The biggest issue I have with MSFS 2024 AutoGen (aka no PG) is how hopelessly inaccurate it is 70% of the time … skyscraper buildings instead of a comms tower?

The melted buildings of PG is a result of internet connection issues (high latency and/or not able to sustain 125Mbps down and possibly server loads but I’ve never run into issue with server loads but I’m not in a remote location).  I can certainly understand a reason NOT to use PG if you connectivity is not great.

I can live with slabs of rocks that are supposed to be Trees, but the wall/cut-out bridges are its biggest weakness.  I really do hope 3rd party devs produce a Global bridges package or several bridges packages to replace all the PG ones (I’ll pay whatever they ask).

MSFS 2024 PG is so close on the visual side, just a bit more work.

Interestingly, I have just noticed a tall cylindrical tower on a hill above Barcelona, and I suspect that it is supposed to be the Torre de Collserola TV and radio transmitter. Curiously, I do not recall seeing it in MSFS 2020.

I keep PG on, I don't think I ever turned it off. I did a very low-level flight yesterday around South Wales in Helo. Everything was totally sharp, no melting buildings or misplaced trees. Haven't seen the melted building effects in a very long time.

I have it enabled! It's an important feature of the sim for me.

Edited February 18Feb 18 by brinx

Tubeliner guy here, limited by main thread. Obviously I fly with PG off. I never gave it a try in MSFS2024.

10 hours ago, Tom Wright said:

ON - it's only good if your internet connection is good to load it in quick enough though. Slow internet is usually the cause for the 'melted buildings' look.

People say this, but I'm not sure I agree.  In the first place, in my own situation: I have gig Internet and live on the west side of Puget Sound.  Several MS executives and plenty of team members have properties out this way.  If it's not working for me, it's not working for at least some of the folks who actually work ON it (marketing, if nothing else).

In the second place, I've never seen a photo from anyone of low altitude PG buildings that look high res and normal.  They seem not to approach the quality of the autogen structures.  Obviously, we don't even have to talk about the trees. 

Try New York without PG, you will see a collection of shoe boxes instead of its classical buildings and skyscrapers

12 minutes ago, solito said:

Try New York without PG, you will see a collection of shoe boxes instead of its classical buildings and skyscrapers

But that's what a city is.  Works for me.  I'd much rather see normal looking buildings vs half-melted or blocky attempts at skyscrapers. Just can't see how that's any better?

3 hours ago, Stearmandriver said:

People say this, but I'm not sure I agree.  In the first place, in my own situation: I have gig Internet and live on the west side of Puget Sound.  Several MS executives and plenty of team members have properties out this way.  If it's not working for me, it's not working for at least some of the folks who actually work ON it (marketing, if nothing else).

In the second place, I've never seen a photo from anyone of low altitude PG buildings that look high res and normal.  They seem not to approach the quality of the autogen structures.  Obviously, we don't even have to talk about the trees. 

I have to agree here. I have a solid connection and yet to have seen pristine buildings and vegetation.

10 hours ago, solito said:

Try New York without PG, you will see a collection of shoe boxes instead of its classical buildings and skyscrapers

This is what SamScene style city landmark packages are for. I really wish that we could see more of these.

12 hours ago, solito said:

Try New York without PG, you will see a collection of shoe boxes instead of its classical buildings and skyscrapers

1 hour ago, Christopher Low said:

This is what SamScene style city landmark packages are for. I really wish that we could see more of these.

Tried it: coming from KJFK, buildings in Manhattan practically don't appear until I'm about to leave Brooklyn. I got SamScene sceneries for both NYC and Bogotá, but stopped using them: the former because I didn't want to pay for the 2024 upgrade, and the latter because I only fly airliners there, and I have no time to look at the buildings during departure (all are outside of the turns I have to do).

2 hours ago, Christopher Low said:

This is what SamScene style city landmark packages are for. I really wish that we could see more of these.

Sam scenes was a life saver for xbox series s. It was heartbreaking having Houston pop in and render from about five-ten miles out. With Sam Scenes its about 30-35 miles out now. No performance or fps hit either. 

Always enabled.

On 2/18/2026 at 5:07 AM, Christopher Low said:

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.

70+% using PG is a much more significant number. In politics this would be a landslide of historic proportions.

27 minutes ago, cobalt said:

70+% using PG is a much more significant number. In politics this would be a landslide of historic proportions.

I guess Asobo know this so PG won't be a priority fix.