Poor visual compared to mapping satellite data in bing

[pjweihs 5]

I’m seriously unimpressed with the poor quality of the mapping data texture quality in flight simulator. I expected it to be on par (or better) with what you get and see on bing or google or Apple satellite maps with the added 3D building features. While “accurate” the image quality is horrible in comparison ... a real turn off ... I rather fly around on bing maps or google earth ... yuck!

[wim123 763]

i am impressed with the views i get.

different strokes for different blokes

[SeanMo 140]

56 minutes ago, pjweihs said:

I’m seriously unimpressed with the poor quality of the mapping data texture quality in flight simulator. I expected it to be on par (or better) with what you get and see on bing or google or Apple satellite maps with the added 3D building features. While “accurate” the image quality is horrible in comparison ... a real turn off ... I rather fly around on bing maps or google earth ... yuck!

That's because you are an X-plane fanatic who has created a burner account to troll in this forum (is that you, Austin?). Everybody here has seen how absolutely outstanding the "mapping data texture quality" in MSFS is compared to... anything other than real life. You don't really think a post like this is actually going to sway anyone, do you?

[Gabster 7]

Well I never had Xplane but P3D and LOWI from OrbX and freeware ground textures from Austria and yes - those looked way better/sharper than what I get now in the Alps 😞

[pjweihs 5]

On 8/18/2020 at 10:51 PM, SeanMo said:

That's because you are an X-plane fanatic who has created a burner account to troll in this forum (is that you, Austin?). Everybody here has seen how absolutely outstanding the "mapping data texture quality" in MSFS is compared to... anything other than real life. You don't really think a post like this is actually going to sway anyone, do you?

What an attitude and WRONG ASSUMPTION...I use MANY sims...I’m a Certified Flight Instructor ... X-Plane powers FAA based simulators used by GA small A/C ... I have my criticism of X-Plane as well ... in the proper hands of a CFI these simulation tools are great for training aids, but they risk negative training outcomes if left to your own devices. ANYBODY can learn to “fly” ANY airplane quickly ... from a cub to an A380 is the same “stick and rudder” skills basically the issue is in helping people simulate and learn proper systems and procedures for safe and legal flying both around others and in the ATC system so as to not disrupt it.

if you are going to make grandiose claims “As real as it gets” non-sense  like MSFS has done frequently (past and present) then you better be ready for the scrutiny that comes along with it. This was an obvious improvement that everybody saw coming since bing and google maps came online. The question was was the MONEY there in consumers pockets to justify the ROI. And could the business deals be brokered to permit what could be done today to actually happen. The new MSFS was long overdue for an official overhaul after abandoning the market due to saturation and competition long ago. Third-parties took over in the void left behind and pushes things closer to what we now have for vastly inflated priced add-ons. I LIKE the new simulator over FSX, but some things if you want it to be a SIMULATOR vs a GAME are just sometimes really dumb in decisions.

MSFS has always had vastly better ATC than X-plane but if you are relying upon VATSIM or PILOTS EDGE then it’s another Whole level of realism. See “NOT an X-plane TROLL” ... next time watch your manners online! It does not give you the right to be RUDE!

[Alpine Scenery 1,609]

It would take too long to download, that's how they are getting away with no monthly fee for now. I personally think for a base scenery, they made the correct choice, their autogen hides the lower resolution pretty good in most cases. Some desert areas and treeless alpine mountains are pretty bad, but fly from Aspen to Denver and it looks good. They are using the high-res stuff but it's heavily compressed down to the equivalent res of about 80cm - 1.2m depending where you fly. In Xplane, you are seeing 30cm to 60cm if setup with Ortho4XP, so yah it is higher res.

I know it's hard to beat 17 Lod or higher from Ortho4XP, that's not going to happen. It would literally take an hour before you could even start a single flight, and there is no way the caching speed could keep up with your flight speed, it would not work.

It would be nice if we could manually download higher-res for some areas, but they didn't give that option, and it would probably cost them so much bandwidth it was a losing proposition for them to even try it.

That said, they did a great job in MSFS with the res they chose, but some areas are better than others.

They also left it open hopefully for scenery makers to include some higher-res LOD on releases, hopefully the SDK isn't too hard to compile stuff.

Edited August 20, 2020 by SceneryFX