1 hour ago, tweekz said:

Considering there is no photogrammetry, it is pretty solid I'd say.

Well, it‘s definitely not bad. It‘s just that I‘ve seen better examples of non-photogrammetry autogen. Perhaps it‘s also because I‘m familiar with the place.

5 hours ago, Shack95 said:

Ajaccio, Corsica, France

Perhaps one of the less convincing representations (low detail mode?).   

I think this has to do with the infrastructure height and facades (walls) type. In the MSFS preview, they look as if they come from a central European city.

Meditteranean coastal cities have the typical red roofed bright beige concrete facades.

Perhaps this diversity in the walls types will be improved. As well as the infrastructure height algorythms...

54 minutes ago, Claviateur said:

I think this has to do with the infrastructure height and facades (walls) type

Agreed. Facade variety and allocation is something we still don‘t know much about. I‘d love to see some close up shots of average towns from different parts of the globe to learn more about this.

1 hour ago, Shack95 said:

Agreed. Facade variety and allocation is something we still don‘t know much about. I‘d love to see some close up shots of average towns from different parts of the globe to learn more about this.

Sure, and this screenshot of the town in Corsica makes me think and I have the impression, at least for the Alpha, that the architecture types is probably still at a continent / region level (i.e: Europe). It's not (or not yet) divided inside the same continent (ex: Northern EU vs South vs East etc).

But let's say the architecture types remain per global region in the first release, if we are given the proper tools and the possibility to customize in a procedural way at a country or city level (not just regional/continent level), we can make all the subtle architectural customization happen everywhere.

 

Edited February 12, 20206 yr by Claviateur

1 hour ago, Claviateur said:

Sure, and this screenshot of the town in Corsica makes me think and I have the impression, at least for the Alpha, that the architecture types is probably still at a continent / region level (i.e: Europe). It's not (or not yet) divided inside the same continent (ex: Northern EU vs South vs East etc).

But let's say the architecture types remain per global region in the first release, if we are given the proper tools and the possibility to customize in a procedural way at a country or city level (not just regional/continent level), we can make all the subtle architectural customization happen everywhere.

 

Didn't they say they have a guy with PHD in Architecture (specialized on the roofs or something along those lines) working for them?!

Pretty sure they will have a lot of diversity on that matter, they just need time to model everything. I would say at the initial Alpha stage the diversity isn't a real priority.

1 hour ago, ca_metal said:

Didn't they say they have a guy with PHD in Architecture (specialized on the roofs or something along those lines) working for them?!

Pretty sure they will have a lot of diversity on that matter, they just need time to model everything. I would say at the initial Alpha stage the diversity isn't a real priority.

Oh I did not know they mentioned an Architect with a PHD.

I believe based on my observations that the 3D infrastracture (except the landmarks), is not based on 3D ready-made assets (houses / buildings) like FSX but rather on a algorythms that extrude a footprint to a specific height and then close the top with a flat or sloped roofing system.

This is the same process as the competitor simulator uses since a while now to transform OSM footprints (tagged with height, type etc) into 3D infrastructure.

In this case I think and based again on my observations to the videos and screenshots, the infrastructure diversity comes with more facades assets (wall textures) as well as roof assets (roof textures) and these are called based on additional rules specifying smaller areas than a global continent like Europe.

So in other words, producing more wall and roof textures + dividing continents into zones + writing the rules for these zones so the new assets are applied accordingly...

Edited February 12, 20206 yr by Claviateur

To add a technical material to what I mentioned above, CityEngine uses a similar process to extrude footprints based on rules.

It should be a similar process in Asobo's engine (based on my observations).

https://doc.arcgis.com/en/cityengine/2019.0/tutorials/tutorial-13-facade-wizard.htm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKrIvbszjBI

On 2/12/2020 at 12:56 PM, Claviateur said:

Oh I did not know they mentioned an Architect with a PHD.

I believe based on my observations that the 3D infrastracture (except the landmarks), is not based on 3D ready-made assets (houses / buildings) like FSX but rather on a algorythms that extrude a footprint to a specific height and then close the top with a flat or sloped roofing system.

This is the same process as the competitor simulator uses since a while now to transform OSM footprints (tagged with height, type etc) into 3D infrastructure.

