Do We Really Need Photogrammetry?

Guess I’ll ask the Question… Why?

1 Like

If you fly at 30000 feet then no. If you like flying low and slow VFR then yes. even if your jet jockey you still need to take off and land, so see the low level benefits.

It would be nice if most of the world could be done in this way in the future once the AI is intelligent enough.

8 Likes

The photogrammetry has nothing to do with AI? It’s just only available at places where company’s have the data for it. You know it’s not made from satelite images right? It has to be done by airplanes/baloons or drones to capture multiple angles in order to make a 3d environment out of it. It’s basicaly 3d scanning a city.

Imagine how long it would take to do the whole world

3 Likes

Look at the addons made with google images. Not perfect, but it is possible to automate the process from satellite images taken at different angles.

I’ve said that before. I spend most of my time flying in the Aircraft Cockpit, so why is everyone so eager to have Photo Real Scenery.

Airports I get. Cities I don’t!

2 Likes

Love the photogrammetry! :slight_smile:
One of the best scenery features msfs has to offer, and btw amazing technic.

would love to see how its evolve in the future…

2 Likes

If satalite images were able to create such high resolution images to get the same quality as the photogrammetry we see now in maps/bing, Why don’t we see those kind of resolutions back in the normal aerial images for the rest of the world?

Good photogrammetry can only be done from low level flying together with ground videos/pictures.

And people allready going mad about the melted building of london. Imagine how they would react if the images were taken from satalites.

Would be great if it will happen some day though. But i’m almost sure high quality photogrammetry is impossible to do with satelite images.

Photogrammetry still has a long way to go before it gets perfect. Tokyo looks amazing in PG while cities like NY really suffer from melting and rendering issues. Check out this latest review from ECgadget

I am sure this issue will be resolved in few years as the Bing imagery gets better. For now the best way to enjoy the scenery is to use products like Drzwiecki Designs Chicago, Seattle, Orbx cityscape sydney, singapore etc which are really amazing.

3 Likes

if you only care about the cockpit… why would you even bother with graphics at all? Go take flying lessons, the first thing you’ll learn is to keep your eyes outside. It’s the most important reference you have. So the better it re-assambles the real world, the better the overal flying experience will be!

5 Likes

Are you sure those addons are made from google images and aren’t just imported photogrammetry data from google? I‘ve seen loads of the latter but can‘t remember having seen the former. I thought it was impossible.

1 Like

Sorry friend, it’s planes, not satellites (appropriate for flight sim though right!)

Here’s a video about it:

(Hint: start at 1:45)

2 Likes

I personally think PG is a mixed bag. From certain altitudes it looks great, when flying too low or high the illusion falls apart. But it‘s certainly a very promising technology and I‘m sure it will improve. I agree with @AlphaPancake155 that at the moment fully handcrafted cities or a mix of handcrafted buildings and PG are the best options.

6 Likes

It’s a matter of time, in a few years the photogrammetry will be perfect. If we had a little help from the military our beloved simulator would be more than perfect today.

Yes PG is definitely a mixed bag. This is exactly why certain buildings are custom modeled in the new London update. There are still a lot of melted buildings in Central London which will be taken care of by Orbx.

1 Like

The simple answer is yes. Whats the alternative? A badly recreated AI version of any given beautiful town or city?

1 Like

i was replying to the guy that thinks photogrammetry is done by satelites. I agree that photogrammetry will be better over the years. But i doubt it will ever be done by satelites. You just can’t get every angle from satelites. And if you could, probably the ozon layer or whatever is more in the air between those satelites and the earth will obstruct the images and gives poor image quality. That’s why satelites take pictures directly down instead of angled.

Yeah all the current user generated PG scenery add ons are coming out of PG in Google Earth.

It’s not all I care about! I just don’t want to see the Sim over reach in trying to go Photo Real verse something that already looks better than FSX.

I’m well aware that everything this day and age is about the “Look” not so much the feel. If your an Insider give an Honest Opinion on how you think the Sim to date is against FSX/P3D etc.

Flying a jet is boring, at 35,000 outside the cockpit matter zilch except for on or near the ground.

You do not need MSFS 2020, all you need is an earlier version as long as the cockpit and flight dynamics are right that is all that matters.

Those of us who much prefer GA where manual flying skill matters need great graphics as well as the same dynamics.

MSFS 2020 is trying to satisfy everyone so perhaps that is why there are so many issues.

2 Likes

It’s mileeeeees ahead of fsx/p3d/xplane. Not only in graphics but almost in any aspect. I do however have a lot of complaints about basic stuff still not working. And basic features still missing. But overall older sims are years behind. And for a part that’s also due to the photogrammetry. But also the entire environment is better. The weather effects are better. The aicraft feel more lively. The whole world feels more like a world instead of a static round ball with some textures and objects stuck on top of it.

But i thought your question was if we really need photogrammetry? And my answer is yes. Because it pushes the technology of the sim. Togheter with everything else.

2 Likes