A comparison of Ibiza in real life (Google maps)

 

 

And in the new sim

 

 

 

I don't know about you guys but the difference is clearly noticeable...specially in the depiction of the colours ...notice how in the real areal photo the land vegetation is lush and vivid green and also the ocean water looks deeply and vivid blue.  Hopefully these things will be corrected, even though I highly doubt that they will.

 

Oh well...I guess this where the add-on developers will have their chance...because there are clearly lots of improvements to be made scenery wise and also in other areas, this is of course taking into consideration that the whole sim is still in its development stage.

 

That being said...even if these scenery shortcomings don't get corrected in the end...the default scenery is by far and large a thousand times better then any current default scenery in the current sims!...and that is a proven fact!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sometimes I wonder if Microsoft/Asobo should have gone with Google instead of Bing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Part of it may depend on the season of the year the Google aerial photo was taken vs. Bing. I know that where I live, an aerial photo taken in early April would show most fields as brown, while a photo taken in late May would show the same fields as lush green.

Comparison...is the thief of joy.

The color saturation in Google or Bing maps around my area is generally overdone. I wouldn't base color accuracy on either.

The google version has color correction applied to it and looks terribly artificial. The MSFS data also looks to be sourced from late-spring / summer satellite imagery and is pretty accurate (been there many / many times).

I live in Valencia, Spain. Right in front of Ibiza Island and with exceptionally similar climate (80nn away).

You might only get to see Ibiza so green like in that google image right after a long rainy season, and by far not that colorful.

Instead, the MSFS image is spot on. Actually, I was incredibly surprised to see how similar it looks like to the real thing, to the point that I almost thought it was real.

So, on this image specifically, I can’t agree with your opinion at all. Asobo’s scenery is difficult to beat here.

As has already been said I think the colour differences are mainly due to the different time of year the images were taken. Also I don't think that we can say Google Map shows how it looks in "real life", after all their imagery is processed as well (here it's photogrammetry). Here's a real photo of the same place (just different angle) showing very similar colours as we have in the sim.

48 minutes ago, Captain747 said:

Sometimes I wonder if Microsoft/Asobo should have gone with Google instead of Bing.

Absolutely! Not least because they have more and better looking photogrammetry areas.

Google’s images are heavily color corrected to ensure uniformity across all regions. The picture form the sim resembles more like it would be visible to the human eye as opposed to a camera’s lens. 

Edited May 5, 20206 yr by FAZZ3

Ortho4xp taught me how inconsistent the scenery based on aerial imagery can get. I hope Asobo has something clever up their sleeve to deal with the shortcomings of the inconsistent imagery data. I know it's going to be far from perfect with the data they have to work with but it will probably get better over time.

Google photogrammetry is more accurate. It’s very noticeable on the top of skyscrapers (I’ve compared the Chicago and NY ones) and on harbors cranes, where in Google they are almost complete, and in Bing doesn’t form a complete structure. And also the coverage area. 

On the colorful side. I find Bing satellite data more realistic and less saturated.

Anyway, having Bing data is a huge step from what we have now, plus global illumination and someday seasons, makes the sim feel very realistic. Just hope this sim is useful for Bing to upgrade their photogrammetry data. Because a partnership with google is not viable, right? 🤣

Edited May 5, 20206 yr by aleex

And although I’m completely aware that water has to improve, also in this case it seems somewhat closer to reality the MSFS image as can be seen in Shack’s picture. Although this has probably more to do with the sun seemingly being in a lower position.

3 hours ago, Captain747 said:

 

Sometimes I wonder if Microsoft/Asobo should have gone with Google instead of Bing.

We don’t even know if they had this option. Would google offer their data to use on a simulator? How much would it cost? What about updates, Asobo would have access to them?

Bing Maps is an in-house solution. Makes no sense to outsource this instead of using something they have for “free”.

We can only hope Bing will improve with time.

3 hours ago, Captain747 said:

Sometimes I wonder if Microsoft/Asobo should have gone with Google instead of Bing.

Do you also think before you write?

Why should MS use a competing product for this? 

3 hours ago, Captain747 said:

 

Even without knowing the location, I like the picture of MSFS 100x more. It looks a lot more realistic, seriously!

I'm just surprised by this thread, is this just a joke? 

7 minutes ago, Deleted said:

Do you also think before you write?

Why should MS use a competing product for this? 

Google clearly isn't an option at all and it doesn't make sense to even discuss this from a business point of view.

Besides, I have myself created a few AeroflyFS2 sceneries myself. While Google is certainly better in Photogrammetry, there are regions where Google ground imagery is better and others where Bing is (w.r.t. clouds, color consisteny, and more). And neither are really excellent, at least not those data publicly available.

Kind regards, Michael

Google has better photogrammetry but there's no chance MS was ever going to be able to use their chief competitors data. 

Overall, Bing is not bad and bests Google in some ortho areas. It's a favorite among the Ortho4XP crowd for a reason.