9 hours ago, ual763 said:

While it may not be as good looking as Courcheval (could also just be the zoom level), you can definitely see some great modeling of the terminal building at St. Barts!  If this is the quality of default airports, I am extremely satisfied.  This is enough to not make me waste money on an addon airport for an airport such as this!

Somehow I cannot believe that things like Courchevel or this here aren't hand modeled.

9 hours ago, ual763 said:

While it may not be as good looking as Courcheval (could also just be the zoom level), you can definitely see some great modeling of the terminal building at St. Barts!  If this is the quality of default airports, I am extremely satisfied.  This is enough to not make me waste money on an addon airport for an airport such as this!

I don’t think we can expect this to be general default airport quality. It seems there was quite a bit of manual revision involved. E.g. the terminal and those buildings next to the airport are way too accurate. I can't imagine that the AI is that "smart" (yet). Also the cliff on the left side looks handmade to me as there is no such cliff in Bing Maps. This could be one of those landing mission airports they were talking about, like Courchevel.

Did you see those Google-Earth like trees on the screenshot yesterday? Then you see accurate houses like the one in Courchevel, with flags, signs and everything fitting accurately. No way this is not hand modeled.

AI can do a lot of things, but I don't think it looks for photos of buildings on Google search and models after them. 😉 Photogrammetry is not that accurate and in Courchevel there probably also isn't photogrammetry in first place. The AI can't model something without any info. Maybe you could do this to an extent with Google streetview.

Edited January 24, 20206 yr by tweekz

I know it’s alpha yet, but, while beautiful, the St. Barts photo shows some of the lacks:

1. Trees! Too many trees and too tall! maybe some areas should be more empty. And I also think this airports it’s hand made...

2. as @Noooch said, the water color looks too dark. We have seen better coast lines in first trailer. But since then on alpha screenshots the Dubai and This coast line looks kind of poorly (or lacking any other texture). 

3. Roads. The places with poor satellite imagery have awful roads. Maybe the same they do with runways could be made with roads... 

Edited January 24, 20206 yr by aleex

1 hour ago, aleex said:

I know it’s alpha yet, but, while beautiful, the St. Barts photo shows some of the lacks:

1. Trees! Too many trees and too tall! maybe some areas should be more empty. And I also think this airports it’s hand made...

2. as @Noooch said, the water color looks too dark. We have seen better coast lines in first trailer. But since then on alpha screenshots the Dubai and This coast line looks kind of poorly (or lacking any other texture). 

3. Roads. The places with poor satellite imagery have awful roads. Maybe the same day do with runways could be made with roads... 

All valid points! But I'm pretty sure they will correct these are leave them as meat for developers😉

Edited January 24, 20206 yr by adino

3 hours ago, SamYeager said:

@ChaoticBeauty - I notice the article has been updated to show the next update will be 01-30. Are you still able to edit your OP?

Thanks for the heads-up, sadly I cannot update the original post anymore. There is some conflicting information though (and it took several refreshes to see the updated date), earlier in the update they still say the next update is on 6 February, and on the latest Development Roadmap there is no deliverable for 30 January. Hopefully they will see this and clear it up.

15 hours ago, Brandon0110 said:

Will they though?  I get its alpha but the world is big so......might just be as is.  Like I said, way better than fsx default.  3PDs would take this on maybe.

I was wondering the same. I'd like to think that because it's only in Alpha yet, that they may clean it up, but I agree with you that the world is a biiiiig place, so which areas will they choose to make detailed airports ( like Courchevel) , whch ones will be photogrammetry, and which ones will be "just" Azure ai generated airports. There will definetly be a place for 3'rd party developers, and maybe when the SDK is released, we will get a better idea of the chance of migrating FSX / P3D airports over to MSFS.

Now show me fsx stock, , xplane stock, and msfs stock.... is it better than anything before it?  I'm tickled.  If I want the real thing, I best run down to mettatal and rent a plane.

Edited January 24, 20206 yr by Casualcas

2 hours ago, aleex said:

I know it’s alpha yet, but, while beautiful, the St. Barts photo shows some of the lacks:

1. Trees! Too many trees and too tall! maybe some areas should be more empty. And I also think this airports it’s hand made...

2. as @Noooch said, the water color looks too dark. We have seen better coast lines in first trailer. But since then on alpha screenshots the Dubai and This coast line looks kind of poorly (or lacking any other texture). 

3. Roads. The places with poor satellite imagery have awful roads. Maybe the same they do with runways could be made with roads... 

I am quite sure that this is an offline mode capture. You can see by the roads on the other side of the bay that it isn't orthoimagery. So this is the lowest quality level we have to expect. 

In online mode this probably looks better.

8 minutes ago, Casualcas said:

Now show me fsx stock, , xplane stock, and msfs stock.... is it better than anything before it?  I'm tickled.  If I want the real thing, I best run down to mettatal and rent a plane.

The biggest problem with MSFS2020 will be peoples expectations. 😄

Just like Genie said, "the more you have, the more you want"

He also said, "I just made you a prince on the outside, I didnt change anything on the inside"

Which in the case of MSFS, is far from true 

OMG did you see the picture with the bird!!!! That thing is the size of a 747! Unacceptable! And the wing sweep is a little too forward...especially for this phase of flight. And that livery? ...pfft clearly generic. So disappointing. Deal breaker. 🙄

 

 

😉

1 minute ago, snglecoil said:

OMG did you see the picture with the bird!!!! That thing is the size of a 747! Unacceptable! And the wing sweep is a little too forward...especially for this phase of flight. And that livery? ...pfft clearly generic. So disappointing. Deal breaker. 🙄

 

If that bird doesn't move its wings, I'm outta here!

6 minutes ago, Casualcas said:

Just like Genie said, "the more you have, the more you want"

 

Exactly, I mean I look at all this and from a scenery developer point of view, I lived hours and hours of frustration trying to create some believable procedural autogen for a small piece of land.

This, out of the box, world coverage of procedural infrastructure and vegetation is impressive 

And again, for the trees size, it should be a set of rules and parameters in their procedural script, very easy to change in my opinion.

19 minutes ago, RALF9636 said:

I am quite sure that this is an offline mode capture. You can see by the roads on the other side of the bay that it isn't orthoimagery. So this is the lowest quality level we have to expect. 

In online mode this probably looks better.

I wouldn't be so sure as I doubt at this point they would be selecting people to use offline mode. Besides that, there's the fact this area is full of clouds on Bing Maps and it's probably one of the regions the imagery is replaced by ground textures (built with Azure AI to be as accurate as possible to the imagery).

It looks good enought to me, also still alpha, they can improve from theree, but if they release the sim like that, I would be happy.

Edited January 24, 20206 yr by ca_metal