Seems MS2024 has terrible Photogrammetry again. Tried couple of quick free flights in LA and Toronto. LA was ok visually until closer to the ground where you can see the roughness of objects and roads but Toronto was terrible even from 500ft to 1000ft in the air. Seems like a step backward at least in launch for visuals. Hopefully just a bug that will get fixed quickly instead of requiring months to get new data and manual hand edits to fix like in MSFS2020.
Any chance we will get back the quality photogrammetry to match the level of MSFS 2020… or …hopefully better sharper look of the roads, houses etc ?
13 Likes
I went and checked out Tokyo - it’s horrible. My hometown Zurich - melted by an atomic bomb. Horrible.
We truly went back 5 steps into 2010…
12 Likes
rrly? Did you use a flight simulator in 2010?iI understand that the photogrammetry has had a downgrade but it is not even close to being something from 2010, even the generation of generic buildings in the simulator is far above any other simulator, on par with 2020
Let’s say - compared to MSFS 2020 it’s miles away. How could that happen? I did not expect better - rly. But much worse? Blurry ground, 100-meter tall trees in the middle of Tokyo? No thanks
3 Likes
As and IT engineer, I think the real problem is, more of the sim should be stored to user’s local drives. All planes. addon’s, airports. depending too much on the internet and servers, we are not there yet for such a smooth task. Maybe just keep the world updates in the cloud let us choose what we want to download. almost all the problems I have seen is the servers trying to keep up and poor internet for some.
13 Likes
The downgrade is probably related to server issues, now not only does it lower photogrammetry but also other things and it is not a beastly downgrade and even if working better the photogrammetry will be the same as in 2020 because that technology was not updated and it does not depend on Asobo either, The photogrammetry simply looks like this, if you don’t look for yourself on Google Earth
Bro, what are you complaining about? You should be lucky to be able to fly. LOL
In the graphics settings make sure you’ve got the dynamic settings turned to off. I’ve got a hunch at least some of the visual degradation issues some people are having are because its turned to on and is throttling back on the visuals to maintain the desired frame rate, especially in heavy photogrammetry areas.
I just went for a flight low and slow over LA and it looked fantastic.
6 Likes
I was wondering the same thing about the Dynamic Settings. Your screenshots look great!
Most of the time mine looks similar, but I’ve had a few flights where everything looks a bit… melted for lack of a better term. Overall though the terrain and lighting have been a massive step-up for me.
2 Likes
Caching also plays a big part now. Fly over a city like LA the first time and you can see the PG loading in and it not looking the best. Come back to LA in a later flight and the PG is now in your cache and loads much better the second time. Same goes for mountains and terrain. It all looks better on subsequent flights.
Just make sure your cache is nice and large. Mine is set to 150GB.
I just compared Zurich and Tokyo and there I saw huge differences. It is most likely the servers… Here’s to hope they can crank their Azure Farm asap.
Chase Field in Arizona is gone. The whole Phoenix area looks auto-gen.
Do you know of a way to display the list of graphics settings that the dynamic feature might have downgraded, in order to maintain the target framerate?
Sadly I don’t. But it is clearly downgrading things for the feature to work and LOD has always been a big hitter on performance.
Its not only the bad photogrammetry but also the poor quality of Bing maps in other words...the roads. Which by the way... now cannot be disabled, as part of the package... but hey lets be happy and very proud, it`s the best simulator ever released 
1 Like
It does look like it still is, despite alleged moves to reduce/remove the CPU bottleneck, but my “test” of Ultra settings for everything in VR, did make me wonder whether those selected settings are actually being used??
On my PC, I’m seeing that a good visual experience over high-density scenery areas consumes significant bandwidth. For example, flying over the city of London was great, but was pulling between 50 - 100++ Mbps, as I reported here:
In some areas there is a new “2 Meter TIN”. This is just bad photogrammetry that always looks a mess, regardless of servers/connection/cache/LOD.