What’s with the hideous photogrammetry and triangles that appear everywhere. Seems like the sim struggles to render it correctly and servers become overwhelmed. Why is everything being streamed in with no like-for-like alternative, for those with slow or no connection?
5 Likes
Photogrammetry seems to require a lot of bandwidth. Those with slow or no connection are going to have big problems with it.
Because a local install would be around 2.5 PetaBytes.
It’s also the reason why internet connection speeds are part of the minimum specs for MSFS.
16 Likes
No I don’t think so. The question was about streaming photogrammetry and the few areas they’ve done are not petabytes in size. Asobo could easily make that particular scenery available as a locally-stored source if it wanted to.
3 Likes
Well, if I see the sizes of the PG addons that are available on flightsim.to, this might seem feasable … With a halfway decent quality those range from approx 2GB (village) to about 30GB (metropolis).
HOWEVER: those imported PG sets usually are:
- smaller in area than most sets Microsoft/Asobo offers
- of lower resolution than MS/Asobo photogrammetry
in addition the way PG works in the addons there are a lot of texture files present for each city (up to several tens of thousands). This slows down loading time considerably, even with texture baking, since those files all have to be parsed when MSFS boots up. This procedure is unlikely to change. Of course I don’t know how the textures are saved for the MSFS PG, but still they will need a considerable number of texture files.
So if you consider that we now must have some 50 (?) or more photogrammetry cities available in MSFS, and even if you consider a mere 10-20GB per city (I think the actual amount of data on the MS servers is far higher) you would end up with 500GB to 1TB if you want them all installed on your hard drive. And this will increase with every WU.
Of course you can opt to only install what you like, but when I see someone with an internet connection that is unable to cope with streaming the data, I expect the downloads for that amount of data can take days.
So while I agree that downloadable PG likely is technically viable, I don’t think it’s the sensible think to do.
1 Like
few areas… there’s more than ‘a few’. Sure, not petabytes just for the photogrammetry, but there’s quite a lot;
edit; 387 photogrammetry cities at the last count.
3 Likes
i only see bad photometry in handful of places…in iberia its very good.
and i do not have that fast net, just 10Mb.
1 Like
Wow, that’s far more than the 50 I estimated. So let’s take 387 x 10GB = 3.87 TB.
1 Like
Isn‘t PG data not also stored in the local cache? If so, you already have what you just asked for 
1 Like
you can already manually cache photogrammetry areas. Rolling cache will get overwritten over time.
2 Likes
Hey all there’s already a photogrammetry topic. Please use that.
I’m on Xbox series X. Before the last update with my ADSL 12 mb connection I was quite fine with photogrammetry. Now it’s awful. Buildings are totally bad with those not streaming texture. Ok my adsl is poor, but why it was almost perfect before and now not? I’ve deleted the entire game and redownloaded, but the situation is the same. Does this happen only to me??? Don’t know what to do and why they changed those parameters. And I also don’t know why my cache section is grey so I can’t change those settings.
2 Likes
I doubt that it’s overloaded servers.
- Time of day doesn’t affect the problem as it surely would if server overload was the cause
- A big rolling cache doesn’t improve the problem
- Were it servers, we’d not see superb PG in New York City while simultaneously seeing London look like a thermonuclear bomb had exploded over the city, miraculously sparing the trees. The fact is that PG in U.S. cities has always been consistently good, while it’s always been consistently atrocious in London, at least in my experience. It was thus long before server demands went way up as the sim was adapted for Xbox.
This problem has been batted around on these forums for many months, and there’s never been any evidence that poor PG is caused by server problems. The Asobo team has expressed its disappointment in London PG and vowed to rework it. They’ve never mentioned upgrading the data servers as a solution for it.
2 Likes
But it does seem like a server issue because it happens to folks no matter the speed of their connection, and sometimes it works fine.
Doesn’t mean the server is slow. It could be any number of algorithm errors, or a corrupted file.
But it does appear to be an issue on the server end, as it involves data that doesn’t live on the hard drive.
1 Like
No it’s not a server issue. For London it’s poor quality data as Asobo has stated in a Q and A.
4 Likes
We aren’t talking about the same thing.
Minimum 5, Recommended 20, Ideal 50 Mbps.
I think you should manage your own expectations.
1 Like
Ok, but why before the update it was correct?? Moreover I’ve tried with a 70 mb connection and the photogrammetry is still bad.
2 Likes
- Are other people using the same internet connection as you are? Wife or kids watching Netflix, or playing on the web themselves, VoIP telephone?
- is your Computer connected to the router by cable or via Wifi? Heavy traffic on the Wifi channel can kill your internet speed as well.
2 Likes
Usually, it’s not so much the speed of the local connection, as the azure servers which can distribute MSFS content terribly slow.
Here in the Philippines, I can’t get more than 7mbps from the local azure server. I am on a 500mbps fiber connection.
I dare to say that azure allocates MSFS data a very low priority.
3 Likes