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.

I very seldom encounter a solid bridge these days, and find very little in PG that is annoying, as long I stay a bit above ground level. I am very sorry that you are having a different experience, but maybe in time that will change. Let's hope so.

I guess what it all comes down to, for any individual, is how much one cares about flying in real-world scenery. If you don't really care, then autogen is fine, no problem. I care a lot, and flying over Chicago, Pittsburgh, London, Paris, New York, Boston, Seattle, and other places I am familiar with, and seeing only autogen which bears no resemblance to the actual buildings, holds no interest for me. You could say PG has spoiled me irreversibly. In any case I do think PG is here to stay and is the future for flightsimming.

I see absolutely no sign of this problem in my 5-year-old rig. It has to be an issue with your system and/or settings, not MS2024.

You can have your autogen-only world simply by turning PG off. What's the problem?

I have to completely disagree. In my experience photogrammetry renders cities, and other areas where it is available, in close to real-life accuracy -- the only problems occurring very close to the ground where the melted-building syndrome persists (though I see gradual improvement over time, especially with trees). For altitudes at 100 ft. or more above ground, for me PG is the only way to explore the real world in flight simulation. FYI, I use wifi with about 100 Mbps and everything works fine -- no stutters. As many other have pointed out, the quality of streaming varies a lot in different areas, which would explain why so many love PG while others do not.

The thing is, I just don't see the melted and mis-shaped buildings in Chicago, that you see. Certainly the photogrammetry is better at higher altitudes (as it is in all cities), but even as low as a hundred feet AGL it still looks good to me, except for the trees, which are better than they used to be. Can you specify a particular building or two where you see melting? I suspect a server issue here.

I have been flightsimming for a very long time, and the advances in autogen scenery in recent years are impressive and very nice. Given the current limitations in photogrammetry near ground level, I can certainly understand why many simmers fly with PG off. But what has made me a huge fan of PG despite its drawbacks, is that for me anyway, it affords a far better representation of the real world than is otherwise possible. Autogen, by comparison, great as it was in the past, just doesn't do it for me anymore; flying over Manhattan, Chicago, San Francisco, Paris, London, and smaller cities, I want to see real buildings, not imaginary ones however attractive they may be. Just a personal observation.

No problem -- It seems that MSFS is generally referred to as a game nowadays and I am used to that. I just like to put in a reminder from time to time, that at least a few of us have a different view. I trust that's OK with you.

Just as a reminder: for some of us it's not a game (there are no winners or losers, and no score to keep track of), and we don't play it. It's a flight simulator, and we fly it.

Contrary to your statement, the difference between 2020 and 2024 is not just visible on the ground -- it is very noticeable in any spot with rugged terrain such as cliff faces and mountainsides all over the world, and really just about everywhere. The notion that the scenery in the two sims is basically the same when you are in flight is simply wrong, as those of us who still use both can testify. If you are talking about flight at 20,000 feet, then yes, the difference may be hard to detect. But if you do all your flying at high altitudes looking mainly at instruments, who needs scenery at all? You might as well stick with FSX! For those simmers who want to explore the real world, MS2024 represents a huge, undeniable advance.