9 hours ago, cobalt said:

Which could simply mean that the streaming in your area has been consistently poor during those years.

I wouldn’t say it’s “consistently poor” in my area.

In my case, I’m well above the download speed Microsoft recommends for MSFS 2024, and I’m not testing from one fixed location either. I live on a narrowboat and move around regularly, using Starlink satellite internet, so I’m seeing PG in different places rather than from one local setup. My average download speed is around 200 Mbps (peaking at 400 Mbps), and latency is usually about 20 ms. I can also test through a VPN via the USA if needed.

That said, I still don’t think PG is a mature technology yet. Even in the recently released California World Update there are areas, especially around airports and when flying low-level VFR, where PG can look really poor. Around KWHP, for example, the melted buildings and odd-looking PG trees really take me out of the experience.

There are definitely places where PG looks excellent, and I do appreciate that when it works well. But for me, the flight experience comes first (even though visuals do matter), and in a lot of cases MSFS autogen actually looks better than photogrammetry because it’s more naturally lit, cleaner, and more consistent. That tends to add to the immersion, rather than distract from it.

10 hours ago, cobalt 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.

I am leaning towards this (above) supposition...or is it a proposition maybe...? AI has become a good friend of mine these days, and it did explain to me, but still, I could not make up my mind on the choice (and use) of the word...🙂..., in this specific context here.

Anyway, I wished to add what I'd mentioned once before; last week, one fine Saturday morning, I found an (ample-sized) excavator, out-of-the-blue and unexpectedly, digging up holes (about 5-6 feet deep, they told me) in my backyard. It was apparently for Fiber to the Curb (FTTC) deployment in this area, which, proves, though I'd increased my internet speed from 100 Mbps to 500 Mbps for MSFS (free of extra charge, playing loyalty customer clause, which btw didn't help my PG case), I did NOT have FTTC in my area.

I literally saw as the workers slid the (fiber optical) cables into one end of the dug-up hole on the ground.

Might that be the reason I don't get good PG for myself as some users here do, and which I've seen many times in the Screenshots Forum?

Let me next see if/when that FTTC infrastructure, going right underneath my backyard (even closer than the curb), helps with my PG rendition in MSFS2024 streaming?

Again, from AI:

"Fiber to the Curb (FTTC) significantly improves internet streaming by delivering much higher, more stable, and lower-latency bandwidth compared to traditional DSL or older cable systems. By replacing long copper lines with fiber optic cable up to the curb, it reduces signal degradation, enables faster speeds for 4K/HD streaming, and allows multiple devices to operate simultaneously without buffering."

1 hour ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

That said, I still don’t think PG is a mature technology yet. Even in the recently released California World Update there are areas, especially around airports and when flying low-level VFR, where PG can look really poor. Around KWHP, for example, the melted buildings and odd-looking PG trees really take me out of the experience.

This is exactly how I feel. From altitude, PG areas can look good. However, I would not want to be landing close to any of it, because it generally does not look good enough at that close range.

Quote

There are definitely places where PG looks excellent, and I do appreciate that when it works well. But for me, the flight experience comes first (even though visuals do matter), and in a lot of cases MSFS autogen actually looks better than photogrammetry because it’s more naturally lit, cleaner, and more consistent. That tends to add to the immersion, rather than distract from it.

That word "cleaner" is so important to me. I would rather have  a "clean" looking environment with slightly less realism, than a "grubby" looking one with PG (due to the melted buildings/low resolution textures etc). In fact, it is exactly why I hated FS5 when it was released way back in 1993. Those textured graphics looked absolutely horrible to me (low resolution, shimmering garbage is how I described it at the time). In contrast, the (admittedly flat) coloured vector graphics in FS4 were "clean and consistent".

Edited February 22Feb 22 by Christopher Low

1 hour ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

There are definitely places where PG looks excellent, and I do appreciate that when it works well. But for me, the flight experience comes first (even though visuals do matter), and in a lot of cases MSFS autogen actually looks better than photogrammetry because it’s more naturally lit, cleaner, and more consistent. That tends to add to the immersion, rather than distract from it.

It may look better -- it just doesn't look real. Having iconic buildings rendered as box-like objects bearing no relation to the actual structures, just doesn't work for me. Clearly we just have different point of view on this, and that's OK.

457.1  Mbps download

7.24  Mbps upload

Unless the upload speed is the major factor, PG looks great from afar but, a disaster up close.

4700 Mbps download rate here and never any issue with PG on...

1 minute ago, AnkH said:

4700 Mbps download rate here and never any issue with PG on...

4700 or 470.0?

8 minutes ago, 0stones0 said:

4700 or 470.0?

I am also curious to know.

I noted just now that my (unnamed here) service provider in the Chicago area offers a maximum speed by Fiber internet up to 5 Gbps (5,000 Mbps), which is available only in select areas, apparently not mine. That makes sense of the (recent) digging-up in my backyard...

For me it's disabled.

I had it enabled in 2020, for better representation of cities.

But in 2024, there is now "photogrammetry from satellite photos" in rural areas. It's disgusting. Doesn't look good from *any* altitude.

1 hour ago, 0stones0 said:

457.1  Mbps download

7.24  Mbps upload

Unless the upload speed is the major factor, PG looks great from afar but, a disaster up close.

Need to know your latency to the server … that’s one of several key factors.  And yes, 7.24Mbps upload is pretty bad … you running a public server from home or something?

The PG trees around CYYJ (Roman Designs) were very good yesterday.  Great airport also.

dd

Edited February 22Feb 22 by Sky_Pilot071

3 hours ago, AnkH said:

4700 Mbps download rate here and never any issue with PG on...

You are suggesting your PG does not have melted building or odd looking PG trees, which just isn't believable.

3 hours ago, cobalt said:

It may look better -- it just doesn't look real. Having iconic buildings rendered as box-like objects bearing no relation to the actual structures, just doesn't work for me. Clearly we just have different point of view on this, and that's OK.

'Real’ is a bit subjective, though. For me, a melted/warped façade looks less real than autogen that gets the height, proportions, and overall shape right, even if the building detail is simplified. I totally get why iconic landmarks matter to you, though, and I agree it really comes down to what breaks immersion more for each of us.

12 minutes ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

'Real’ is a bit subjective, though. For me, a melted/warped façade looks less real than autogen that gets the height, proportions, and overall shape right, even if the building detail is simplified. I totally get why iconic landmarks matter to you, though, and I agree it really comes down to what breaks immersion more for each of us.

As someone has said here before, I believe it was the OP:

”Pick your poison and enjoy your flight, with or without PG”…

I'm using SU5 beta so the autogen is missing windows, but here is the approach to KWHP in the 'new' California world update.  Melted building, buildings almost flat to the ground and tree 'blobs'.

Here is the approach with autogen

 

..and lower on final - it is absolutely awful!  - I prefer the beta with the no autogen window bug!

 

The approach to this airport has been exactly as bad as this for years - I am unconvinced this is a streaming issue.

Edited February 22Feb 22 by MrBitstFlyer