2 minutes ago, Ianrivaldosmith said:

Why, reading between the lines, it doesn't seem 'good'? 

 

There are literally pictures out there of it. ASOBO also showed it in a video. It's obviously not going to be as good as photogrammetry and ortho with AI overlay. I basically know no one in the alpha who is using offline mode, so that's why you aren't going to see pictures of it right now.

Edited June 27, 20205 yr by bonchie

That mode is basically for those that do not have a fast enough internet download speed to download scenery, weather, etc.

The online mode will stream weather, scenery etc, & the offline mode will only display default built in things. 

5 minutes ago, Wobbie said:

That mode is basically for those that do not have a fast enough internet download speed to download scenery, weather, etc.

The online mode will stream weather, scenery etc, & the offline mode will only display default built in things. 

Stating only public information, the offline mode basically takes generic textures and puts it in place of where the orthos would be. Then it uses the building location data and definitions ASOBO has collected via AI and overlays those generic textures. The closest comparison I can think of is how XP11 uses generic textures and OSM for building placement, except MSFS should be far more accurate, as OSM data is sparse in much of the world.

That's what we've seen in videos and pictures. I can't give my own experiences right now (and honestly, I've only tried it once and kind of forgotten what it looks like). Hopefully they lift the NDA with the beta and we can have a little more fun discussing.

Edited June 27, 20205 yr by bonchie

22 minutes ago, Ianrivaldosmith said:

Why, reading between the lines, it doesn't seem 'good'? 

I had to fly offline once when my Internet was down due to power fluctuations, and described it elsewhere.

It's not bad at all.  I think without doing a side-by-side comparison you'd be hard pressed to tell any difference, but I'm sure there must be some.  What impressed me most was that the "few clouds" weather theme looked better than I've ever seen a weather theme look before, anywhere.

If I had to fly that way from now on, I wouldn't be disappointed.

All this should have been shown already in official videos and screen shots, so it's not really new information, but more would be useful.

Hook

54 minutes ago, BigDee said:

I would prefer an option to save satellite data offline,

That is an option in MSFS2020.

On 6/25/2020 at 6:58 PM, ChaoticBeauty said:

Screenshot by Ebbsy2

 

It took me a few glances to realise that yes, this is London City airport on short final facing west. I know people have moaned and moaned and moaned about tree scaling before but they really are far too big here. London looks like a semi-rural series of hamlets in this - almost all the green space that should be to the north (right, in the screenshot) of the river looks like dense woodland.

Here's a comparison from Google Street View, taken from the road beside the white buildings on middle left of the screenshot and looking towards where the aircraft is. Notice how none of the trees are taller than the buildings.

Here's a second Street View, taken in the middle of the 'wood' immediately to the left of the HIALS. See how there's bushes lining the road but few trees - and no 75ft oaks. I think Asobo's tree detection AI struggles to tell between ground shrubs and mature trees.

I don't say this to be negative: if I wasn't a London native I would absolutely be immersed in the screenshot view, it's utterly convincing if you don't know the city well. Major landmarks are in the right places (Millennium Dome in the background, just left of runway centreline) and even the back streets on the left are accurately drawn. The topographical data is spot on, I can see the Harrow ridge and hill on the horizon right where it ought to be. The overall impression is of a photo, not a CGI screenshot, and it's light years ahead of current consumer desktop flight sims. But I do hope they're able to tweak the AI and tree heights.

 

Edited June 27, 20205 yr by lambourne

1 hour ago, lambourne said:

It took me a few glances to realise that yes, this is London City airport on short final facing west. I know people have moaned and moaned and moaned about tree scaling before but they really are far too big here. London looks like a semi-rural series of hamlets in this - almost all the green space that should be to the north (right, in the screenshot) of the river looks like dense woodland.

Here's a comparison from Google Street View, taken from the road beside the white buildings on middle left of the screenshot and looking towards where the aircraft is. Notice how none of the trees are taller than the buildings.

Here's a second Street View, taken in the middle of the 'wood' immediately to the left of the HIALS. See how there's bushes lining the road but few trees - and no 75ft oaks. I think Asobo's tree detection AI struggles to tell between ground shrubs and mature trees.

