Theres a big tradeoff between the clean 3D autogen and the photogrammetry. I turned off PG for a while, and it didnt feel right, but mainly because theres so many iconic buildings that you know just arent correct if you are flying around them. In a lot of ways I would prefer cities that are substantially autogen but have the top 40-50 landmarks custom made. Sort of like London or Washington DC with the add on scenery packs (those cities arent photo yet but you get what I mean).
I dont know what the happy balance is yet. Maybe photogrammetry with really intricate manual correction passes and editing out all the errors. I dont think that is going to be worth their time. In the future I can imagine that PG resolution will go up, and it will be more accurate but they will have to fine tune how they detect certain objects like trees and maybe cars.
The thing that hits me in the eye when flying over autogen cities is mostly when building isnt matching with ground texture. Whether its rotated or different shape, this isnt the case with Photogrammetry. But its good that Asobo gave us the option to enable/disable this feature
ya know it’d be real nice if we could pull data from google. For commercial purposes you need an expensive license, but if someone ever figures out how to mod it in …
Agree with this. I think Tokyo has been done like that. Although not PG, there are definitely bespoke buildings there - and that is pre the upgrade it is about to get
It looks like it is PG. Latest stuff. High quality.
PG sometimes sis better and sometimes worse. In the US it can be sometimes of relatively low quality because it was most likely done 10-15 years ago when PG was just appearing.
@OP, open your eyes and accept what you get, or turn off PG, or alternatively set drawing distance at 200-400 if your GPU can handle it. Nothing can be improved in terms of PG quality, maybe the drawing distance but not the quality itself until they will redo it, which is most likely not going to happen.
It is not listed because it is brand new I think. In 2 days we will find out. There is also an alternative way of creating 3d buildings through high-resolution satellite imagery. Check this out! Coincidently it is Tokyo.
It is a new tech that I am hoping Bing will also adopt in the future because it would suddenly make thousands of 3d cities available.
I don’t think the big problem is with the underlying technology in Bing’s 3D service it’s the issue of getting that data streamed to our computers to render it in a way that doesn’t make it look like ■■■■.
For all of you with photogrammetry issues (no matter where you are), please VOTE here. We already have 260+ votes in just past week and are in the top 10.
Your vote will help Asobo deal with this issue faster.
You’re not going to get good and authentic looking cities up close unless Asobo handcraft literally every building themselves. The US has better satellite imagery and more photo geometry than any other country, saying it looks worse than the rest of the world is ridiculous. My country (Norway) is an absolute disaster in MSFS. Low rez textures, highly incorrect terrain and not a single hand crafted building. Our one big airport is also completely broken
There’s no way you could render thousands of google earth buildings modded into MSFS without having it saved in a cloud and streamed, like with the Bing data
That is just not true. Go to Miscrosoft Earth View map that shows all BING 3d cities and compare exactly the same areas. MSFS uses exactly the same data, same cities, same quality as BING 3d (World View). I just did that. I flew around San Gabriel Airport, LA, and then went to Earth View and the quality was the same (garbage melted LEGO).
Guys, really, before complaining. check your facts.
