10 minutes ago, Will Fly For Cheese said:

EFHK Vantaa Airport has photogrammetry so you should be looking pretty good.

 

 

Is this from Bing? I know they have it in Google but last time I checked I thought there wasn't. I could be wrong.

In any case I'd be a bit surprised if they were able to generate decent airports from the photogrammetry data. The  photogrammetry sceneries look great when you're flying above but airport buildings need to look sharp when you're taxiing right past them or when you're parked at the terminal gate. 

Thats GE. My understanding is that Google are behind Bing in terms of photogrammetry coverage so it might be a fair assumption to say if it's in GE it's in Bing.

It's only an assumption though.

16 minutes ago, Will Fly For Cheese said:

My understanding is that Google are behind Bing in terms of photogrammetry coverage

Bing has their own photogrammetry. Check out the windows Maps app. That will show Bing coverage. Comparing the two, Google has more coverage, but Bing is better quality IMO. 

1 hour ago, Will Fly For Cheese said:

Thats GE. My understanding is that Google are behind Bing in terms of photogrammetry coverage so it might be a fair assumption to say if it's in GE it's in Bing.

It's only an assumption though.

Google isn’t behind Bing, it’s actually the other way around. GE has larger coverage of cities.

About quality, sometimes Bing looks better, sometimes GE looks better.

But what really matters is Google doesn’t plan to develop a Flight Simulator (at least as far as we know), so we should just concentrate on Bing and hope a lot of improvements are planned on their imagery and photogrammetry.

53 minutes ago, ca_metal said:

Google isn’t behind Bing, it’s actually the other way around. GE has larger coverage of cities.

About quality, sometimes Bing looks better, sometimes GE looks better.

 

2 hours ago, snglecoil said:

Bing has their own photogrammetry. Check out the windows Maps app. That will show Bing coverage. Comparing the two, Google has more coverage, but Bing is better quality IMO. 

Thanks for the correction guys.

There's a tread on the alpha forum comparing real life cloud pictures to MSFS. I obviously can't share it here, but the idea that the clouds don't look realistic and true to life in many instances is just false information being spouted by people who either 1) don't know or 2) are biased for financial reasons. 

As to airports, I won't break the NDA because I'm not crazy, but pay attention to what has been said and shown publicly. Based only on that public information alone, you can conclude there will still be room for Orbx type airport addons. 

Edited June 16, 20205 yr by bonchie

1 hour ago, bonchie said:

There's a tread on the alpha forum comparing real life cloud pictures to MSFS. I obviously can't share it here, but the idea that the clouds don't look realistic and true to life in many instances is just false information being spouted by people who either 1) don't know or 2) are biased for financial reasons. 

As to airports, I won't break the NDA because I'm not crazy, but pay attention to what has been said and shown publicly. Based only on that public information alone, you can conclude there will still be room for Orbx type airport addons. 

Really...Orbx - touch this?...

I beg to differ...

 

Edited June 16, 20205 yr by Will Fly For Cheese

1 hour ago, bonchie said:

people who either 1) don't know or 2) are biased for financial reasons.

One of these people [spouting misinformation] is in the alpha, so they know better [than the misinformation they are spouting]. 

Edited June 16, 20205 yr by snglecoil
Edited for clarity

As much as I love Orbx product, FS2020 is on a different level that Orbx just can't match in today's sim. Also. Even thought some airports might not the same level of love everywhere, just the sheer amount of details the sim has wold wide is just staggering. Just look at the official release screenshot by alpha tester. They are not doctored Bullshot. They are real in-game graphics.

1 hour ago, bonchie said:

Based only on that public information alone, you can conclude there will still be room for Orbx type airport addons. 

Yep, I guess OrbX will shift its focus more from TrueEarth to accurate airport sceneries if they plan to develope for MSFS.

 

4 hours ago, ca_metal said:

Google isn’t behind Bing, it’s actually the other way around. GE has larger coverage of cities.

Totally agree. I can confirm that for Austria. There is not a single photogrammetry city, while in Google you have cities with 100 000 inhabitants being photogrammetry.

 

7 minutes ago, snglecoil said:

One of these people is in the alpha, so they know better. 

Bonchie and I are in the Alpha too, and we totally disagree with him. So?!
 

Just an opinion, like ours. The big issue is when people try to convince everybody that their own opinions are FACTS.

Edited June 16, 20205 yr by ca_metal

Sure ORBX can sell you some airports scenery that will be better than what it's in the game but this will a few and between. I think most simmer will be happy with what they got out of the box. It's not like P3D or FSX that without any OpenLC or any region, it looks like vomit.

Sure, MSFS out of the box will be fine for a few months. But after the honeymoon period is over there will be loads of people looking for solutions to produce more wow effects. 

More wow effects ? I guess it's true, flight siimmers will never be satisfied with anything. Have you seen the screenshot from alpha tester ?  Please educate me on what else is missing ? 

Edited June 16, 20205 yr by fogboundturtle

34 minutes ago, ca_metal said:

Bonchie and I are in Alpha too, and we totally disagree with him. So?!
 

Just an opinion, like ours. The big issue is when people try to convince everybody that their own opinions are FACTS.

Ok....are you arguing with me or agreeing? I think we are of the same opinion, but maybe the way a stated it was unclear. (edited my original statement for clarity)

Edited June 16, 20205 yr by snglecoil