I flew around the Los Angeles area a lot yesterday, and I thought overall the photogrammetry looked good. I have a 500 mbps internet speed with a fast computer, so I don’t think anything would be holding me back.
I’m also trying to figure out if creating a manual cache of an are would be any benefit vs. the rolling cache. LA looks good for me, but I would definitely create a manual cache if the quality could be even higher.
100% correct.
I tried the whole manual cache (2 updates ago) for NYC and it still didn’t seem to fix the issue of downtown buildings looking good, and I thought I read manual cache sometimes works, sometimes doesn’t. Can’t confirm, just what I went off of a few weeks ago
San Diego seems to be an area where the photogrammetry always renders full and well.
Meanwhile places like Miami still render horribly.
Again folks I think its just the nature of the beast… we just can’t expect much under 1500 feet or being on ground in some of these packed city block,suburb photogrammetry grids.
Its gonna look like WW3 aftermath ground level no matter what.
In my opinion, that is not good. Look out in the distance, its literally nothing there. Right under the plane looks fine, yes.
To save bandwidth? There could be a data cap, or a bunch of other people in the house streaming video or other games.
Darn you are still going through it with this photogrammetry?
I was gonna reinstall the sim and give it another go but after seeing folks like you who have been on this issue since my melted lego block thread. Ill give the sim more time.
Also yes folks some of us non high altitude tubeliner flyers are very petty and obsessed with photogrammetry quality. Let us live please!
Stop spitting nonsense comments, I have had fine PG with 3 mbit down on wifi, its hit or miss, the servers are def unstable. You can open a network monitor on a second monitor or in windowed mode and see almost NO data coming in while flying above a PG city, and sometimes its maxed. I have tested this sim with a ■■■■■■ 3 mbit wifi line, and a google fiber plugged in line, the times it works and not is random…
I noticed this while actually playing with the pause button, if you pause or slew, your data stops coming in…
YES, ethernet direct is better, but its not the issue here.
First of all I have no issues with PG. You see it only if you zoom. As I said many times before, a pilot in a real plane never zoom with binoculars. So, what you are talking about?
Second: Please show me an E2E tcpdump otherwise I cannot take you seriously.
Sure, and like I’ve also said IRL your eyes can discern much finer details than any pixel can represent even at 4K on a 27" monitor a foot or so from your eyes. You eye resolution at 20/20 if I’m not mistaken is 60 dots per degrees. I’ll let you do the maths for the 27" 4K screen equivalent.
Therefore zooming is essential when simming because it is the only way to discern distant details (runways for example) you’d see IRL but you couldn’t in the simulator.
I would be very grateful if you could show me a sim that can do this. If ASOBO should make this possible, everybody will come back and complain about 10 FPS. You can’t have everything.
As it is, you can still see the runway, this only concerns PG buildings. It is all about flying and not about sightseeing 
Sure there are many examples I can think of:
And regardless, I don’t believe it is a matter comparing FS2020 to the worst there is, it is a matter implementing a feature which would set FS2020 above the others.*
As for RWY, I don’t know whether this is due to my aging eyes but looking at a reduced texture resolution no more than 8x8 pixels enlarged to fill 1/8 of my screen and representing a RWY 4000m long is really doing it any justice, let alone any practical visual purposes.
To each is own.
[update] *wrongly turned sentence, I mean “implementing the zoom feature in a better way than the others”.
FS2020 is lightyears above other sims.
I fly a lot in the north with fog, rain, snow etc. I have no problems finding the runway or zooming in.
That’s a real joke. Also zoomed a bit. Can you please explain to whom you want to recommend such graphics in 2020?
I believe I might not be expressing myself correctly because what you’re showing as a response doesn’t correspond to what I was thinking you were discussing about.
Regardless, the fact you don’t need any zoom function doesn’t preclude others from needing it. It is technically feasible so there is no point arguing whether you need it or I need it, what only matters is whether Asobo is willing to implement such capability which is in demand. The real question though might be “how many needs it” but I don’t think either of us are warrant of the answer.
Agree. But they will come back and complain why the FPS is down on the potato PC. Please read older comments. They complained about too much trees, then too less trees and so on. That are not wishes. It’s all about compalining, nothing else.
Ok that’s your opinion please refrain from insults or throwing this thread off track going back and fourth or we will get you outta here. You don’t dictate nor gatekeep what the people in this thread should be satisfied with or anything else. We get YOUR experience, trust we do!
Last warning!
And I stand corrected on Google Earth example but partly: although it is displaying lower poly count models in the distance as every other 3D program, and zooming the screen (WIN + NUMPAD_PLUS) is making the photogrammetry less good like in FS2020, it is however displaying buildings at the distance, in the case of Manhattan, ‘rectangle’ shapes and not ‘pyramids’ which helps retaining the overall ‘signature’/‘look and feel’ of the distant buildings:
Very interesting a third party dev wrote this haha 
they are a usually more cautious bunch!
With zooming in of course you’ll need to have higher resolution textures loaded which for a sim with the visual fidelity of MSFS is obviously going to cause performance problems and these escalate for complex geometry like photogramtery. I think we would all like to zoom in and see great detail but I can also understand why it would be left on the cutting room floor when it comes to making the sim as smooth as possible.
Having said all that I would like to see some optimisations for photogrametry and mesh areas from ‘normal’ viewing distances which are borderline acceptable - the slightest zoom and it can look a bit ugly - just my 2 cent.
There is also another option instead of using MSFS. World sightseeing simulator.
