Of course they will update the older low res bing data as the next priority once the first round of World Updates is complete but until then we will just have to make do
You are flying over a map which doesnât have a flight simulator wrapped around it.
1 Like
Have they said this? I think âsomethingâ needs to be done for the large areas of the world without Bing data that use the lousy generic textures.
In Google Earth these areas look amazing.
Thereâs no way MS will use GE even if they would be allowed to. And I suggest you read WillisXDCâs thread above because thereâs a lot of processing involved that isnât obvious and ask yourself how you would handle shadows on terrain and objects that move throughout the day as MSFS does on a world scale.
3 Likes
There are many threads on this topic over the last year, but the bottom line is that MS own both Bing and MSFS and will never (ever ever ever) do a deal, with Google to use their maps/satellite data.
@willisxdc explains it very well in his post above - the satellite data is just one data set that makes up what we actually see in the sim - and may not actually be the most important. We are at the cutting edge (bleeding edge) of what is possible in a mainstream worldwide accessible software project. Iâm 100% sure it will get better over time - in many ways the World Updates are already doing that for specific areas where they are including new, more accurate data sets to improve the visual fidelity and accuracy. Over time, I expect them to have a rolling update programme taking in new data sets and improving visuals âin the backgroundâ on an ongoing basis. That might be a year or two away yet though as there is obviously a fair bit still to be done.
I know that people see some areas of the world where there is clear room for improvement but where there is either no data or very poor data. I have a feeling that little can be done with these. To attempt to do some kind of hand crafting of these areas would be hideously expensive compared to the procedural approach. Plus, we need to remember that we are looking at the entire world here - you could spend 100 years trying to accurately recreate it, never mind 10.
The subscription model has been mentioned a few times in this thread. I do have a feeling that that may come in a few years to be able to fund the continuous work that will be needed (and is clearly already being demanded) to continuously improve the accuracy of the sim. I wouldnât be averse to that in the fullness of time though, and that kind of model is becoming increasingly common in the software world (Adobe is a great example).
As an aside, we are already seeing a number of mods (freeware and payware) that are catering for specific areas of improvement - seasons, seashores, fixing âsunken boatsâ. These are generally pretty good and give more options and choice. However, these mods suffer the same issues as Asobo - the world is just so vast that no-one can possibly fix every shoreline or place every tree or every boat.
5 Likes
Little can be done? For these specific areas, Google Earth already has respectable quality data that looks perfectly acceptable right now on their Google Earth âflight simâ. Many of these regions are remote and have little shadows, such as tundra and deserts, other than elevation data, which should be improved anyways.
For those areas MSFS/Asobo can either:
-
Plan to get Bing satellite data for these and update using the normal process. Of course these remote areas would NOT get the handcrafted or PG treatment - just the normal satellite data and AI process.
-
Purchase/license existing satellite data someone had already taken to use in Bing and/or the sim.
Given that the areas are remote, once 1 or 2 is done, that is good enough and no more would need to be done, except maybe seasons.
- If MS/Asobo thinks it will take years to get 1 or 2 above, what is TOTALLY POSSIBLE for a WU, is to look at a reference (such as existing satellite data) as to what should be in that region, and create generic regional textures for each class (e.g. farmland, forest, tundra, desert, prairie, city, suburb, etc.), that are much more improved, based off satellite imagery for another similar location with existing satellite data, and use that as a basis for a regional generic texture tile, depending on the texture class. That would be SO MUCH BETTER than what we have now.
In fact MS may already have had the world divided into classes for non Bing/PG, but the textures used flat out SUCK and are the same the world over. It should be relatively easy to use existing satellite already used in the sim with blackshark/AI autogen from existing or similar regions (e.g. Iâm assuming satellite from North Slope Alaska tundra is similar enough to that in eastern Siberia), or existing areas of Afghanistan with satellite data are similar enough to ones without, that they can make it better.
1 Like
i remeber Jörg Neumann, in one of the many streams said about WU6 or any other WU, that there is new bing and photogrammetry data available and it will âlook greatâ⊠well looking a Vienna and so many other, it looks terrible, to say the least, even Berlin that was in the sim from the start looks better.
my fear is and not only that, is, that this âgreat lookingâ new photogrammetry that is not 10 years old will come with a âaddonâ on the marketplace⊠please proof me wrong!
advertise it as a D A CH update with nice photogrammetry and new ground textures and deliver this?
Yes but at what cost? Google spent millions (possibly billions) of dollars getting the data. They bought an entire fleet of planes for photogrammetry (mostly king air). Microsoft will not try to catch up just for the flight sim. They already proved that they are not interested in competing with Google with their Bing maps.
Jorg said that they mostly get data for free from governments. It shows that there is not much budget for buying data for MSFS. Although Microsoft has all the money in the world, their products are still ought to make money, not lose.
