No, i just screenshot these and drag and drop them into the forum, so nothing special at all.
1 Like
Yes we ARE paying for it! The updates are all part of a ten year commitment the devs made to keep the game updated. Thatâs part of what we bought. None of the updates are âfreeâ. If you think they are, then I have a bridge to sell you.
The only âentitlementâ on display here is that of those folks who are happy with mediocrity, and who think they should be able to bully those of us who arenât into shutting up about it.
If youâre content with the scenery in its mediocre form - if you really donât care how godawful the scenery looks in places like London (which, in some places, looks like a nightmare image from of an H.R. Giger fever dream), then go play the game, and leave those of us who arenât content with it, and who love the game enough to want to improve it, to petition the developers to make it better.
Again, images taken so far away you canât see the problem. Get in a helicopter and land at one of the helipads in a big city, and youâll see the problems very well.
And again, posting photos from a mile away and then claiming thereâs no problem is not helping your argument. It just shows you want to pretend there isnât an issue.
As stated numerous times, you are asking photogrammetry to do a job it was never intended to do. If course it looks garbage close up, thatâs obvious.
5 Likes
As stated numerous times, we are not asking photogrammetry to do a job it was not meant to do. If it wasnât meant to do the job, the developers wouldnât have used it, now would they. And it does the job fine in some areas. The problem is that in some areas it is godawful. That can be fixed!
Youâre not helping Microsoft or Asobo by defending their worst photogrammetry. Youâre just making it harder for them to see the problem and address it. Stop being part of the problem!
1 Like
I suggest you take the trouble to find out how photogrammetry is produced, who by and itâs limitations.
Goodnight.
And how exactly am i part of the problem? Are you gatekeeping me?
3 Likes
Can we tune it back a notch?
I âreadâ a lot of opinion and âseeâ a lot of quality here.
The yapping does not help the op with the molten buildings. We clearly see that @gordongreig doesnât see molten buildings.
So thereâs a difference between the configs. Might even be caused by throttling of the isp.
Can we suggest any more troubleshooting steps than clearing cache?
4 Likes
I tried a VPN and tested a few different VPN locations not sure if placebo but seen improvements.
Might be worth while testing if you have access to a VPN.
1 Like
No, youâre NOT paying for it.
You bought the sim, as is, on the day it was released. They never promised free world updates. I remember being VERY surprised they offered them for free. I was fully expecting them being paid DLCâs.
Go ask players of truck sim, or train sim. Youâre paying for every new country/state/area. MS/Asobo offering world updates for free is the exception, not the norm. You donât have to sell me a bridge, I get them for free from Asobo/MS, which was very much a surprise.
Or look at P3D/Xplane. Upgrade from xplane 10 to 11 arguably added less than a free sim update for MSFS, yet you pay for it.
2 Likes
To be fair though its not their photogrammetry. They didnât create it. Theyâre buying it from third party sources and theyâre completely at the mercy of the quality of the source. Hence the erratic nature of the quality of PG across the sim.
However they have said they are now commissioning their own PG specifically for the sim. My hunch is the New Zealand PG is the first example of that since its a real step up from PG elsewhere and is far more extensive. Check out the PG for Christchurch. Its the best Iâve seen in any world update.
That will always be a problem. Even the highest resolution PG just isnât designed to be viewed up close.
I never suggested it was their photogrammetry, but they chose to use it. Look, Iâm not âattackingâ Microsoft or Asobo here (not sure why some folks think I am). The point is, the garbage photogrammetry needs to be addressed. So itâs great theyâre commissioning their own PG. Hopefully they do it soon for the areas that are the worst.
And as for the idea that photogrammetry will always be a problem up close, again, youâre missing my point. For helicopter pads and areas like London City Airport, there needs to be handcrafted scenery for the areas close to the landing areas. Iâm not saying we need to have perfect PG everywhere. Iâm saying that the issues need to be addressed so that the bad stuff is improved and so that the stuff that canât be made any better is masked using handcrafted scenery. Itâs not rocket science.
1 Like
Iâm sure it will be over time. Its been a frequently asked question in the dev Q+Aâs and they consistently answer by saying theyâre constantly on the the look out for new and better sources of PG. Hence commissioning their own specially for the sim. The upgrading of PG will just be a constantly ongoing process across the whole world. Theyâve said thereâs a better version of the London PG in the works. Look forward to seeing it.
Thats a frequent problem wherever PG gets up really close to the end of runways as well as helipads. Thereâs probably a gap in the market for a third party developer to make handcrafted areas around popular airports. Quite a lot of work though and its not something that bothers everyone.
Nothing bothers âeveryoneâ. If a person only flies in the wilderness, thatâs not an argument for ignoring issues with cities. The fact is, itâs a problem that needs addressing. There shouldnât be an airport or a helipad we can land at that looks like itâs just been the target of a nuclear strike.
1 Like
Man, it is not melted, it is a detailed metal plumbing, and the default photogrammetry is not detailed, to fit the game and the bandwith necessary. But it is easy to solve, fly higher.
I fly helis, photogrammetry is a huge improvement in the sim world, but it is not yet perfect or like a custom made. But it is not too the nasty auto generated. I waited do many years to fly this way, since the fsxâŠ
Gustavo, one of us doesnât fully understand the problem. I live in North America and âflyâ mostly around here. My home city has had photogrammetry since the Sim launched in August 2020. Here you can fly down to 50 feet above the rooftops, and the buildings still look perfect.
The point is that in many large cities like London and Vienna, PG isnât terrible because itâs designed that way or because weâre supposed to appreciate it from 500 meters altitude. The sim and the Azure servers are clearly capable of doing it right. It looks terrible in London only because Asobo/MS purchased a severely flawed PG dataset (they may have had no choice). Itâs the age-old case of Garbage In, Garbage Out or, if you prefer, Rubbish In, Rubbish Out. Thereâs no reason to settle for it as itâs been implemented, and Asobo agrees.
1 Like
Hy TimewornGem, my reply was about Halcona320âs photos. I didnt find his complainig about PG was acurate, as he was flying very low on a very detailed industrial plant. The problem was not the detailing of standard PG (not very high as google, but a gem to a simmer), that was about the defautl good quality, but he flying very low. And at that altitude, I may say that even the best PG quality available today (google), it will look awful. The future will be better, and I hope still be alive to fly then.
But there are places in the sim where PG does, in fact, look better, much better, Google cannot be the gold standard. The proof that PG does not have to result in melted buildings when viewed from low altitudes is right in the sim itself.
Generally the more recent it is then the better and mostly this is due to technological advances in equipment used for capturing. Asobo cannot simply magic up data that isnât yet available.
I guess thatâs obvious. In the end, theyâll need to procure better datasets, and I think theyâve as much as said thatâs what theyâll have to do.