First, thank you for your response!

14 minutes ago, nickhod said:

All buildings are shaped realistically on X-Plane, but only from vector data sources, I don't think they're doing machine learning to get building footprints like Asobo.

Can you elaborate on that a little? What do you mean with vector data? The general shape of the building? So the shape is the same as on MSFS, the difference is this:

18 minutes ago, nickhod said:

MSFS autogen is better. It has realistic footprints for every building, and matches the roof colour. The autogen models themselves are also more detailed.

Which would also be considerable, as you tend to see the world from atop quite often while flying. 😄

 

20 minutes ago, nickhod said:

to not break NDA

You're in the Alpha? 🙃 If so, great to hear you're happy with the scenery.

3 minutes ago, pmb said:

Exactly. In X-Plane as well as AeroflyFS2 photo sceneries (and to a lesser extent also some Prepar3d sceneries) I am always reminded that ground imagery and buildings are from different data sources

Not talking about OrbX now, but I recently had some time to do a little XP flying again. And with MSFS on the horizon, I payed more attention to detail regarding autogen with my Ortho scenery.

I noticed that autogen seems to use ground textures surrounding its models. That is annoying as it doesn't blend well with the ortho most of the time. Same goes with forest areas. Streets in general don't fit in well IMO.

31 minutes ago, tweekz said:

Can you elaborate on that a little? What do you mean with vector data? The general shape of the building? So the shape is the same as on MSFS, the difference is this:

Orbx is using free data sources that contain geo coordinates plotting the outlines of buildings. Mostly OSM data, but also open source US building footprint data. OSM data is patchy though, some buildings are missing, because it's missing from the data source.

Asobo is using machine learning to figure out building footprints from satellite imagery. The end result is that almost every building is present in autogen with the correct roof colour.

With that said, TrueEarth regions are still very impressive and are probably as good as things will get on X-Plane when it comes to scenery.

24 minutes ago, nickhod said:

Orbx is using free data sources that contain geo coordinates plotting the outlines of buildings. Mostly OSM data, but also open source US building footprint data. OSM data is patchy though, some buildings are missing, because it's missing from the data source.

I have to say, where I live, sometimes the image quality is so poor that I guess it would be better to take that OSM data. 😄 Let's see how it turns out.

The detection of trees and landscapes and proper placing of textures and 3D models on the other hand might be unmatched.

Edited June 15, 20205 yr by tweekz

So I was having a look at my home airport in the MS Maps App. No photogrammetry for my area .... but holy undulation, Batman 😲 I've seen maps under-represent elevation data...but never over represent!

 

4 hours ago, snglecoil said:

but holy undulation, Batman 😲

😂

If I was ASOBO I'd add such an airport somewhere in the middle of nowhere as easter egg. Together with redwood trees and grass that hasn't been mown since the 90s.

Edited June 15, 20205 yr by tweekz

by the way,flight simulator 2020 many places don't have Photogrammetry,especially you can't search the place name

Some of the cities that are photogrammetry look worse than the autogen if you ask me. So no, I'm not very sad that my home town isn't photogrammetry.