The problem is that there are certain issues with IniBuilds airports when PG is disabled, and that should not be the case. IniBuilds should be correcting these issues for non PG users. A case in point is the MSFS 2024 version of EGLL London Heathrow. The Duke of Northumberland's River runs parallel with the A3044 on the west side of the airport, and this area is a bit of a mess with PG disabled (including almost no water in the river, a missing bridge, and other elevation issues). This really should be addressed properly, rather than dismissing non PG users as irrelevant. There are one or two other issues at the airport that are also (apparently) linked to having PG disabled (like visible aircraft tails and wings in the base image, and a couple of sections of grass with blurry textures and a lack of 3D procedural grass).

Look, I am not saying that non PG users should be getting any special privileges when compared to PG users. I am saying that both cases are equally valid, and should be treated as such. Whether a particular city skyline looks better with PG on is not part of my argument.

Edited February 17Feb 17 by Christopher Low

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.

That doesn't make a lot of sense considering PG is the major selling point of MSFS, the amount of people actively turning off PG is probably a single digit percentage, maybe even decimal.

 

1 hour ago, Christopher Low said:

In my opinion, an autogen only rendered world should be the baseline configuration, not photogrammetry

So design scenery as if we're working in P3D?

Ultimately the whole melted building prospect is something Asobo needs to resolve

10 minutes ago, Christopher Low said:

The problem is that there are certain issues with IniBuilds airports when PG is disabled, and that should not be the case. IniBuilds should be correcting these issues for non PG users. A case in point is the MSFS 2024 version of EGLL London Heathrow. The Duke of Northumberland's River runs parallel with the A3044 on the west side of the airport, and this area is a bit of a mess with PG disabled (including almost no water in the river, a missing bridge, and other elevation issues). This really should be addressed properly, rather than dismissing non PG users as irrelevant. There are one or two other issues at the airport that are also (apparently) linked to having PG disabled (like visible aircraft tails and wings in the base image, and a couple of sections of grass with blurry textures and a lack of 3D procedural grass).

Look, I am not saying that non PG users should be getting any special privileges when compared to PG users. I am saying that both cases are equally valid, and should be treated as such. Whether a particular city skyline looks better with PG on is not part of my argument.

Understood, Chris.

However, I have a feeling that with PG off, rendering realistic, RW looking scenery for the (dense) urban environments, is probably harder than we think, from a development perspective. Maybe someone here knows more about such stuff.

Now, from my (bygone) FSX Orbx world, the (misplaced) roadways, along with cars on them, barreling through (autogen) buildings, in the urban areas, is coming back to haunt me...

I know the away world of terrain, nature, and topology can really look good even with PG off, where I tend to spend most of my time in MSFS. 

I always though that it was like this: The artificial buildings (PG off) are easier to render than the true building shapes (PG on). So with PG on there is more of a load on the system. Which is why PG must use low resolution (melted) buildings. PG off (which I think means BlackShark rendered) does not have to melt the buildings because the load on the system is less. 

If I fly around my own city with PG on, I recognize the stores, I can see the signs on the retail stores and fast food drive ins. Every large blue post office mail drop box, the signs in the parking lot at the high schools. I can drive the drone around my city as easy as in a car in real life. I know where I am by looking at the stores and shopping centers.  Because my city is done in PG. Not all cities have PG, in fact most do not. 

I guess what it all comes down to, for any individual, is how much one cares about flying in real-world scenery. If you don't really care, then autogen is fine, no problem. I care a lot, and flying over Chicago, Pittsburgh, London, Paris, New York, Boston, Seattle, and other places I am familiar with, and seeing only autogen which bears no resemblance to the actual buildings, holds no interest for me. You could say PG has spoiled me irreversibly. In any case I do think PG is here to stay and is the future for flightsimming. 

There's an island off the West coast of Britain that has a castle on it. It used to sort of belong to the Knights Templar centuries ago. I forget the island's name. Anyway, autogen made the castle into  a hotel, LOL. 

 

7 hours ago, cobalt said:

I guess what it all comes down to, for any individual, is how much one cares about flying in real-world scenery. If you don't really care, then autogen is fine, no problem. I care a lot, and flying over Chicago, Pittsburgh, London, Paris, New York, Boston, Seattle, and other places I am familiar with, and seeing only autogen which bears no resemblance to the actual buildings, holds no interest for me. You could say PG has spoiled me irreversibly. In any case I do think PG is here to stay and is the future for flightsimming. 

