Hmmm… Then it all sounds like i’m incredibly lucky😁 have been flying around londen multiple times since the update. Frame rate was always between 50 and 70 (small ga aircraft and real time traffic only - no multiplayer) and never experienced those low quality photogrammetry.
However, if server load was the problem… Why does his new york screenshot also looks bad?
I’m on western or northern europe servers btw. From the Netherlands.
I’ve only got 16gb of ram too but New York looks a million dollars compared to London, done quite a few circuits of it today and yes it slowly got better as scenery loaded in but it’s still pretty fugly compared to other major cities, something is fundamentally wrong somewhere
I’m not quite sure whether that makes a difference as far as scenery download is concerned: selecting various northern/western/… Asian/European/… servers has an impact on “multiplayer visibility”, but all other (world) data is probably just pulled from the nearest Bing / Azure data centre near you.
32 gb of RAM and NYC looks at least 3 times better and a flyable FPS of 28. At London I get 15!
I am deleting this update, it is just not worth having the fps drop on approach to Heathrow
Yeah i’m thinking the same. But somehow here i get alot of reactions that the photogrammetry bad quality has to do with server load. While i never experienced those issues described here since i’ve updated my ram. So i just putted the extra info;)
Maybe your specs aren’t really up to the task… 28fps is allready low. Can imagine 15 would be unflyable. Maybe the london photogrammetry uses a different way of rendering then the older photogrammetry cities. Might be that it’s easier for newer hardware to render compared to the old method. But somehow for lesser hardware it’s the other way around?
It’s still a mistery though. Reading so much different comments about the london performance.
I’ve got the same problem, really melty buildings. I’m noticing it in other places too, but predominantly in London. I have 32GB of RAM, a Ryzen 7 3700x and a Powercooler Red Devil 5700XT running at 1440p with a mix of medium/high end settings.
Tried clearing the rolling cache and all that kind of thing, but it doesn’t seem to help. Bing map data is ON, photogrammetry is ON, the internet connection my end is also fast and stable.
what do you guys have your sim installed on? an ssd? nvme or sata? And how’s your internet connection?
Regarding performance, See my pictures above. I get worse performance in NY then londen.(49 vs 66) So why is it the other way around for alot of people? There must be a difference in specs/connection somewhere that would make sense you’d think right?
1TB NVMe SSD for me, internet connection is stable at about 80Mbps down and 15Mbps up.
CPU: Ryzen 7 Pro 2700X / Intel i7-9800X
GPU: Radeon VII / Nvidia RTX 2080
VRAM: 8GB
RAM: 32GB
HDD: 150GB (SSD recommended)
Bandwidth: 50 Mbps
Lol according to microsoft we all should be totally fine… I’m running a rtx3090 / 10900k / 64GB3200 /250mbps also on a nvme ssd. I can’t get much better than this to be hounest. And still i won’t consider the situation the be ‘ideal’
Reading all your problems there must be something messed up real bad. Especcially with the london scenery then. I’m happy because my performance is great in londen. But on the other hand i’m worried that there’s still soo much issues regarding performance (even on high end builds) things will be like this for a looong time to come:( Especially when you consider all the other 1000’s of bugs/issues still need to be fixed.
what a great journey it is indeed 
Hope something changes soon for you all. Because the uk scenery looks great i.m.o. So would be a shame if you all decide to just run autogen instead because of this mess.
I agree, 28 is not a lot but that is at NYC, otherwise I have between 60 and 72 fps on Ultra high at 2K. NYC tanks my fps and London just drops it to 15 or so.
Ah okay, but that’s still strange though. Normal demanding area’s i get around 60-70 fps too. Some areas will go to around 80 (rural areas with no photogrammetry) But my settings are All the sliders (except render scaling ofcourse) up too 200. Buildings/trees/grasses bushes at ultra. And everything from volumetric clouds to the bottem in the graphics settings is @ high. Motion blur off. So similair performance in normal area’s as you (while my settings aren’t even all ultra), But my fps drops only to around 50fps in new york.
How can you get similair fps with lesser hardware (actually not sure what your hardware is btw, so might be the same as me) But higher settings. But somehow get very low performance in Londen and New york.
Seems like it’s just random who get’s good performance and who not 
How are you able to gain such high FPS in London? You must have one heck of a PC to be able to run it all at max settings and still get 60FPS! Even with 32GB RAM, RTX 3090 and 5900x it still isn’t enough and only getting around 20FPS once everything has loaded in.
This is the whole point of this discussion. I meself wonder too how people get such low performance and i’m able to achive above 60fps… I’m on a rtx3090 too… 10900k though @ 5hz. 64gb
BTW: i’m not on max settings. read post above. Ultra/high mixed settings.
Maybe a better solution would have been using custom buildings with photogrammetry textures, but that would probably be very time consuming (expensive). Only checked the UK photogrammetry twice but it looks pretty bad, and i’m pretty happy with the custom models (Gaya did a great job again) and autogen.
Maybe, remember scenery downloading is progressive - eventually you will have the best version of London if it’s cached or you are in the same spot long enough. Those who deleted rolling cache or don’t have a local copy will have to start downloading from scratch each time.
It’s not, I have 32gb ram and 24gb vram with the game installed on a pcie4.0 nvme and get the same.
There’s some sort of issue with streaming in the data I think, even with what should be an “ok” internet connection (reliable 50Mbps) I get the same problem with London looking pap and I sometimes get a pop up saying “insufficient bandwidth for photogrammetry” when flying over it.
For the avoidance of doubt I also deleted the manual cache, rolling cache and don’t have the orbx add on. I wanted to try a new manual cache of London to see how that looked but it CTDs every time trying to create the cache (which is another known issue).
There’s something up with either how much data the new stuff is using compared to the older ones (thus needing a significantly faster internet connection to work properly) or some issue with the server streaming it, but I can at least verify it isn’t a memory size issue.
Hmm. sounds like a possibility. But i never fly with rolling cache on and i also never use a manual cache or anything (tried it one, to much hassle, gave me same results as without) and i never experienced those issues. (only when i was using lesser ram 16gb)
I’m on a 250mbps connection btw. Lan no wifi. But sure 80mbps should be more then enough to download fast enough to reach highest quality by the time you get at the closest LOD range of the photogrammetry?
Maybe we should make a topic where everyone can post a screenshot from the same location/weather/ai settings somewhere in London. Let everyone write their system specs and bandwith and see if there’s any simmelarity’s pointing out between people with good performance and people with bad performance. Because now it sounds like there’s nothing obvious explaining these big performance gaps between people with similair specs.
I’ve got similar issues. 100gb internet but get a warning that my bandwidth is too low. It’s got to be something be on their side…
No data limit, no rolling cache.
same thing in montpellier, bordeaux, lille. in fact on all photometric scenes.
