2 hours ago, cobalt said:

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

Yes, but 25+% is enough to suggest that non PG users should be taken a little more seriously when developing airport addons.

On 2/19/2026 at 12:18 AM, solito said:

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

You meant to say non melted shoe boxes, surely? 

Most of the MSFS world is non-photogrammetry anyway, so losing PG in a few areas because of the “melted” weirdness is no great loss, in my opinion.

One big advantage of non-PG scenery is that buildings are lit by the sun much more realistically.  Just as importantly, “melted” photogrammetry takes away the feeling of actually being there. Instead of immersion, it creates a distorted, artificial look that constantly reminds you you’re looking at scenery.  On approach, I don’t care about seeing misshapen buildings and awful-looking generic trees. I’d much rather have accurately placed, correctly sized buildings that look believable and help the scene feel right.

I live in a PG city. When msfs2020 was first released, on day one I of course flew the drone around my city. Up and down familiar streets. With PG on and off. After that test I never fly with PG off, except for a brief test. After any kind of tests, my fingers fly to turn PG back on. 

Edited February 20Feb 20 by Fielder

46 minutes ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

.....Most of the MSFS world is non-photogrammetry anyway.....

A key point that should not be overlooked by addon developers. As I stated previously, the autogen rendering of the world should be considered as the base foundation of MSFS 2024, and therefore should be supported as a matter of course.

4 hours ago, Christopher Low said:

but 25+% is enough to suggest that non PG users should be taken a little more seriously when developing airport addons.

Ah ... so that's what this was really all about.

• AG needs to die or be 100X more accurate
• PG needs to get better (focus on that Asobo)
• Don't increase the cost and workload of add-on airport developers

Gonna disagree with you on this one.

BTW, gotta take some of these polls with a grain of salt, they can be skewed with just a VPN and a few extra email addresses.

I know Chris...

He is likely to now take his case to iniBuilds regarding their EGLL / London Heathrow scenery ...🙂...of course, success of this endeavor is unknown...

20 minutes ago, P_7878 said:

I know Chris...

He is likely to now take his case to iniBuilds regarding their EGLL / London Heathrow scenery ...🙂...of course, success of this endeavor is unknown...

Which he should have done in the first place. His position that the developers should cater to the 24% of MSFS users that dislike PG (if the poll can be believed), while ignoring the 70+% who like it, makes no sense to me. In any case, as many have pointed out earlier, the fact that PG can be turned on or off with the flick of a switch -- a process that takes a few seconds (you can do it in flight) -- really renders all these threads on this topic pointless as the same arguments are repeated over and over. 

8 hours ago, cobalt said:

Which he should have done in the first place. His position that the developers should cater to the 24% of MSFS users that dislike PG (if the poll can be believed), while ignoring the 70+% who like it, makes no sense to me.

Where on Earth did you get the idea that I want developers to ignore PG users? I want them to cater for both PG and non PG users.

Edited February 21Feb 21 by Christopher Low

7 hours ago, Christopher Low said:

Where on Earth did you get the idea that I want developers to ignore PG users? I want them to cater for both PG and non PG users.

I could be wrong, but what I think @cobalt was implying: It's not that the developers should ignore the PG users in favor of the non-PG users, but they would have to increase the allocation of their (limited) resources towards non-PG users, more than what they do now.

I don't know what their margins are from the 2 groups (PG and non-PG), but I would think more attentions towards the (predominant and future-looking) PG group would make better (business) sense for them.

Again, I agree, both PG and non-PG users make up this SIM and are important; myself, being a habitual non-PG user, so far ...🙂...

8 hours ago, Christopher Low said:

Where on Earth did you get the idea that I want developers to ignore PG users? I want them to cater for both PG and non PG users.

Sorry if I misinterpreted your point, but it is hard to imagine developers going to the trouble of making two versions of their products, i.e., one for PG users and one for non-PG users (if that is what you are proposing) --especially given that PG is easily turned on or off by users. I feel pretty sure that this is unlikely to happen, as PG coverage of the globe will only increase as it improves over time, which it is clearly doing. As the RW model of the world is continually refined, I don't see a whole lot of attention being directed to autogen. Time will tell, I suppose. 

Edited February 21Feb 21 by cobalt

I would certainly consider using PG if it was improved to the point where I would find it acceptable. Of course, I also have to consider VRAM requirements, as the 12GB on my RTX 4070 Super GPU is at the lower end of the scale.

My impression from many earlier posts on this and other threads, is that the quality of photogrammetry is heavily dependent, not so much on your computer's power but rather on how well streaming is working in your particular area. To me, this is the only explanation that accounts for such widely varying experience with PG among users. (For instance, I have a 5-year-old rig, far from state-of-the-art, but still have very good photogrammetry down to within a hundred feet of ground level in most places). 

So what we have to hope for, is not only that the PG itself will continue to be improved, but also the streaming. I know there are some folks who think that because memory is now so cheap, storage of real-world-quality scenery files in one's home computer could replace streaming, but that seems very unrealistic considering that we are talking about petabytes (thousands of terabytes) of data for worldwide coverage. Maybe in the distant future, but until then streaming will surely be necessary.   

Edited February 21Feb 21 by cobalt

10 minutes ago, cobalt said:

My impression from many earlier posts on this and other threads, is that the quality of photogrammetry is heavily dependent, not so much on your computer's power but rather on how well streaming is working in your particular area. To me, this is the only explanation that accounts for such widely varying experience with PG among users. (For instance, I have a 5-year-old rig, far from state-of-the-art, but still have very good photogrammetry down to within a hundred feet of ground level in most places). 

Very much agree with this .

6 hours ago, cobalt said:

photogrammetry is heavily dependent, not so much on your computer's power but rather on how well streaming is working in your particular area.

Streaming doesn't affect quality of PG.  I have been flying in the same areas for years with no improvement.  

You mention Pg can be ok at a hundred feet, and that is exactly where I find it the most distracting. Final approach is ruined by pg trees and misshapen buildings.

I occasionally turn it on with each update to the sim, but pg is just not mature enough.

1 hour ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

Streaming doesn't affect quality of PG.  I have been flying in the same areas for years with no improvement.  

1 hour ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

 

Which could simply mean that the streaming in your area has been consistently poor during those years. There have been many posts confirming that streaming does indeed affect the quality of PG -- I don't really think there is much doubt about this.