The north is a messy place

Did a flight from Stewart (Handcrafted) to Whitehorse yukon. The bing underlay up north is understandably less “vivid” but the terrain details are all wonky. Sloping runway at the airport (not real), and terrain a mess. Took a few screen shots. I see that generally the north has issues.

20200914193716_1|690x288 !


You should have a look at Yellowknife, in Canada. Surreal. In the sim, I mean…

Surreal good, or bad? I’ll hop over there next. Flying place to place in the TBM right now.

Bad. Virtually unearthly.

1 Like

Generally not many satellites orbit over the poles directly, so high resolution imagery and height data is tricky. Even google earth has oddities in the poles if you look closely. It probably won’t be fixed any time soon since there isn’t much incentive to launch million dollar satellites into that tricky polar orbit. They’re more useful up to +/- 50 degrees of the equator and anywhere in between. They’ll be over highly populated areas most of the time. Rather than orbiting the poles where it only has like a 30% chance to actually be over developed land and not the barren tundra or ocean. Also, I hear charged particles from space mess with the electronics so I don’t think the northern lights will be friendly to them.

A lot of map data comes from aircraft over flights, but same difference really. They probably don’t want to invest lots of money flying over huge barren landscapes.

It’s a shame, the North is one of the most beautiful areas to fly in real life. Hopping around Alaska, it’s looking pretty good with the height fix applied

Imagery satellites like SPOT have polar orbits which allow them to image virtually any part of the world on a repeating cycle, usually 28 days per satellite. They also orbit 200 kilometres higher than the aurora borealis and are hardened to such interference or their life would not be long at all. The reason that there are few satellite images of high resolution in the Arctic (at least in Canada) is that there are no commercial or government clients willing to buy the information. Having said that, some areas are in high resolution in the middle of “nowhere” but that is because there was a client needing that information.
I am working on some Arctic airstrips to release for free (as they are simple) to fill the gaps left by Bing maps being of low resolution in some areas. I found it interesting that there was a texture for the airstrip in Flight Simulator for the runways at Pangnirtung and Cape Dyer, even if it is grass and the real airstrips are gravel. You will find that these locations are higher resolution from Google Maps than Bing maps as Google is using the data from the companies that imaged these areas for their clients, whereas Bing did not use that data set. It all comes down to data source and money.


Cool. It is a beautiful place to fly, although flying real time, real weather… the window of VFR is closing! lol. Let us know when you have some extra strips worked out!

3D Mesh Elevation data in its raw stage is often not perfect. That is why it should NOT be used raw.

Impossible to evaluate and correct mistakes like holes, elevated lakes, unrealistic runway slopes and strongly banked roads for the hole planet? Nope.

There is a freeware software called Ortho4XP that can do exactly those things automatically.
It can not do miracles of course, so mesh areas with obvious mistakes may just be flattened to correct holes or spikes in the data. The resulting optimized mesh is usually very good though.

So if a (admittedly very good) sole coder can create a software that optimizes raw 3D terrain data, ASOBO should be able to do this as well and implement it. If they can not, maybe they should get in touch with “Oscar Pilote”, the coder of Ortho4XP.

Sooo… good then? :slight_smile: