I would suggest comparison are done using Google Earth instead of Microsoft/Bing because I find the imagery to be better on Google and certainly a lot more photogrammetry coverage outside the USA.

But what I have seen in this thread though is truly staggering, I am especially impressed with how the non-photogrammetry areas (flat imagery) have been enhanced by algorithmically placed 3D trees and buildings that appear to automatically sized and coloured to suit. The lighting and water also improves the appearance of the satellite imagery no end, it's so much more than just flying around in Bing Earth!

Edited October 3, 20196 yr by ckyliu

25 minutes ago, viz said:

Generally, the augmented scenery is very impressive and would - as claimed - enable true VFR almost as well as the photogrammetry scenery.

However, as others have mentioned it is not perfect:

-Satellite data mismatches causing visible seams
-Baked shadows
-incorrect building placement (the farmhouse just below the tail in the first screenshot is rendered as a multi-story apartment block, also a pile of what appears to be hay bales in the second screenshot is rendered as a building)

I would suggest this list belongs in this thread instead:

Of course MSFS' photogrammetry is not perfect, we are only in the first generation of its use in flight simulators.

Compared to:
https://www.megasceneryearth.com/preparing-for-the-release-of-the-first-megasceneryearth-4x.html

https://www.avsim.com/home/pr-ann/vfr-real-scenery-nexgen-3d-–-vol-3-northern-england-for-p3d-fsx-r5312/

https://fselite.net/news/orbx-trueearth-us-washington-now-available/

MSFS' photo scenery is light years ahead.

@F737NG The closest thing to what MFS2020 has already achieved with scenery would be FTX Orbx TrueEarth, I'd be interested to see some comparison shots with that product vs MFS and Google/Bing. But of course TE only covers regions, MFS is doing this on a global scale, out-of-the-box. I can see me doing a lot of VFR exploring!

Edited October 4, 20196 yr by ckyliu

2 minutes ago, F737NG said:

MSFS' photo scenery is light years ahead.

Indeed it is. This thread however is about comparing it to bing.

8 minutes ago, viz said:

Indeed it is. This thread however is about comparing it to bing.

And MSFS' photogrammetry is light years ahead of Bing aerial / satellite imagery also. 🙂

I just feel that talk of a lack of perfection is misplaced at this time. This is brand new tech being rolled out over a much larger scenery area with apparently no observable performance hit.
Instead, it should be a cause for jubilation for the next 2 years IMHO.
 

Edited October 4, 20196 yr by F737NG

8 hours ago, ckyliu said:

 But of course TE only covers regions, MFS is doing this on a global scale, out-of-the-box. 

And that makes all the difference 😉

 

8 hours ago, F737NG said:

Instead, it should be a cause for jubilation for the next 2 years IMHO.
 

Hear, hear ! 

London, England

 

Edited October 4, 20196 yr by Shack95

Discovery Bay, USA

Cantabria, Spain

Lisbon, Portugal

Hard to believe that this isn't a photogrammetry city (or is it? Have MS updated their 3d cities without making it public yet?)

27 minutes ago, Shack95 said:

Lisbon, Portugal

Hard to believe that this isn't a photogrammetry city (or is it? Have MS updated their 3d cities without making it public yet?)

It seems that photogrammetry  is of limited use for bridges. Both in London and Lisbon, previewers report that bridges are missing 'see above on the left).If they have to add all the bridges tricky to model for the AI in 400 cities, it will take some time.

23 minutes ago, domkle said:

It seems that photogrammetry  is of limited use for bridges. Both in London and Lisbon, previewers report that bridges are missing 'see above on the left).If they have to add all the bridges tricky to model for the AI in 400 cities, it will take some time.

Well in these 400+ cities that have photogrammetry (i.e. the 3d cities in Earth View) the bridges are there. Both London and Lisbon aren't 3d in Earh View, so I take it that their other technology (extrapolating autogen from sat images) is not yet capable of modelling bridges. But I'm sure they'll fix that somehow.

What I think is striking about the Lisbon shot is its visual fidelity. Even though it has no photogrammetry, it looks incredibly realistic (as opposed to London, which isn't represented as acurately atm).

 

Madrid, Spain

Porto, Portugal

south of Bordeaux, France

Edited October 11, 20196 yr by Shack95