In this case I think and based again on my observations to the videos and screenshots, the infrastructure diversity comes with more facades assets (wall textures) as well as roof assets (roof textures) and these are called based on additional rules specifying smaller areas than a global continent like Europe.

So in other words, producing more wall and roof textures + dividing continents into zones + writing the rules for these zones so the new assets are applied accordingly...

I was probably wrong when I assumed that the autogen of MSFS will be based on extruded footprints...

I noticed in one screenshot in the latest update, 3D ready-made houses in the autogen.

https://msgpwebsites.azureedge.net/fsi/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Airway383443-scaled.jpg

Unless these are extruded footprints with some added details.

So the autogen could be a mix of both (extruded footrpints + ready made infrastructure) as it is the case in the other simulator.

 

51 minutes ago, Claviateur said:

I was probably wrong when I assumed that the autogen of MSFS will be based on extruded footprints...

I noticed in one screenshot in the latest update, 3D ready-made houses in the autogen.

https://msgpwebsites.azureedge.net/fsi/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Airway383443-scaled.jpg

Unless these are extruded footprints with some added details.

So the autogen could be a mix of both (extruded footrpints + ready made infrastructure) as it is the case in the other simulator.

That shot made me wonder as well. Could it also have  to do with detail settings? For Porto, for instance, we have two screenshots which show a massive discrepancy in the accuracy of autogen footprints. Strangely enough, the older screenshot is the more accurate one (left).

2 minutes ago, Shack95 said:

That shot made me wonder as well. Could it also have  to do with detail settings? For Porto, for instance, we have two screenshots which show a massive discrepancy in the accuracy of autogen footprints. Strangely enough, the older screenshot is the more accurate one (left).

Yeah I think it makes sense, you could be right, the online/offline scenery modes could be the reason. The screenshot on the left, as far as I can see, is based on Photogrammetry whereas the right side screenshot is more procedural with extruded footprints (and probably ready-made 3D infrastructure as well but too small to see).

But yes, I think logically, the difference has to do with the visual settings they mentioned in one of the discovery videos (i.e: the scenery streams live or we fly using the "offline" mode).

Let's hope.

16 minutes ago, Claviateur said:

but too small to see

Sorry for the poor quality. Here's a better one:

Edited February 14, 20206 yr by Shack95

Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Sugarloaf Mountain is interesting. In Bing Maps it’s missing completely, yet it doesn’t look handmade (otherwise why should there be a hovering forest or whatever it is on top of it). It seems that they have drawn on other data here.

38 minutes ago, Shack95 said:

Let's hope.

Sorry for the poor quality. Here's a better one:

Thanks, I think the infrastructure in the left side screenshot is Photogrammetry considering the density and the height variation of the infrastructure as well as the "photoreal" aspect of the roofing and walls textures tones. The right side is certainly procedural with footprint based autogen + some ready made objects probably. 

We also see some difference in the vegetation coverage...

So I think you are right, it could be two different scenery setting modes... Streamed vs "offline" who knows

45 minutes ago, Shack95 said:

Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Sugarloaf Mountain is interesting. In Bing Maps it’s missing completely, yet it doesn’t look handmade (otherwise why should there be a hovering forest or whatever it is on top of it). It seems that they have drawn on other data here.

 

The Bing Maps elevation data are very low res whereas the elevation data that seems in use in MSFS looks not bad at all in rocky mountains etc... Hence the mountain you mentioned is automatically rendered based on this better data.

Yea, I see a weird thing hapening at the top of it. It could be a visual glitch during the refereshing process of the scenery or a data glitch rendered this way. Probably Rio is the home town of the Alpha tester and he/she already reported it if it is indeed a data glitch.

Edited February 14, 20206 yr by Claviateur

1 hour ago, Claviateur said:

Thanks, I think the infrastructure in the left side screenshot is Photogrammetry considering the density and the height variation of the infrastructure as well as the "photoreal" aspect of the roofing and walls textures tones. The right side is certainly procedural with footprint based autogen + some ready made objects probably. 

We also see some difference in the vegetation coverage...

So I think you are right, it could be two different scenery setting modes... Streamed vs "offline" who knows

No It's not. Bing doesn't have photogrammetry for this area. Also, if you compare it with google (google has covered the area with photogrammetry), you will see it's not photogrammetry on this picture on the left.