cobalt

The old satellite imagery of the FSX era was 2-dimensional, consisted of photographic files available for only selected regions purchased separately, and flying over it was like flying over a map --- the closer you were to the ground, the flatter it became! Interesting at the time as a novelty, but in no way comparable to what we have now. To your other points, I'm not aware of any evidence that development of satellite imagery, including photogrammetry, has in any way impeded the parallel development of MSFS or other sims. Agreed that there are far more interesting places to explore than retail malls (they are not all that interesting even in real life!), and I suggest that the latest iterations of flghtsimming in MSFS 2020 and 2024 open up the entire world in ways it never was before. My main point was that MSFS is being used by many largely for exploration, which understandably annoys flight purists who are far more interested in flight itself and less in detailed scenery. Nevertheless, it IS being used for such purposes, and since this only serves to enlarge the user base of MSFS that should make everyone happy!

This has been pointed out by others, but the fact is that, whether intentional or not, when real-world satellite-based scenery was introduced to flightsimming a few years ago, it effectively launched the age of real-world exploration. This new era we are in includes flight simulation but is not limited to it. The real-world scenery we see in MSFS 2020 and (especially) 2024 potentially encompasses everything (whether individual users want it or not) down to the finest detail attainable at any point in time, and this will continue to be the case. I am not sure exactly what bothers people who don't want to see the insides of airports (or for some folks, anything that cannot be seen from planes in flight!), but they always have the option of simply ignoring those kinds of details. In any case, this "virtual world" is here to stay and to become better and better over time. This is because -- as great as flightsimming has become (and I have been a simmer since the days of FS2 decades ago) -- the even wider interest is in real-world exploration, and MSFS 2024 at the moment happens to be the best vehicle for doing this. What it may eventually involve into (a plane-train-ship simulator, perhaps?), who knows. But it's happening, and it's great to see.

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.

Not sure I follow. The PG on/off option in Settings/Online will of course remain, regardless of what addons provided by developers are loaded. In other words, you could still switch PG on or off generally -- it just wouldn't work with the addon. Frankly I will be surprised if any developer is interested in making two versions of an airport, i.e. one with PG and one without.

I agree that the PG trees in your pic are way overdone and look ridiculous. You don't specify the exact location of your shots, so I went looking in the Seattle area and compared PG with non-PG representations of several places in that region, but couldn't find anything as extreme as the trees in your pic. Downtown Seattle looks fantastic in PG, whereas the same area in autogen looks, of course artificial -- which is fine if you don't mind fake buildings, but I do. This argument seems destined to go on forever, between the 70+% who like PG and the 28% who don't like it (according to the current poll). But the fact that PG is so easy to turn on and off without disrupting anything (you can do it in mid-flight, in seconds) enables everyone to suit himself or herself. I don't mind in the least that there are folks who dislike PG. Why does it bother anyone that I, and others, take a different view?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Noel, just so you know that some of us (maybe more than you suspect) are in MSFS not for careers, scores, or challenges other than those associated with RW flight. Rather we are in it to explore the world, visiting places we have never been or revisiting places we have been, basking in the wonder of real-life scenery in real weather. To top it off, in MS2024 we can get out of the plane and walk, bike, or drive around! It is fantastic, and it's all I need.

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.

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.

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.

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