritise PG users over non PG users. In my opinion, an autogen only rendered world should be the baseline configuration, not photogrammetry. Any addons developed for MSFS should be compatible with PG on or off. No exceptions.

19 hours ago, Mike_CFII_MEL said:

The downloads should be in your packages sub folder.

Meaning my C:\ drive my default.

I don't have enough room in there...

4 hours ago, Farlis said:

Correct.

This can be easily observed when using AutoFPS. When the TLOD drops, the quality of the PG rendering drops as well. If your system can't process the data fast enough you will end up with the melted look.

Don't use autoFPS and I keep my frames locked at 30fps along with my monitor at 30Hz. Those numbers "never" drop at all, yet I have building that are melted. It's not that my system can't process the data fast enough, it's the server can't get it to me fast enough. I've seen this first hand during the beta prior to full release, smooth as silk!

If what you say if true, how do people that have systems that are ancient compared to my setup claim to have better results.

4 hours ago, G-YMML1 said:

So, essentially you'd need 32GB video card, not a fast internet to unleash the full potential of the PG. 

Nope, I run an asus 4090 and still get melted buildings as do two of my friends that run 5090 boards! We don't run 3D flight decks as we use actual hardware for the cockpit, so a ton of memory is saved there and yet we get the same melted buildings you see.

Edited February 17Feb 17 by Mike_CFII_MEL

16 minutes ago, John-Allen said:

Meaning my C:\ drive my default.

I don't have enough room in there...

Then you created a new location and that's where you'll find them.

All I know is that I have a 1 Gig fiber optic line for my internet use. I can have three or four streams going in my house, and still my download speeds are not affected. Even when there is no streaming going on, in MSFS 2024 (and when I used 2020) my PG is often times melted looking, with tree monoliths in certain areas. My PC specs are in my signature but suffice to say I am running an RTX 5090 GPU with other strong components, and even though my flights are crazy smooth, with TLOD maxxed, I STILL get melty buildings. In a sim that prides itself on being great for low level GA and helo flying, which is what I mostly do, I just don't understand why PG looks so bad sometimes. In my experience it has nothing to do with VRAM or internet speed, as I have both in abundance. I do NOT use AUTO FPS either, so my settings are not getting automatically downgraded. It's very frustrating, because I love jumping in a good helo like the TAOG OH-6 only to start flying over super ugly nuclear war looking melted buildings and ugly green blob monolith trees. Just not cool.

Edited February 17Feb 17 by sniper31

Hi,

Getting ready to go for another ride. I can clearly see ground textures are sharper, just about zero building popping and my melted building issue has been greatly reduced.

Only difference is I downloaded (about 400GB) everything Asobo allowed that was being streamed, except for PG. That tells me their server is unable to give me everything I ask for on the fly, resulting in additional melted buildings and popping scenery. How else would one explain the results I'm seeing?

I have a fiber optic line that runs just under 1 Gig, test have shown no difference between 3pm and 3am in transfer speeds or line noise.

1 hour ago, Christopher Low said:

What annoys me even more is that developers like IniBuilds seem to prioritise PG users over non PG users. In my opinion, an autogen only rendered world should be the baseline configuration, not photogrammetry. Any addons developed for MSFS should be compatible with PG on or off. No exceptions.

Chris:

Here is my take, of course, all opinions are significant, especially to the individual making it...🙂...

Let's say, in your B777F (I think you own that one, as I do myself), you are coming in over Lake Michigan for your final approach, to land into one of the westward runways of KORD/O'Hare, currently flying right over the Chicago Skyline.

BTW, our (resident) 787 Captain jon b said this recently...🙂...:

"I flew another cargo flight into KORD for the first time in the RW in 2021, coming in over the lake and looking down on that so familiar city skyline was absolutely surreal."

(This below analogy will apply equally well if I fly into e.g., London City Airport.)

So, you have no idea, how the iconic Sears Tower, the John Hancock Tower, or the lesser-known Lake Point Tower etc. - look like. Also, you may or may not even care to know, from our virtual (MSFS) world how they actually look like, up close.

However, for me (and surely for a few others here, local and non-local), it matters.

Around the year, I relocated to Chicago, Sears Tower, the iconic multi-tiered structure, after 23 years of holding the title as the World's Tallest building, stopped being so, in 1996. Moreover, in 2009, the London-based Insurance Broker Willis Group changed its name to Willis Tower. To me, this building is "Sears Tower", and it symbolized "Chicago"...🙂...So, I wish to see it the way it actually looks...not just a generic (tall) structure in its place...

Likewise, the Lake Point Tower, is the only Chicago skyscraper, (permitted to be) built on the east side of Lake Shore Drive, through a legal loophole exploited by the developers. I've visited this building in RW, and it has bit of a unique (undulating and curved) Y-shape. I've explored this one with PG on and off. With PG on, it retains its shape, though appearing a bit melted to my Xbox system, but with PG off; it's where it should be, on the east side of the Lake Shore Drive, but far from how it looks in the RW. It has no (real) shape.

So, to some, exploring the World and Cities, the way they actually look may be a significant factor, in the enjoyment of the SIM.

In the Germany City Update post, I cited above, I wished to see how the historic WW II Carola Bridge (Carolabrücke) in Dresden, Germany, actually looks like; how the famous Elbe River actually looks like; of course, subject to the limitation of the virtual world. So, I am glad I flew around there, with PG on, for that post and flight.

So, the different aspects of such scenery appeal to us simmers in different ways, with entirely different degrees of tolerance. For some, it may be a deal-breaker, while for others (such as yourself), not so much...

With that said, I myself, usually fly around the Chicago skyline, with PG off, due to my system limitations, but occasionally also with PG on to see my familiar world, as close to what it looks like in the RW.

Edited February 17Feb 17 by P_7878

1 hour ago, Christopher Low said:

What annoys me even more is that developers like IniBuilds seem to prioritise PG users over non PG users. In my opinion, an autogen only rendered world should be the baseline configuration, not photogrammetry. Any addons developed for MSFS should be compatible with PG on or off. No exceptions.

You can have your autogen-only world simply by turning PG off. What's the problem?