I had PG on almost always in 2020 and 2024. When I turn it off for a test, the test lasts about 1 or 2 minutes before I rush back to turn PG on. Without PG, all the buildings in every city are the wrong shape compared to reality. A fantasy world, not Earth.

8 hours ago, CFIJose said:

Even with Bijan's Enhanced Seasons there are too many areas in the sim where these blocky trees or melted buildings show up. I can't believe how much better v2024 looks, but I know most people don't have the addon payware or freeware cities that really show how much better the sim looks with PG OFF. Where PG is supposed to be better is in places like the Grand Canyon.

The key here is add-on cities, I'm guessing.  I've tried turning it off, and I just don't like the results as it reminds me too much of artificial FSX style autogen, but of course custom objects are the best answer if they're available. 

PG looks fine to me 90% of the time (though I agree that when it looks bad, it's hideous), while off never looks good given what I'm apparently sensitive to, absent custom scenery.  On my personal balance sheet, on is the easy winner.

You pick your poison depending on which thing bothers you the most/least and live with the tradeoffs either way.

As for the Grand Canyon, I did my very first MSFS 2024 over the canyon specifically to see what the PG there looked like.  Unfortunately, it had snowed and the sim's less than stellar representation of snow kinda stole the thunder from the PG, making it all kinda meh and I haven't been back in the area since.  Need to go back and have a second look.

 

Scott

52 minutes ago, tttocs said:

The key here is add-on cities, I'm guessing.  I've tried turning it off, and I just don't like the results as it reminds me too much of artificial FSX style autogen, but of course custom objects are the best answer if they're available. 

PG looks fine to me 90% of the time (though I agree that when it looks bad, it's hideous), while off never looks good given what I'm apparently sensitive to, absent custom scenery.  On my personal balance sheet, on is the easy winner.

You pick your poison depending on which thing bothers you the most/least and live with the tradeoffs either way.

As for the Grand Canyon, I did my very first MSFS 2024 over the canyon specifically to see what the PG there looked like.  Unfortunately, it had snowed and the sim's less than stellar representation of snow kinda stole the thunder from the PG, making it all kinda meh and I haven't been back in the area since.  Need to go back and have a second look.

 

Scott

The AG reminds me of the ORBX regions in P3D, without the custom areas, but with msfs we get the entire world with photo ground textures. The add-on cities help with PG off, but as many have stated, you do lose the cities, country clubs, and places like Disney with PG off.

If ASOBO could just get rid of the blocky trees and reduce the melted building, we will have the best of both worlds. I now understand why vfr flyers prefer it on, while a airline pilots, could turn it off and not miss much.

8 hours ago, Christopher Low said:

Once you start down this path, forever will it dominate your destiny

Luke ... Luke

6 hours ago, CFIJose said:

The AG reminds me of the ORBX regions in P3D, without the custom areas, but with msfs we get the entire world with photo ground textures. The add-on cities help with PG off, but as many have stated, you do lose the cities, country clubs, and places like Disney with PG off.

If ASOBO could just get rid of the blocky trees and reduce the melted building, we will have the best of both worlds. I now understand why vfr flyers prefer it on, while a airline pilots, could turn it off and not miss much.

I am a VFR flyer (in airliners), and I prefer PG off. As for getting rid of the blocky trees and melted buildings, you also forgot to say low resolution textures 

To be fair, I have seen plenty of screenshots of PG that do look very nice indeed. My problem is that I like everything to be consistent. It's all very well if the PG looks great above a certain altitude, but if it looks more and more rubbish the closer I get to it, then the deal is off. I absolutely agree that some city skylines can look a bit bland with PG disabled, but I just do not have a smuch of a problem with this as I do with the flaws of PG. I do  not generally get really close to inner cities in my PMDG aircraft, but for those that I do, disabling PG (and finding a 3D model VFR landmark alternative) is a must. A good example would be EGLC London City. How anyone could land and depart from that airport with PG on is a mystery to me, and I know that there are plenty of others.

Edited April 4Apr 4 by Christopher Low

7 hours ago, Christopher Low said:

 A good example would be EGLC London City. How anyone could land and depart from that airport with PG on is a mystery to me, and I know that there are plenty of others.

EGLC this morning...

Looking forward to the water fix in SU5 but I don't see any conspicuously melted buildings?

Edited April 4Apr 4 by DD_Arthur

To be honest, that looked a lot better than I expected. As for the water fix, there is already one available at flightsim.to.

1 hour ago, Christopher Low said:

To be honest, that looked a lot better than I expected. As for the water fix, there is already one available at flightsim.to.

That was with the water fix from .to; it's not a great fix.

However something has happened to London since the release of 2024 last year. In my opinion there's no doubt that the quality of PG around London has got worse since the original release. 

This is central London a couple of days after the release of 2024. You'll have to forgive the erratic flying, I couldn't get the rudder to work!

 

For those looking for add-on cities: