Is there any fix to eliminating the post-apocalyptic "melted buildings" that I see when I'm at lower altitudes? It's truly horrific on my machine (which is a pretty high end PC). I know I can simply turn photogrammetry off but that's not really the point. Is there anything I can do at my end to make this effect go away? I've seen this question posted on MSFS FB pages but the responses are typically nonsense.

If it's just the nature of MSFS 2024, so be it but I just figured I'd ask.

It's usually the older stuff. ASOBO's more recent photoscenery is a lot better where TIN has been used. They have redone a few areas with the newer method, but whethr they will redo all of it is another matter. Probably have to buy MSFS2028 for that.

19 minutes ago, 11bee said:

Is there any fix to eliminating the post-apocalyptic "melted buildings" that I see when I'm at lower altitudes? It's truly horrific on my machine (which is a pretty high end PC). I know I can simply turn photogrammetry off but that's not really the point. Is there anything I can do at my end to make this effect go away? I've seen this question posted on MSFS FB pages but the responses are typically nonsense.

If it's just the nature of MSFS 2024, so be it but I just figured I'd ask.

I use payware cities and disable all city asobo updates. I always get the cities when they are on sale. I love these: https://dfflyerdirect.com/

1 hour ago, 11bee said:

Is there any fix to eliminating the post-apocalyptic "melted buildings" that I see when I'm at lower altitudes? It's truly horrific on my machine (which is a pretty high end PC). I know I can simply turn photogrammetry off but that's not really the point. Is there anything I can do at my end to make this effect go away? I've seen this question posted on MSFS FB pages but the responses are typically nonsense.

If it's just the nature of MSFS 2024, so be it but I just figured I'd ask.

There isn't really any way to avoid it. They are meant to be seen from several thousand feet of altitude, not 500 feet.

1 minute ago, Nandengo12 said:

There isn't really any way to avoid it. They are meant to be seen from several thousand feet of altitude, not 500 feet.

Essentially this. They can look 'melted' at altitudes where you'd be reported to the FAA/CAA.

Only way to get rid of the melted buildings is to uncheck Photogrammetry.

7 minutes ago, Nandengo12 said:

There isn't really any way to avoid it. They are meant to be seen from several thousand feet of altitude, not 500 feet.

4 minutes ago, DD_Arthur said:

Essentially this. They can look 'melted' at altitudes where you'd be reported to the FAA/CAA.

The problem with this line of thought is that almost all of the Asobo marketing videos for MSFS2024 showcase very low level flying and highlighting their scenery down low. From helo flights to bush flying, regular GA and airlines. Just watch the intro video everytime you start MSFS2024, or any of the videos that come out for new world and city updates. Asobo promotes and promotes the look of the scenery down low, and then we get that melted building look and monolith tree obstacles all over the place. It's like they are saying "nothing to see here, move along...no scenery issues, just watch our promos".

At least, that is how I feel about this topic.

15 minutes ago, Nandengo12 said:

There isn't really any way to avoid it. They are meant to be seen from several thousand feet of altitude, not 500 feet.

Not an easy thing to do if you are landing at an airport that is within (or close to) photogrammetry boundaries.

39 minutes ago, Christopher Low said:

Not an easy thing to do if you are landing at an airport that is within (or close to) photogrammetry boundaries.

That's why I turn the (blank) PG off at that level

Edited 14 hours ago14 hr by Nandengo12

Things HAVE been improving, as the PG in the newer "cities" updates have been generally higher quality. Still doesn't mean you won't see issues up close, of course.

That said, I do wonder how some of you fly. I'd seen criticisms of the PG in the new update of the Chicago area, so I did a nice VFR flight yesterday afternoon from Indianapolis to Green Bay, WI. Along the way, I did the Chicago "Skyline Tour" just as I would in RL, down to 2000' to get under the O'Hare Bravo and the Midway Charlie, and about a half mile out over the lake. The city looked terrific to me, but then - I wasn't flying pylons between the downtown buildings, I was doing what I would/could really fly in a fixed wing AC.

As others have noted, investing in some of the payware cities is one solution if things really bug you, but there's a cost, both in $$ and performance in some cases. Drzewiecki Design's Chicago product, for example, is a bit heavy on frames for my tastes and system, especially when combined with their KMDW. I'm perfectly happy with the new default version, but YMMV.

My apologies to those of you who fly helicopters, as you do live in a different world.

Bottom line for me remains that PG is a tradeoff with good and bad aspects. For me, the good far outweighs the bad in most places. Some fall on the other side of the fence.

Scott

48 minutes ago, sniper31 said:

The problem with this line of thought is that almost all of the Asobo marketing videos for MSFS2024 showcase very low level flying and highlighting their scenery down low. From helo flights to bush flying, regular GA and airlines. Just watch the intro video everytime you start MSFS2024, or any of the videos that come out for new world and city updates. Asobo promotes and promotes the look of the scenery down low, and then we get that melted building look and monolith tree obstacles all over the place. It's like they are saying "nothing to see here, move along...no scenery issues, just watch our promos".

At least, that is how I feel about this topic.

Yes and no. I had a look at this promo...they are definitely highlighting low level scenery but not the middle of cities. There were specifically crafted areas highlighted like targets for medical rescues, oil rigs, a mountain station, and so on. There were city views of LA and somewhere in the Mediterranean, but the LA one was too high for any melt and the Mediterranean one wasn't clear and climbing in altitude.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3xp-SnZDoY

I haven't seen the city update ones though, so you could be right there...

Also you have to assume the Asobo test crew has it running in an environment that is not the typical user's PC setup.

58 minutes ago, Mike_CFII_MEL said:

Only way to get rid of the melted buildings is to uncheck Photogrammetry.

This ^^^^

I turn off Photogrammetry everytime an update resets it back to ON and, magically, post-apocaliptic scenery turns into very realistic-looking scenery on my rig 🙂

I can't live without Photogrammetry, I'd rather have accurate if slightly low quality imagery then the generic autogen buildings.

Edited 13 hours ago13 hr by Tuskin38

26 minutes ago, tttocs said:

Things HAVE been improving, as the PG in the newer "cities" updates have been generally higher quality. Still doesn't mean you won't see issues up close, of course.

That said, I do wonder how some of you fly. I'd seen criticisms of the PG in the new update of the Chicago area, so I did a nice VFR flight yesterday afternoon from Indianapolis to Green Bay, WI. Along the way, I did the Chicago "Skyline Tour" just as I would in RL, down to 2000' to get under the O'Hare Bravo and the Midway Charlie, and about a half mile out over the lake. The city looked terrific to me, but then - I wasn't flying pylons between the downtown buildings, I was doing what I would/could really fly in a fixed wing AC.

As others have noted, investing in some of the payware cities is one solution if things really bug you, but there's a cost, both in $$ and performance in some cases. Drzewiecki Design's Chicago product, for example, is a bit heavy on frames for my tastes and system, especially when combined with their KMDW. I'm perfectly happy with the new default version, but YMMV.

My apologies to those of you who fly helicopters, as you do live in a different world.

Bottom line for me remains that PG is a tradeoff with good and bad aspects. For me, the good far outweighs the bad in most places. Some fall on the other side of the fence.

Scott

Agree with this too, it really depends on where.

But in the places where it does look quite good, you will still get bizarre trees and what not. That said if people are trying to drive on roads and such and still complaining about how it looks, I don't really know what to say.

I do not fly between buildings as if they are pylons or drive on roads. I DO fly helos in the sim and even flying GA and approaching to land or takeoff from some airports, the melted buildings are visible often. Just because I or someone else says they see melted buildings and obelisk trees, does NOT mean we are all not trying to fly properly or treating the sim like a ground racetrack. I still love MSFS2024 and think it's the best sim we have ever had in the flight sim world, but that does that not mean I cannot have an objective opinion about something with the sim. I keep PG on, but it has its flaws, and almost every time I fly a helo in the sim the melted look of the PG screws with my immersion. It is what it is.