It's been off, but with the latest setup, it's back on.

1 hour ago, tpete61 said:

Please explain what difference it makes?

Not sure what the point of your survey is.

^^^^^ The same guy who moaned about the 'purpose' of my recent survey 😉

He obviously doesn't dig surveys.  Yet always clicks on survey threads.

2 hours ago, Christopher Low said:

I am curious to know what percentage of AVSIM members prefer to fly with photogrammetry disabled in MSFS 2024. Feel free to state your reasons why you use one option or the other.

Even as a frequent helicopter pilot, I always have PG on. 

yes, that means I see plenty of blobs and such (esp right next to rooftop helipads!).

And there are occasionally weird buildings, or good buildings with weird textures, or both!

But overall, it’s a massive plus for immersion, esp for fixed wing flying of any sort 

🤙

2 hours ago, JYW said:

^^^^^ The same guy who moaned about the 'purpose' of my recent survey 😉

He obviously doesn't dig surveys.  Yet always clicks on survey threads.

 

 

Don’t get bent out of shape by a simple question.

The original poster did not state what the purpose of the survey was for.

 

 

I suppose it depends on the area where you fly. In my case, I always have it disabled, because seeing those Martian trees and strange shapes generated in greenhouses and other facilities completely takes me out of the immersion.

Always ON. It's part of the beauty of the MSFS engine. I'm flying slow & low in areas where photogrammetry makes the differences for my flight sim experience: better diversity of object, better 3D object positioning on satellite images, more details that my eyes grabbed, a better taste of reality. Of course, nothing perfect and I struggling with blocks of trees, bridges...

Same question, 20 April 2024: 

Edited February 18Feb 18 by vbazillio

Always on, because I do not like to tinker with my settings. And some addon sceneries supposedly do not work fully with PG off, no? Not going to turn it on and off depending on where I fly, way too cumbersome 🤣

This calls for a self test. So no FPS difference and I'm on unlimited data internet so no concern with data. PG ON obviously looks better so that's what I've been generally using. The underlying ground Sat image is different too between off and on.  But yeah when I'm coming in or out of a major airport at 150kts I generally don't look around enough to care in that short time I can see the ground.

Edited February 18Feb 18 by Max Kraus

Always enabled. I'm flying, not walking. 

I mainly fly airliners, but when I do go GA low and slow the melted buildings and tree blocks are worse than autogen (imho).

8 hours ago, tpete61 said:

The original poster did not state what the purpose of the survey was for.

Why should he? isn't it obvious? Don't the responses show that people are interested in what others do, and why?

12 hours ago, SayAgain said:

I think we had one of these polls before and overwhelming majority were PG enabled.   Disabling PG is sorted like going back to P3D/FSX Autogen and mostly done due to those suffering server or bandwidth latency issues.  

PG biggest visual issues for me are:

1.  Cut-out wall bridges (surprised 3rd party haven’t done a global bridge update yet … or have they?)

2.  Monolith style trees that look more like a slabs of rock.  I know AI can do a better job from higher resolution imagery than what’s being presented in MSFS 2024 … maybe that’s going into MSFS 2028?

It is those (and other) issues with PG that have kept it disabled on my PC in MSFS 2020 and MSFS 2024. I disagree with your statement that disabling it is like going back to P3D. The visuals in MSFS 2024 with PG disabled are light years ahead of P3D. The autogen (buildings and trees) is much more realistic (in both appearance and placement), and the satellite imagery (whilst it has a few flaws here and there) is considerably better and more consistent than anything available for P3Dv4 (with the exception of ORBx True Earth GB and Netherlands).

EDIT: Preliminary results at this stage, but 22% is a significant number in my opinion.

Edited February 18Feb 18 by Christopher Low

I play with all my settings to set to low, the photogeometry in 2024 is miles ahead of msfs 2020. I am still blown away by how awesome it looks. 

Always off.  I've tried it so many times, and every time I end up wondering why people think it looks better.  Melted, deformed, or low-res textures on buildings, trees that are blocks... And heavier performance for these visual anomalies.  I just don't *get* PG.  As someone else said, I'm flying, not walking... So even down low and slow, I'd far rather see a believable building than one that looks bombed-out, but I can kind of recognize the deformed logo on the sign rendered in low-res.  🤷‍♂️