Meigs isn't Meigs without PG.  I spent a bit of time there in RL.

dd

10 hours ago, Fielder said:

There's an island off the West coast of Britain that has a castle on it. It used to sort of belong to the Knights Templar centuries ago. I forget the island's name. Anyway, autogen made the castle into  a hotel, LOL. 

 

Yes, these are the sort of things indeed bother me, always fond of historic castles. I’ve visited many whenever I had a chance in other countries. Of course, in this country, it’s arguable if the ones counted are real castles…🙂…

Anyway, whenever MSFS provides an Update with Castles being POI, I make it a point to visit them with PG on.  

I distinctly recall visiting the Neuschwanstein Castle a couple of times. It looked nice. I cannot imagine it looking like the rendition of a Hyatt Resort look-alike.

It’s a hard choice sometimes, e.g., a Castle with melted towers on top, or a neat looking (generic) structure in its place…

Autogen is not perfect, but neither is PG. A castle being rendered as a hotel is annoying. Circular oil tanks being displayed as square buildings are annoying. Similarly, bridges rendered as solid blocks are annoying. 1990s quality textures and deformed 3D structures at close range are annoying. Choose your poison, and enjoy your flights!

1 hour ago, Christopher Low said:

Autogen is not perfect, but neither is PG. A castle being rendered as a hotel is annoying. Circular oil tanks being displayed as square buildings are annoying. Similarly, bridges rendered as solid blocks are annoying. 1990s quality textures and deformed 3D structures at close range are annoying. Choose your poison, and enjoy your flights!

I very seldom encounter a solid bridge these days, and find very little in PG that is annoying, as long I stay a bit above ground level. I am very sorry that you are having a different experience, but maybe in time that will change. Let's hope so. 

Marisco Castle used to be a hotel in MSFS three years ago, now it's a castle ruin. I'm not sure why the upgrade now. Only one grass strip airport on tiny Lundy Island EGZV.

---

King John (Richard Lionheart's brother) established Knight Templar ownership of Lundy Island.

paste (Control V) 51.16293 -4.65948 into MSFS204 Search Location box to see it.

 

 

6 hours ago, Fielder said:

Marisco Castle used to be a hotel in MSFS three years ago, now it's a castle ruin. I'm not sure why the upgrade now. Only one grass strip airport on tiny Lundy Island EGZV.

---

King John (Richard Lionheart's brother) established Knight Templar ownership of Lundy Island.

paste (Control V) 51.16293 -4.65948 into MSFS204 Search Location box to see it.

 

 

The Castle and vicinity look nice here in MSFS.

I read up a bit on-line about Marisco Castle…quite interesting bits of history…

It’s now managed as a self-catering holiday accommodation; 4-sleeper “Castle Keep South”, and 2-sleeper “Castle Cottage”. I wouldn’t mind spending a night or two in this 13th century granite ruin, overlooking the bay…🙂…

I noted weak or non-existent mobile signal on the premises, not sure about internet…so, probably I cannot expect decent PG scenery of the castle…Oh well…it would be a real holiday..🙂…

Edited February 19Feb 19 by P_7878

When flying in monument valley you will want to have PG enabled.  IOW, PG is not just for buildings / trees.

dd

8 hours ago, Sky_Pilot071 said:

When flying in monument valley you will want to have PG enabled.  IOW, PG is not just for buildings / trees.

dd

Good point.

While we predominantly focus on the (MSFS) urban cityscapes for PG impact, such locales as above are also significant.

I don’t know about the (regular) mountains of the MSFS world. In such regions, PG is probably a hit-or-miss, depending on (local) terrain resolution and elevation mesh data.

I’ve always (and frequently) travelled to such mountainous regions, usually with PG off, and have found the experience satisfactory.

Surely, the Monument Valley, that is an integral part of the MSFS2024 loading screen, due to its unique structure, would be resolved better with PG for most of us, I would hope.

I have not tried it, but thanks for letting us know of your experience.

10 hours ago, Sky_Pilot071 said:

When flying in monument valley you will want to have PG enabled.  IOW, PG is not just for buildings / trees.

dd

PG for terrain is OK, and the screenshots of it that I have seen look very good. It's just that I do not like it for buildings and trees. To be honest, it would be nice if we could pick and choose which PG areas are rendered, but that would probably be far too complicated to implement.