2 hours ago, P_7878 said:

Say, Area 1 has now lousy PG (we all know how ugly PG can be at times), so, Area 1 PG must be replaced by enhanced AG, not what the AG is now in Area 1. However, Area 2 has good PG.

I think we’re looking at different requirements … my context was more in-line with Chris’s desire to have Airports made to fit AG or PG … mostly making sure the airport boundaries blend well with AG or PG (pending user settings).  As far as I know, this would mean different set of scenery files (or file pending scenery developer approach) where one set is specific to AG and another set specific to PG.

Edited February 24Feb 24 by SayAgain

What puzzles me is how every other airport developer never even mentions that PG on is required, and (as far as I am aware) I do not have any problems with any other airports....

Good point, but, that’s because I think, MSFS, by default, assumes the use of PG.

After all, it showcases PG so profoundly e.g., in the City Updates.

So, if any one of us does not like it (i.e., it does not produce expected results, in individual case; my own MSFS PG bears no resemblance to those MSFS screenshots, being touted…🙂…), then we are to take recourse to that PG on/off configuration parameter…

Always on in 2020.  On so far in my limited time in '24.  The only thing that would cause me to turn it off would be VRAM issues on my older graphics card but so far, I've had no major issues after getting things dialed in.

As with most things in life, this all boils down to tradeoffs.  Both PG and AG have significant flaws and obvious advantages.  My personal flaw vs advantage balance sheet favors PG, but I can completely respect and understand if someone else's is different. 

PG does appear to be slowly improving over time, so there's hope that its flaws will continue to diminish.

 

Scott

I have always had PG on without a thought. Reading this thread made me turn it off. Yeugh! Shades of P3D! Turned it back on again before I threw up. 😛

My PG is habitually off, being mostly an airliner flyer and outdoors nature and terrain explorer…🙂…, but I do experiment and use PG for local sightseeing.

And, yes, my MSFS AG (aka PG off), whether good or bad, reeks strongly of my FSX/Orbx days, of which, the less I recall, the better probably…except maybe for some nostalgia…

We all thought that P3D was a very good flight simulator at one point, so it would be a good idea to remember that when we start trying to compare it with the latest product. On the flip side, I always thought that FS5 was garbage, so I have no problem criticising it whenever I get the opportunity 

1 hour ago, Christopher Low said:

We all thought that P3D was a very good flight simulator at one point, so it would be a good idea to remember that when we start trying to compare it with the latest product. On the flip side, I always thought that FS5 was garbage, so I have no problem criticising it whenever I get the opportunity 

I wouldn’t know about FS5, Chris, that was before my time. I’m glad I was spared the garbage…🙂…

However, I did actually think the FS2002 was pretty good for its time, and FS9 and FSX too…led the way for us…as true trailblazers…

And I agree, it’s not fair to compare with the latest product.

Edited February 24Feb 24 by P_7878

I was disappointed with every version of MSFS from FS5 up to FS2002. It was only when FSX gave me the opportunity to install photoscenery of specific areas that I returned to the franchise (I used Flight Unlimited 2 and 3 exclusively on a regular basis between 1997 and 2008). In short, the quality of the terrain graphics and outside world has always mattered a lot to me, and the default terrain textures/autogen in Microsoft Flight Simulator from FS5 up to and including FSX was rubbish. Sorry to be blunt, but that is my honest opinion.

Edited February 24Feb 24 by Christopher Low

I would agree. You’re actually correct about the nature of the (default) terrain and graphic textures, all the way to FSX, myself having stuck with FSX for full 14 years.

So, we supplemented heavily with regional and local scenery add-ons for a better experience.

For example, I had all the MSE (photo-scenery) titles for my FSX, if any one remembers those guys. They finally closed shop just recently.

That was on top of most of the Orbx stuff.

(BTW, Chris, when I said FS2002, FS9, FSX, as pretty good, I was not referring to only terrain graphics. I was generally referring to them as the premier simulation platforms of the day, that gave us real payware aircraft and scenery and such e.g., the (groundbreaking) first PMDG NG and the Orbx PNW scenery, come to my mind.

Such excitement in the SIM…hard to replicate even with the best we have today, IMO.)

Edited February 24Feb 24 by P_7878

24 minutes ago, P_7878 said:

I had all the MSE (photo-scenery) titles for my FSX

Me too … but without any buildings/trees it was definitely a higher altitude kinda adventure. 

25 minutes ago, Christopher Low said:

It was only when FSX gave me the opportunity to install photoscenery of specific areas that I returned to the franchise (I used Flight Unlimited 2 and 3 exclusively on a regular basis between 1997 and 2008).

But...  Photoscenery in FSX and P3D looked like absolute garbage close to the ground and lacked any autogen, though it did get a bit better in their later releases.  Sure it was fine a few thousand feet AGL, but down low - ugh!

17 minutes ago, P_7878 said:

For example, I had all the MSE (photo-scenery) titles for my FSX, if any one remembers those guys. They finally closed shop just recently.

I had photo for everywhere in the US not covered by Orbx because - see above.  And I rarely flew in the eastern US because the quality was generally poorer than in the west, so moving to MSFS opened up a whole world that I could never previously stomach simming in.

BTW, just in case anyone cares, I saw something from the MSE guys a few weeks back that said they were going to keep the store open a bit longer.  Until June 30th, according to the site.  $99.95 for the entire US V3.

FYI, and all that,

 

Scott

48 minutes ago, SayAgain said:

Me too … but without any buildings/trees it was definitely a higher altitude kinda adventure. 

Quite true, only for high-altitude flying, and absolutely dead and featureless, on the ground.

Being a lifelong mountain lover, I just used to fly the MSE, high over the Alps, the Pyrenees, and the Rockies…🙂…and such…

I learned much of the (regional) geography that way.
 

@tttocs

Oh, $99.95 for the entire U.S. V3…

It’s tempting, but I’m not going back to the basement again to recover my (fully functional) FSX PC, one more time…🙂…might have actually considered it once upon a time…

Edited February 24Feb 24 by P_7878

3 hours ago, SayAgain said:

Me too … but without any buildings/trees it was definitely a higher altitude kinda adventure. 

I preferred flat photoscenery to the abysmal terrain textures and autogen in MSFS back in the day. I restricted myself to flying around the UK in FSX, and the Horizon photoscenery was 1.2 metres per pixel in England, and later 0.6 metre per pixel in Scotland. It certainly was not perfect (some of the England scenery was very oversaturated with red), but the vast majority of it was way better to look at than the scattershot generic rubbish that was on offer in default mode. Earth Simulations released TreeScapes for the UK, and that was a massive bonus for Horizon UK photoscenery users. It gave some much needed elevation to the terrain.

Earth Simulations. Truly a name to remember for the absolute quality scenery they released. They did not release a huge number of products, but what they did release was magic for me back then. I really wish that Darren and Vicki were still involved in flight simulation. They were the best 

Edited February 24Feb 24 by Christopher Low

As long as we are recounting experiences with old versions of flight simulator: as an old guy I go way back to Bruce Artwick's Flight Simulator II (SubLogic, 1983) which featured a basic 6-instrument panel, no external view of the plane, and scenery consisting of a runway, green ground, blue sky and ground water (with a white horizon line), and very few structures; towns and cities were represented by flat yellow polygons, and mountains by black triangles rising above the horizon. This ran on my 16-kb Atari 800 8-bit home computer (expandable to a whopping 48 kb of RAM). The psychological feeling of flight created by running this program at 2-6 frames per second -- seeing the runway shrink on takeoff and expand on approach to landing, and the horizon tilting as the plane banked, etc. -- was indescribable in those days. What we have today in MSFS 2024 was of course inconceivable, and I never could have imagined it at the time. This helps me place in perspective the current argument over the quality of PG. I can only wonder what will be the main topic of contention in flightsimming years from now when our present technology will seem primitive in retrospect.