Unreal? I do not understand what you‘re talking about… 
Absolutely correct flight maneuver 
3 Likes
Probably easier to list bridges that you CAN fly under…
4 Likes
Can’t wait to do this in VR so that I can throw up on myself while doing it for added realism. 
1 Like
you can’t even taxi under in a float plane so that would be a pretty real scenario.
4 Likes
Experienced the same issue. Related to maps AI interpreting the date wrong.
As I was saying, I think it comes more from the code, and its interpretation by the engine.
The 3D collision mode doesn’t allow (in my humble opinion) to assert under a relief, even if it’s a 3d model. The plane didn’t physically hit an object, and yet it passed in a “rigid” area excluded from the flight zone. The code misinterprets this situation, hence this bizarre engine shutdown and not an outright crash.
I’m speaking very badly in English I hope that you have grasped at least half of it. I hope you won’t mind.
I realised the other day, while DevMode was engaged you could fly under briges just fine. if u clip somthing, your plane reacts to it and or you hear the sound. MAybe until it gets fixed this could be a work around.
Yea you can select “Disable Crashes” in the [DevMode] “Options” drop down. Here’s a screenshot in case someone reading this doesn’t know where to enable the dev mode:
Main Menu -> Options -> General -> Developers -> set Developer Mode to ON
1 Like
No, the current AI actually interpreted the data correctly: „a solid object crossing a water body“.
Unfortunately the AI has no concept yet of „bridges“ (note for non-developers: „artificial intelligence“ has nothing to do with „intelligence“ in the true meaning of the word - it‘s more about „very elaborate number crunching and statistics“ 
, simply put).
Specifically, for as long as the AI works on „top down“ satellite images it cannot „see“ under the bridges, so for all „it knows“ it could be a concrete dam, a low road „dividing“ the water - or a bridge. But how high would such a bridge be? What type?
(„Photogrammetry“ where you take several pictures of the same object from different angles, in order to reconstruct the 3D data, is a different topic“)
So unless you tap into other data sources - e.g. civil engineering databases (which might not be freely available to the public) - the AI game remains what it is: an „educated guesswork“.
Note that I am not saying that the AI couldn‘t be improved: in fact Asobo and Blackshark are probably doing this as we speak already… and they announced terrain/world updates.
Fun fact: did you know: „re-calculating the entire world“ after algorithm/AI adjustments takes apparently two full weeks - for an entire computing cluster („cloud computing“ - not to be confused with 
).
So „training“ the AI to detect bridges more accurately may be challenging: all of a sudden the Hover Dam has a big hole underneath (apparently it already looks strange currently, so oh well…)
But maybe it is really just a matter of „cleaning up the generated 3D data (for „photogrammetry“ as well), and/or adjusting the „object collision algorithm“. As someone else above has suggested already:
- Is geometry above the airplane?
- IF yes
- Is it a „bridge“? YES → NO Collision
- Is it „terrain“? YES → Collision („can‘t fly sub-surface“ )
- Something else? → …
Of course the actual algorithm is most likely more complicated. But you get the idea… the above idea also relies on the fact that you need to properly classify objects like „bridge“ - in an automated (AI!) way that may not be so simple. Again, other objects such as small islands may all of a sudden be classified as „bridges“ as well…
Alternatively Asobo may manually „clean up“ the bridges, like they manually edited the 36‘000+ airports. Anyone wants to make a guess how many bridges there are on this planet under which you would potentially want to fly under with a, say, Cesna?
And dare you if you‘d miss that one important bridge in „But I Live Here!“ - you know what I mean…
4 Likes
Your post is detailed, informative and funny at the same time. That’s exotic, I’m Lovin It 
Actually, the AI did a good job when you imagine that the whole world is covered using the “available” geo data. The way you explained it is right and I’m also sure, the Blackshark AI guys are dedicated to make it better.
A couple of days ago, a friend of mine and I flew through the Grand Canyon. After a while there is a bridge called “Navajo Bridge” (Navajo Bridge - Wikipedia). He flew close to water level and was able to pass under it, whilst I was flying only marginally higher and crashed into the collider of the bridge itself, even though visually everything was clear, even in third person view. So the 3D collision models are different from the visual 3D objects, but that is most likely due to the separate and relatively primitive 3D mesh generation algorithm for colliders, as they require a lot less detailed geometry, which is good for performance but not optimal for accuracy. It’s currently more of a compromise until they either fix it by hand (unlikely) or improve their AI algos.
