I know which one you mean and i tested it out some days ago. It’s based on the same gmaps data set in the same resolution, but looks actually a good bit nicer since it’s better aligned than my version. Also doesn’t have photogrammetrically imported jets at the gates which collide with the sim ones. Even a crane is set there are the runway, which is a nice addition.
BUT as you already confirmed, the performance impact is extreme… it basically halfes the fps when you are flying in it’s range.
In my version you maybe have a performance impact of about 5-10% of your max fps, which is a price im willed to pay for deeper immersion.
Apocalyptical does describe what I see. I have only one screen capture of what I see but it’s not on this computer I’m typing from now. I’ll try to remember to post again later and add the screen capture.
I was flying with a group where we were landing off field in parking lots, narrow roads, river banks and parks and I could not find level ground to land on. I see what appears to be large boulders and walls that I can not take off through. I turned off photogrammetry and all was well.
Others in the group were seeing the same thing. Some were not seeing these effects though. Others also turned off photogrammetry and saw an improvement.
EDIT> my photo was of after turning off Photogrammetry. I’ll have to fly again and take another picture.
EVERYONE complaining about the PG has ZERO IDEA of how difficult it is to implement. It’s a freaking miracle we even get it! So you fly at 200ft AGL at 100kts expecting it to look perfect?
Jeeez people, curb your expectations… 15 years ago FS looked like this, VFR was virtually impossible!
These photogrammetry is an unknown, in some parts of the world it looks very good, in others very bad, the proof is in these shots, everything the same, without touching anything, Madrid looks good, the Vienna refinery you can see how it looks See, I suppose it must be very difficult to attach Big’s images to the simulator.
The refinery is as good as it gets with PG. It’s impossible for now to get better results. I think it looks mighty impressive from 2000ft, where you are supposed to fly.
Well, well, I have flown the refinery at 2000 feet, and it looks just as bad, the melt is less noticeable because you go higher but it looks bad, however there is another refinery later on, smaller and that one does look good, go at 2000 feet or at 500.
He left you two takes of each one.
If it looks bad, it looks bad at 2000 and 500 feet, it looks bad because something is not right, in London when they did the update it also looked that bad, people were complaining, now London looks very good, something has fixed that goes very well now.
I see what you mean and you’re right that these could be improved.
However, since these point clouds are optimized as a whole, it would involve a lot of manual tuning to get better results, to the point it is unfeasible.
