Okay, so P3d v5 now has a new lighting engine among other fixes / amendments. But lots of people (myself included) on this forum have expressed some doubt in terms of comparing it to MSFS, so far in Alpha. 

But I was thinking, if P3d subsequently incorporated Google (not Bing, since they are owned by Microsoft) data for mapping the globe, that might bring it substantially closer as a competitor on a feature-by-feature basis. And, since it appears that google data is richer and more expansive than Bing, perhaps it might even have a bit of an edge over MSFS in this regard.

I know there are lots of other aspects to consider (AI, flight modelling, weather etc) that remain differences between the two sims, but it seems that this could be a big step that would close the gap. 

I can't help but think that they must be looking at this, because every sim that does not draw upon this satellite and street mapped data is going to be lost in the dust without it in comparison. (Surely, the military would appreciate this from a mission perspective to have accurate depictions of the entire world for their training scenarios?)

It's also a huge undertaking to use all that data and have AI to adjust but do you guys think this would close the gap if they did in a subsequent iteration (? v5.2 for example?) 

What do you think?

more likely a 3rd party will do this under license/collaboration, but yes it would be great. Under the hood there is a lot to do to get anywhere near 2020, not sure I would like a google earth scenery on its own!

What would be Google's incentive to participate? 

Edited April 13, 20206 yr by Sethos

6 minutes ago, Purr said:

if P3d subsequently incorporated Google (not Bing, since they are owned by Microsoft) data for mapping the globe, that might bring it substantially closer as a competitor on a feature-by-feature basis. And, since it appears that google data is richer and more expansive than Bing, perhaps it might even have a bit of an edge over MSFS in this regard.
[...]
I can't help but think that they must be looking at this, because every sim that does not draw upon this satellite and street mapped data is going to be lost in the dust without it in comparison. (Surely, the military would appreciate this from a mission perspective to have accurate depictions of the entire world for their training scenarios?)

Two things:

1. Do you realise how much more expensive it would be to licence satellite imagery from Google?
    
2. If we're talking about the US military, do you realise that they are very likely to have better quality and more up-to-date imagery than Google?
    

Microsoft are in a unique position where they have the tech to support large volume data streaming via a large number of data centres around the World, and also having access to their own aerial imagery.
For Lockheed, Laminar Research, IPACS or Eagle Dynamics to do likewise would make their sims prohibitively expensive for the end users.
 

I was thinking, why would LM need to go to Google? They are already an Azure customer so leveraging that to end up licensing the streaming tech is plausible.

Several years ago some people were using Tilproxy. They starred with loading PR tiles from the IN into Fs :

https://www.avsim.com/forums/forum/284-the-tileproxy-project-forum/

Because of the slower IN connection and the way the program was developed one could not fly faster than 80-120 knots. Otherwise the tiles would not load correctly.

For all we know Google may have plans of there own for the STADIA platform in the future, they have the data all need is a developer to compete with MS, and they have very deep pocket`s but the one with the deepest pocket`s is Amazon.  

To Answer the OP

What's new about using Google Earth / Bing for Flight Simming - I use it all the time - with the bad weather of REX - no radar.

I am just one of those old fogies who flies his twin prop G.A. aircraft around 1000 to 10000 feet -  called - Eyeball Navigation

sometimes officially called VFR - (helped from time to time by cheating using VOR Instruments and NDBs) 

just the way I was taught 50 years ago.- when OZ suffered a dearth of "Navaids" and NDBs that only work at around 40miles out

Side by side in my P3D - are Google Earth and Skyvector World VFR charts - (and maybe world Low)

Using the tools provided by Google - Rulers etc - my route is drawn - measured and angled - aids from SV  - and a quick "pause"

to compare what the eyeball sees from the cockpit to the Google.  

