Solid, regular shapes like buildings always work better than trees. The imaging process just doesn’t have the resolution to identify individual branches. And if it did, we’d be enjoying those scenes at <1fps. 
I wish they’d use the AI to detect PG trees, delete those meshes and replace them (or at least COVER them) with the autogen system trees. Risky though.
I think I recall reading that they are going to do exactly that in MSFS 2024?
Yes indeed!! I wrote that before the announcement though hahah.
They went further and found a way to make countryside 3D too. Very interested to see what that actually means in practice.
Reckon there is potential to have a whole new strand of weirdness but let’s see 
Yeah, sorry. I only realized that after I posted.
There’s a pretty good example of that already in the sim around Queenstown, NZ. Some of the mountain sides and less populated areas are photogrammetry, and it looks good. Obviously, the area still has tree blobs, but otherwise good. I do recommend exploring that area to get an idea of the improvements. If you fly east to where the photogrammetry ends in the mountains, you can see the difference of quality that photogrammetry provides vs. satellite imagery.
The main benefit will be a higher level of quality of ground detail, and better elevation data. Of course, as we see from city to city, some photogrammetry in the sim is better than others, so results may vary from location to location just like they do today. Another concern is the way photogrammetry tiles struggle to align sometimes, and I am concerned about how areas like the Grand Canyon will truly look as we fly over them. Those tile edges tend to be a little more hidden in areas with a lot of buildings. Hopefully they’ve fixed/improved that problem. I also hope they can consistently cover those flattened tree blobs with 3d trees.
Good call, thanks! I will fly there on my next time in the cockpit!
Here are some shots. As you can see, flying at a fair distance, everything looks great. It definitely helps make rocky areas look truly rocky and looks better than some of the “smooth” mountains that satellite imagery + poor elevation data can cause.
However, at certain angles, you start seeing some polygon shapes and tile edges.
And really up close you see every little blob.
One downfall photogrammetry has is that the ground is rarely smooth, even where it looks like it would be, so landing a bush plane in random fields and openings is very tough, including the additional risk of hitting misaligned tiles.
That’s a good point. Could make off-piste bush landings in the countryside not work at all. That would not be good 
I made a flight today and think I found some very good examples of the diverse 3D countryside over a wide area that we may expect (hopefully even more refined!!). Check this out:
Oh my goodness! How does one make the decision to purchase MSFS 2024, when it seems like we’ll end up 3 years after the next version and still see this kind of quality?
Is MSFS 2020 broke? Doesn’t give me a warm fuzzy about 2024 version, That they are already marketing to me.
What are you on about? Just don’t buy it until you believe it matches your expectations. Do you buy everything anyone markets to you?
Also I keep on being amazed at the expectations people insist on with this sim. You can turn Photogametry off, if you don’t like it.
Apparently, this is a forum that gives members a place to “go on about” characteristics that might not be as imagined.
Thank you for answering your reply of the obvious. 