I’m very cautious when approaching “solid objects crossing a water body” in FS ever since 
However, there should be plenty of digital information that is fed to the AI for famous bridges like the Golden Gate Bridge, but people reported issues there as well. I think this just requires us to be patient till it’s fixed. As soon as it is, people will definitely go RedBull-Style flying under all sorts of bridges.
2 Likes
That‘s actually yet another excellent explanation of why we seem to fly into „invisible walls“ (even or especially for „photogrammetric bridges“): I am far from being a game developer myself, but I do have some basic 3D/Open GL/Game Engine background, but what you‘re saying makes perfect sense!
For the interested: collision detection in games (that includes simulations, of course) is usually not done with the actual 3D „mesh data“ (for performance reasons: „too many triangles to check“), but with dedicated (and „invisible“) „collider meshes“.
Those collider meshes are „geometrically trivial“, e.g. a cone, cube, sphere or any other „simple, basic mesh“ (or even a combination thereof).
Typically those collider meshes match the actual shape of the 3d object as close as possible - and they are usually manually designed, together with the actual 3d object.
So a typical collision detection algorithm will do:
- Does a given „line“ (e.g. the current „flight path“) intersect with any nearby collision mesh?
- If YES, the airplane may already „crash“ (e.g. for buildings which are mostly „cubic“ anyway and a „rough collision calculation“ is sufficient)
- If YES, but a fine-grained collision is required (e.g. between wheels and runway), continue with the actual object 3d mesh, or with more sophisticated collision meshes
Now as we know most objects in the FS2020 world are generated, and so are their collision meshes. And for „bridges“ those generated collision meshes are currently just „too coarse“.
Me for my part would be happy if we could fly under a selected number of bridges - the Golden Gate for sure. For „historical reasons“.
But hey, in all seriousness: we already got great visuals and everything! Let‘s focus on the serious matters first
1 Like
Just found this on reddit, fits this topic, kinda…
MS Flight Simulator has interpreted the aircraft museum at Monino, Russia, rather interestingly!
The planes you see are interpreted as houses. This shows that the AI does not necessarily know what it’s doing.
5 Likes
Same here, very frustrating. In front of my house in Bristol, PA is the NJ/PA Turnpike bridge. I have seen real aircraft go under that bridge (been living here 30 yrs); I can go under it in FSX but not in FS 2020. Please fix, pretty please?
I fly under the Köhlbrandbrücke in Hamburg/Germany serval times:
https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/offene-kunstflug-gruppe-m-w-d/181368/5
Reporting individual bridges is not the answer for this. This is a tech issue that is going to need a complete fix. I mean, it’s totally understandable with the way everything is built mostly programmatically that this would happen to bridges. I live in Hampton roads Virginia, home of the Chesapeake Bay bridge tunnel, among countless other smaller bridges throughout the area. I’ll be here until new year’s trying to bug them all individually.
1 Like
Yeah, bridges (and underwater docks/marinas around lakes and oceanfronts) are the most disappointing aspect of the AI-generated scenery for me. Fly over any populated area with lots of water and you’ll see many examples of each situation. A glaring example I’ve run into with regard to bridges was just yesterday - I took from from LGA and flew over to Manhattan, then down the East River, around the Battery and up the Hudson River.
The George Washington Bridge is evidently now a dam across the river. Ugh.
4 Likes
So far I’ve been able to fly under the St. Louis arch and the Eifel tower. not much else. I did successfully land on the Pyramid of Djoser there was some clipping on the top of it.
I attempted to land on the Midway carrier parked out front of San Diego. As I touched down the game told me I crashed into water. Need bounding boxes on other ships and cars. Can fly right through big liners and tankers (cars and people for that matter). Would love to see some snarky comments when you crash. I.e. Nice you crashed into a car you know planes are made for flying right.
The bridge in front of the Hoover ■■■■, cant fly under.
Navajo Bridge on Hwy 89A over Colorado River (Grand Canyon) outside of Page, AZ can not be flown under. Aircraft causes crash with object, although bridge is open except for an intermediate column down to river in the sim (no columns on real bridge which is a spandrel arch). ) No way to avoid if flying down near the narrow canyon floor and bridge is 460’ above when you come around the river bend. Ouch! Reported to Zendesk…
Real bummer after flying 45 minutes down the canyon from Grand Canyon NP airport to Page AZ Executive, and only about 10 minutes from arrival airport. Fun and beautiful flight for anyone wanting to try it, just plan your climb out of canyon well before the bridge (2-3 miles / 2 minutes if at 100 mph in GA aircraft). Want to do it midday unless you want to be flying in some dark areas.
2 Likes