3 Likes
Well there is still this:
Opportunity for X-Plane and/or Prepar3D to up their scenery game to next gen by partnering with Google Earth and/or having Google partner with X-Plane and/or Prepar3D to have a competitor next gen sim.
I donât have contacts in Google, X-plane, or Prepar3D, but that is an opportunity.
Excellent data clearly exists in Google Earth. There is opportunity for Google and another entity to partner and release a competing flight sim. Given that itâs not stuck in decades old legacy code, chances are it could be made to take advantage of modern multi-core CPUs. There would never be the thought to fit it in an X-box.
I understand if such a thing were to happen, that would take years, but as you said, there is âNO WAYâ MSFS would get satellite for these remote areas, the data does clearly exist. It just needs a flight sim.
1 Like
Lol you ignore the fact that MSFS streams their data otherwise weâd all need many huge harddrives just for a fraction of the earthâs surface (Bing maps has a 2 petabyte database and Google Earth 10x that). Somehow I think X-plane donât have the servers and if thatâs left to Google they will most certainly charge and charge big.
Just forget it as itâs never going to happen.
I am sorry. There is a problem with the scenery shot you provided?
What should it look like? I have never flown over this area IRL so am unfamiliar.
2 Likes
Clearly youâve not read @willisxdc post above nor do you understand that the satellite data is only a small part of the data that is needed and the work required to create the actual imiages you see in the sim.
You should watch this:
I also guarantee you that xplaneâs pockets are no-where near big enough to be able to afford the licence costs that Google would likely charge for access and distribution of their data. But hats off to them if they can pull that offâŠas well as all the other data sets they need, all the AI processing they need, the cloud storage and streaming capability, just to name a few things.
There is a reason that Orbx charge ÂŁ26 for 0.01% of the surface of the Earth for one of their TrueEarth products, and that uses 80Gb of storage locally.
What we are seeing in this sim is truly groundbreakingâŠbut clearly not enough for some!
8 Likes
Yes, I was wondering the same myself. Struggling to see anything wrong with the screenshot - but never been there either, so may be missing it. Actually wondering if the post is intended as sarcasm.
3 Likes
Bing Maps has better imagery in some places but all in all Google is way ahead, I agree. And I doubt that MSFS is important enough for MS to push Bing Maps to change this. I have more hope in 3rd parties offering their data for free like Switzerland has done.
Dann, I think you are missing my point. Even at low altitude your house,street,town,will still be there. I often fly at low altitude. My point is that this is a Simulator. The clue is in the world. It simulates flying, the environment etc. It isnât meant to be photographic. It aims to provide a fair representation of the scenery and I believe that it does that.
The fact that my house doesnât look very much like my actual house doesnât disturb me. However the fact that there is A house there impresses me.
But I will of course always welcome improvements.
4 Likes
Jul1us, To be fair, this is pretty much what it looks like from a few thousand feet.
I think you have just proved the opposite to your point, but maybe you are just playing devilâs advocate, or just stirring the pot.
There is a danger comparing with the past, although you are absolutely right of course. What we have now compared with what we had is amazing. But people are forgetting that this is a Simulator and as I said elsewhere the clue is in the name.
It provides a simulated world we can fly in, in a simulation of airplanes. None of it is real but a reasonable simulation. I think folks tend to forget this. Ironically, if the scenery was photo real, I have often found in the past that it only looks good at higher altitude.
This Simulator aims to strike a balance. It does that very well and as you pointed out, for those of us with the years behind us, the progress and improvements are staggering. But it all remains a Simulation.
As far as satellite imagery is concerned, do people really think that Bing and Google all have their own satellites up there, or could all these images possibly come from similar sources?
Having a satellite image is one thing, merely step one. Creating the Simulator scenery is the massive job.
5 Likes
Sadly as much as I like to kid myself that this is a flight sim, this thread just proves that many are more interested in a scenery sim.Give me more realistic flight models and systems over the bing representation of the age of the car parked outside my garage any day of the week.
2 Likes
And where possible, let us have both.
3 Likes
Iâve been using satellite imagery from a handful of different sources for about a decade now in the course of my work. Iâve needed it for buildings from urban to rural USA, Europe, and Sub-Saharan Africa. I routinely check all the available sources of data, because sometimes Bing has the latest data, sometimes Google has the latest data, and sometimes someone else does. For many, many remote parts of the world Bing was actually the leader for a while. There is no magic bullet, no one best collection of sat data.
The default option here is pretty incredible for global flying. Iâm thankful we have something that looks as good as it does. Unfortunately, the cost and effort needed to make sure that every car in every driveway in every country in the world is this yearâs car are outrageous. There will always be mods, youâre welcome to fix the scenery yourself if you need to.
Iâm not trying to make excuses for the team here, Iâm just pointing out some level of compromise is necessary. The level of imagery required for the solution implied by your complaint literally does not exist in any single collection of satellite images anywhere. To think someone would hand it to me in a $60 game is crazy.
6 Likes