I don't say this to be negative: if I wasn't a London native I would absolutely be immersed in the screenshot view, it's utterly convincing if you don't know the city well. Major landmarks are in the right places (Millennium Dome in the background, just left of runway centreline) and even the back streets on the left are accurately drawn. The topographical data is spot on, I can see the Harrow ridge and hill on the horizon right where it ought to be. The overall impression is of a photo, not a CGI screenshot, and it's light years ahead of current consumer desktop flight sims. But I do hope they're able to tweak the AI and tree heights.

 

Light years ahead? Overstatement perhaps? Take the water and clouds out and it looks like Orbx true earth in Xplane 11. 

2 hours ago, Ianrivaldosmith said:

Light years ahead? Overstatement perhaps? Take the water and clouds out and it looks like Orbx true earth in Xplane 11. 

The Orbx True earth products are superb tbh however it is right to say that MSFS is light years ahead when you consider the visual technology that is in the default sim. From a cost and storage perspective consider what you would have to pay for the same global fidelity In XP from Orbx and tell me that’s not light years ahead to have that built in?

2 hours ago, Ianrivaldosmith said:

Light years ahead? Overstatement perhaps? Take the water and clouds out and it looks like Orbx true earth in Xplane 11. 

Some things are greater than the sum of their parts. Testers could point out the Achilles heel of your conjecture, but of course, we're not allowed.....

17 minutes ago, HiFlyer said:

Some things are greater than the sum of their parts. Testers could point out the Achilles heel of your conjecture, but of course, we're not allowed.....

This is the same type of vague pot stirring you did about the default airports. And then we saw alpha tester video clip of a lego brick default airport in the last update.

20 minutes ago, Kopteeni said:

This is the same type of vague pot stirring you did about the default airports. And then we saw alpha tester video clip of a lego brick default airport in the last update.

 

Quote

 

What does 'Stir the pot' mean?

To stir the pot is  to agitate a situation to cause a reaction or trouble.

 

Well...... Sorry to have interrupted the speculation, based on snippets of pictures, by being reassuring about things actually seen in detail. 

Won't happen again.

6 hours ago, Wobbie said:

That mode is basically for those that do not have a fast enough internet download speed to download scenery, weather, etc.

That would be me, my ISP is utterly terrible.

 

Invite me to the alpha Microsoft, I'll gladly test the bejeezus out of that offline mode for you!!!!  😉

Edited June 27, 20205 yr by Mengy

I get what you’re saying, but it’s not ‘light years ahead’. At all. Yes, it looks good. Amazing even. However, I reiterate, regardless of cost and storage space (cause that’s a different debate), in terms of How it looks, it simply looks like ORBX true earth with London city airport In XP11. (Albeit without the water and clouds). 
I’m not denying it’s good, or having a go, I’m merely saying that it’s not light years ahead. 

1 minute ago, Ianrivaldosmith said:

I get what you’re saying, but it’s not ‘light years ahead’. At all. Yes, it looks good. Amazing even. However, I reiterate, regardless of cost and storage space (cause that’s a different debate), in terms of How it looks, it simply looks like ORBX true earth with London city airport In XP11. (Albeit without the water and clouds). 
I’m not denying it’s good, or having a go, I’m merely saying that it’s not light years ahead. 

The lighting, clouds, weather, etc. coupled with the scenery is light years ahead of XP11.

Yes, Orbx has true earth for XP11. But orthos and buildings do not make up the entirety of a scene. You can post a screen shot of your XP11 at that exact spot and then we could really compare for fun.

2 minutes ago, bonchie said:

The lighting, clouds, weather, etc. coupled with the scenery is light years ahead of XP11.

Yes, Orbx has true earth for XP11. But orthos and buildings do not make up the entirety of a scene. You can post a screen shot of your XP11 at that exact spot and then we could really compare for fun.

I’m aware the lighting is better, it’s newer technology. My point is, it is not light years ahead! Yes of course it’s better. But it’s not like, my god we’ve gone from small pixels to HD!