I have just completed a circle and crisscross Navs of Australia and NZ - no motorways in the sky  - only Orbyx - and landing at the most tiny of airfields/strips -

and not one of the big and shiny airports that seem to be all the go recently - coupled with computed flight plans - autopilots - ILS up to the thresholds - and a work load

that doesn't allow a bloke to enjoy the beauties of Mother Earth.😉

 

Edited April 14, 20206 yr by jaytee73

Given the resources they have used to create their 'TrueEarth' product, what if ORBX changed their model, to 'stream out' their TE data as required, under a subscription model to P3D customers, instead of charging a one-off purchase price? They obvioulsy have the rights to distribute and charge for the images they are currently using for their TE products.

Didn't JV mention a few years ago that he thought that the future of Sim Scenery was likely to end up as a streaming service?

Not sure if they have the infrastructure currently to support such a model, but it would be an interesting concept

I dont think people realise the effort Asobo has gone to regarding the world.

Your not streaming Bing maps.  Asobo has compiled the whole world into its own format off ground tiles and objects. Where there are no objects (only flat image data) it has generated objects based on the image data.

This means the quality of 3d objects can be massively improved in detail and rendering quality than what you see in bing maps

This is all tied in with a rendering engine designed by Asobo to output these objects and images very efficiently.

If there's no 3d Data its not a case of just placing a generic auto gen building.  A building is designed from the roof data and that specific building is created. (This was all done by algorithms)  theyre all different buildings pre computer your grabbing from the cloud, theyre not randomly placed autogen.

So to get to this level of detail with Google maps LM will have to do the same.  They could stream just the flat image data and forgo realstic looking buildings, but then they still will need to do processing where to place autogen.

The cost to them simply to stream Google maps data would be huge.

The cost to them to compile all of earths google map data (would be a big payment to google), process it, then create servers around the world to stream the data would be huge.

The cost to do all this (especially to google) would be more than they make from each copy of P3D

that's why I'm pretty sure you also have to pay monthly for ms2020 if you want this in the future.

Edited April 14, 20206 yr by 331BK

1 hour ago, 331BK said:

that's why I'm pretty sure you also have to pay monthly for ms2020 if you want this in the future.

No it's been stated thats not the case.  Asobo can do this because theyre using Microsofts infrastructure at no real extra cost to Microsoft (Bing maps, worldwide server farms, Azure) 

I think what LM need to focus on (and Xplane) is better autogen and better land graphics.  IMO human designed autogen can look a lot better than what Asobo uses.  Modern games will show you that.  The detail isnt just in a cube shaped like a house, its in fences, driveways, garden beds, plants, bus stops, roads, walkways etc

Edited April 14, 20206 yr by Theboot100

7 minutes ago, Theboot100 said:

IMO human designed autogen can look a lot better than what Asobo uses.  Modern games will show you that.  The detail isnt just in a cube shaped like a house, its in fences, driveways, garden beds, plants, bus stops, roads, walkways etc

Hard agree, Earth Simulations had their Autogenesis product many years ago that included houses with things like solar panels, as well as bus stops, post boxes etc.  The platform was still 32bit DX9 then, and it really couldn't handle everything with good enough performance.  That shouldn't hold true nowadays...

Well, Lockheed Martin  knows a thing or two about sat imagery.

Not only they design satellites for collecting  imagery from space, they also design software to analyse the data. Their  recognition system uses open-source deep learning libraries to quickly identify and classify objects or targets in large areas across the world out of  Maxar’s Geospatial Big Data platform (GBDX), a  100 petabytes imagery database.  They don't need Google 😉.

Conclusion. If LM wants it so, the P3D team could access to anything they need to compete with MS.  My feeling is that they will in due time.

 

 

2 hours ago, Theboot100 said:

If there's no 3d Data its not a case of just placing a generic auto gen building.  A building is designed from the roof data and that specific building is created. 

To further elaborate on this, they have actually employed a guy with a PHD in rooftop reconstruction.

Edited April 14, 20206 yr by Baber20