3 hours ago, SayAgain said:

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?

Spectrum cable

1 hour 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.

Just to be clear --- above about 100 ft. AGL, I see no melted or warped buildings, anywhere. The fact that some do, and some don't, see these things convinces me (as it has many others) that the differences we see must be related to streaming. I just don't see any other explanation. This is certainly not a subjective issue. 

Edited February 22Feb 22 by cobalt

 

1 hour ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

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

Agree, that (PG) shot is awful...look at those undulating, melting roof-tops...

Edited February 22Feb 22 by P_7878

6 minutes ago, 0stones0 said:

Spectrum cable

Spectrum was my Internet Service Provider when I was living in Texas/Austin for several years. However, around here in Chicago, it has been always one of the 2 majors for me, as far back as I can remember...

That reminds me, just yesterday, I caught several Ads in the Prime Video channel, for "Spectrum". I think they are trying to get in (or already) here.

2 hours ago, cobalt said:

Just to be clear --- above about 100 ft. AGL, I see no melted or warped buildings, anywhere. The fact that some do, and some don't, see these things convinces me (as it has many others) that the differences we see must be related to streaming. I just don't see any other explanation. This is certainly not a subjective issue. 

Screen shot?  I've seen people claim this, but the thing is, I've never actually seen a screen shot showing it.  Every low altitude screen shot I've ever seen shows the PG issues, even when it's being posted to show how supposedly awesome PG is.  I think often, people see what they want or expect to see...

2 minutes ago, Stearmandriver said:

Screen shot?  I've seen people claim this, but the thing is, I've never actually seen a screen shot showing it.  Every low altitude screen shot I've ever seen shows the PG issues, even when it's being posted to show how supposedly awesome PG is.  I think often, people see what they want or expect to see...

I have to revise my statement about this not being subjective. Clearly PG is not perfect, and what I regard as minor defects can be seen if one looks closely enough. But what I would call "melted buildings" are the grossly distorted PG structures that show up near ground level -- very ugly, for sure. Above ca. 100 ft. AGL I do often see some slight distortion, e.g. rooftops, but not anything close to melted buildings as I just described. So I guess we can indeed be looking at the same scene and have different reactions. Here's the main difference: you look at the PG rooftops and see the imperfections, which you say ruins your immersion. I see them also, but they do not detract from my sense that I am looking at much more true-to-life scenery with PG on, than the autogen provides with PG off. To me, the autogen appear as fake scenery very unlike real life, and for me at least, it is no contest. I will take the less-than-perfect but still amazing PG scenery over the fake stuff any time, and look forward to continual improvement in it. 

49 minutes ago, cobalt said:

Above ca. 100 ft. AGL I do often see some slight distortion

You see more than that because ugly PG tree 'blobs' are visible way above 100ft AGL.  As you say, it is a subjective view - you put up with the downsides of PG where melted buildings and multiple tree blobs absolutely ruin the experience for me, especially on finals.

1 hour ago, Stearmandriver said:

the differences we see must be related to streaming

No, it isn’t streaming, it’s about differences in perception, and what issues with PG someone is willing to put up with. I’ll happily eat my words if you post a screenshot matching mine on approach to Runway 12 at KWHP showing no PG problems.

1 hour ago, Stearmandriver said:

Screen shot?  I've seen people claim this, but the thing is, I've never actually seen a screen shot showing it.

 

There is a some melted look, but the accuracy makes up for it IMHO.   I think location will also vary on how well PG presents itself.  Anyone have a screen shot of San Francisco Marina district without PG?

Always on.

Jase

46 minutes ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

You see more than that because ugly PG tree 'blobs' are visible way above 100ft AGL.  As you say, it is a subjective view - you put up with the downsides of PG where melted buildings and multiple tree blobs absolutely ruin the experience for me, especially on finals.

I was referring to buildings specifically, not trees, although In some recent PG areas the trees are significantly improved compared to earlier. I would point out that PG is changing and improving over time -- it can only get better -- whereas autogen is an old technology that I assume will not improve (am I wrong?). In FSX I thought it was great, but now it is an immersion-killer for me.  

Edited February 23Feb 23 by cobalt

1 hour ago, cobalt said:

I was referring to buildings specifically, not trees, although In some recent PG areas the trees are significantly improved compared to earlier. I would point out that PG is changing and improving over time -- it can only get better -- whereas autogen is an old technology that I assume will not improve (am I wrong?). In FSX I thought it was great, but now it is an immersion-killer for me.  

If that is the case, most of the world is an immersion killer for you, because most of the world is autogen!

1 hour ago, SayAgain said:

 

There is a some melted look, but the accuracy makes up for it IMHO.   I think location will also vary on how well PG presents itself.  Anyone have a screen shot of San Francisco Marina district without PG?

That screen shot is much higher than mine, of course it will look better!

1 hour ago, cobalt said:

I was referring to buildings specifically, not trees

PG includes trees, which on the whole are just blobs.

4 hours ago, cobalt said:

whereas autogen is an old technology that I assume will not improve

Autogen - buildings and vegetation both - got quite an upgrade in 2024 compared to 2020.  I've noticed that the placement algorithm also seems improved, in terms both of positioning buildings and choosing a model that is the correct shape and general appearance.  (Of course, some of that is due to more options being available).

Here's two screenshots of the Seattle area - first with photogrammetry, second with autogen.  There is no comparison; the autogen version is far more accurate as well as lacking deformed buildings and vegetation.  The photogrammetry version is just... I mean it's just ridiculous.  The PG vegetation alone obscures most of the buildings.

 

Edited February 23Feb 23 by Stearmandriver