MSFS Computer Components Or Bandwidth?

[Phil0671]

Hello everyone.

 

There is one thing I wonder about, regarding MSFS and the visual results we can get when flying over big cities. I don´t know if it´s about "weak" PC components or bandwidth.

 

I really have a bad graphic results. Below is an example on a static screenshot over Paris and the second one is "the same" taken by Orbx for the Paris landmarks.

 

 

 

When i fly (moving), things are getting worth.

 

 

 

If those results are in relation with the bandwidth, something wrong is going somewhere because on my side i have a good speed.

 

 

 

I´m about to upgrade my PC.

 

My actual components are:

• GPU: 1080TI
• CPU: 4770K
• RAM: 16B
• 3* (1920*1080) = 5760*1080

 

In advance thanks for your feedbacks.

 

Edited January 14, 2022 by Phil0671

[BradB]

Something is not right with your settings , I use to have a similar rig to yours before upgrading last month . I never had the "Melted" building effect . Try turning off

Photo Gamerty in your settings and try flying over Paris again to compare .

[Sniper31]

I agree with BradB, the melted building effect is from Photogrammetry being turned on. I fly with it turned off, and although you do lose some special building effects in certain photogrammetry cities, the lack of melted buildings for me totally outweighs it. The melted building effect completely kills immersion for me. There are other side effects from it like solid bridges and dock cranes, melted trees etc. If you typically fly at high altitudes, then the melted buildings effect may not bother you. But, if you like to look at the scenery at 500-3000 feet while flying, then you will see it a lot of the time. I have very high bandwidth too, over 900 Mbps fiber optic, so that is not your problem. It's also not a product of your PC specs. It's all photogrammetry. Let us know how it goes for you.

 

Landon

[Phil0671]

Thank you for your feedbacks.

 

I´ve tried with the photogrammetry OFF and like you say, the result is much better, but the quality details of each building are very poor ( i understand why of course).

 

So what is the secret of those youtubers showing very nice results with the photogrammetry ON...

 

[BradB]

7 minutes ago, Phil0671 said:

Thank you for your feedbacks.

 

I´ve tried with the photogrammetry OFF and like you say, the result is much better, but the quality details of each building are very poor ( i understand why of course).

 

So what is the secret of those youtubers showing very nice results with the photogrammetry ON...

 

They probably have fairly new rigs with RTX 3090's and lots of VRAM . Here is a lengthy thread on PG : https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/do-we-really-need-photogrammetry/367711

[pmb]

I made a lot of experiments with PG at the early days of MSFS. I have a 100MBit/s connection which is not exhausted and tried several cacheing options which all didn't help a iota. I think it's the base technology plus the raw data which are limiting.

 

However, as Landon already stated, quality of PG differs largely. I found (all PG on) London is among the worst examples, Paris is somewhere in the middle of the road while Tokyo looks pretty good.  MSFS head J. Neumann even stated once in a Q&A he finds London lacking himself and wants to redo it himself at a point.

 

The last shot just is something which can't be done with PG. Otherwise, I find Paris not too bad in a height of ~3000 ft where I'm usually flying with my tiny C152.

 

One more hint: Try various Zoom settings. Zoom is a factor often neglected in such discussions, but has a big influence on performance as well as display quality, notably using PG. Lower Zoom = better performance + less distortions, although it can't turn straw into gold.

 

Kind regards, Michael

 

[Sniper31]

3 hours ago, BradB said:

They probably have fairly new rigs with RTX 3090's and lots of VRAM . Here is a lengthy thread on PG : https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/do-we-really-need-photogrammetry/367711

John, not sure how much difference if any that makes when it comes to PG...I have a Ryzen 5950X and an RX 6900 with 16MB VRAM. I can run MSFS pretty much at the highest level with out any slow problems. That said, I run MSFS at 2560 x 1440 resolution with most settings at medium or high, and everything is super smooth. Turn on PG though, and I get super smooth melting buildings  

 

Landon

[BradB]

54 minutes ago, Sniper31 said:

John, not sure how much difference if any that makes when it comes to PG...I have a Ryzen 5950X and an RX 6900 with 16MB VRAM. I can run MSFS pretty much at the highest level with out any slow problems. That said, I run MSFS at 2560 x 1440 resolution with most settings at medium or high, and everything is super smooth. Turn on PG though, and I get super smooth melting buildings  

 

Landon

With my old rig and my new rig I never got melted buildings with PG on .

[Doug Sawatzky]

7 hours ago, Phil0671 said:

Thank you for your feedbacks.

 

I´ve tried with the photogrammetry OFF and like you say, the result is much better, but the quality details of each building are very poor ( i understand why of course).

 

So what is the secret of those youtubers showing very nice results with the photogrammetry ON...

 

 

Hi

 

You could also try the first three items listed in the below topic.

 

 

 

[bvdboomen]

Like mentioned earlier the quality of PG depends on the source data. Most PG that was shipped upon release is pretty good and is, like John says, hardly melted (Gold Coast, San Francisco, Orlando, Barcelona to name a few). Since WU Great-Britain, MS uses another source for PG (London) which is worse than the original. Michael already mentioned that Jorg made a statement about that, and I thought I saw some regrets about switching PG sources in Jorgs eyes when he said that on a Dev Q&A.