I’m gonna check that out!
Thanks!
I think it’s just that photogrammetry itself in general is something that’s good in theory and bad in practice. It is a quick and easy way to get a 3D rendered building using multiple satellite imagery and paint a somewhat vague image on what it would look like in 3D and rendering them.
I think the main issue here is the lack of satellite data from each angle. the AI and machine learning requires multiple images taken from multiple angle to create the 3D model. The more images taken from more angles would improve the accuracy of the building shape and texture mapping.
Custom scenery still beats photogrammetry any day to be honest.. I’d rather pay for a custom city sceneries where designers handcrafted each building and place them to the city if I want to fly low and slow. Addons like ORBX Singapore, Sydney, etc. And I would prefer an auto-gen building rendered from Bing Satellite Data over photogrammetry due to this lack of satellite data.
Or even at least take a photogrammetry city scape as a base, then change the models and texture mapping to polish them manually. At least that’s 50% of the job done by the AI, the rest are done by people.
If I fly around North Korea for example or even in Asia where I fly the most often where photogrammetry is practically nonexistent, it would make building rendering to melt a lot worse than what we have right now. So I think photogrammetry is a good idea, but we’re not quite there yet to create an accurate image. Especially if you let an AI and machine learning to do the job in real time.
Photogrammetry is not made with satalites. It’s done with low level flying in a grid above a city taking pictures from multiple angles. This is then reconstructed to mesh tiles. This has nothing to do with msfs ai but more with bing maps.
Btw photogrammetry can be at much higher quality then msfs is capable of. Just look at google eart for example.
1 Like
ok, I just presumed that the quality was poor due to the PG not downloading fully from the servers, as opposed to the data just being of low quality. Hence my question was if you manually cache (allowing time to download fully) would this present itself any better when flying through the cached area?
Maybe my response was a bit too convoluted, but I meant exactly what you said, with my first “From this point of view” bullet point: by downloading the data prior to flying you get the “maximum available quality” (well: the maximum available data there is) from the get-go: assuming of course that you download the data into your “manual cache” with the highest availabe resolution.
What I meant with my second bullet point was that also when not creating a manual cache you will - eventually! - also get the same quality when “just flying around”. It just may take ages until all the data has been properly downloaded “on the fly” (pun intended). So from that point of view building a cache does not improve the (end) quality. But “a cache gets (might get) you there quicker”.
Is that clearer?
1 Like
got it - thanks 
This topic was automatically closed 30 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.