I truly believe that things like this embodies the “beauty is in the eye of the beholder” concept. I completely understand what you are saying here. I have looked at the promotional video again and I feel they have added so much crisp detail that the buildings end up looking “toy-like”. Make no mistake: the level of detail is exceptional. But the way in which is was done makes it look overall like a highly detailed model to me. Essentially it was done so meticulously that it ends up looking too good to be true.
I have the free CLi4D add on and for a comparison I just flew over Vancouver again with that loaded. On balance my preference is for the “look” this gives. While nowhere near the building detail of the SamScene offering, for me the whole just ends up looking more plausible. It really is very good from 1.500 feet, and while I cannot speak for others, that is what I am looking for. It looks so good in fact that I really cannot see me paying for anything “better”.
Some CLi4D image examples to compare to the promotional video posted early in the thread
The scenery does have a frame impact but it is not major. I run at 4K, almost all Ultra, 300TLOD, 200 OLOD. Some shots showing frame rates. For perspective: I get 30-ish on the ground at a highly detailed airport like FSimStudios CYVR (which was also loaded) and 40+ flying at 1,500ft over non-PG highly detailed areas
As always: to each his own. Hopefully this bit of a perspective might help others to decide