I must admit, looking at that picture of Alesund vigra just makes me want to fly there.  🤪

I will check that one out on price when it appears.  It will be a great gateway to flying around Norway.

29 minutes ago, Keto Ketchup said:

I may be an outlier, but I prefer hand-crafted cities over photogrammetry

Certainly not, the problems you listed are very prominent as you get closer. But satellite imagery and AI are progressing very rapidly, and with time the results of photogrammetry will be a lot better. Whether the hand-crafted scenery add-ons will be viable long-term depends on the pace of Bing Maps improvements in this case.

2 hours ago, Ricardo41 said:

For reference, here is a list of the 341 photorealistic cities in MSFS 2020:

https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2020/08/18/all-341-photorealistic-cities-in-microsoft-flight-simulator-2020/

No photorealistic city from the Netherlands ?

No Amsterdam, Rotterdam or The Hague 🤨

This is what I have been saying all along. Landmark and POI scenery will be a big thing for MSFS. More so than airports. Since the new sim is next gen and is very good for VFR flying, more than ever now.

I am excited to see the abundance of these type of addons being created by the community and offered as freeware. It reminds me of the X-Plane community, which is a great thing. I am more excited about Landmark and POI's than airports to be honest.

Asobo has laid the foundation, it's up to the community and developers to enhance and build amazing scenery on top of that.

35 minutes ago, GSalden said:

No photorealistic city from the Netherlands ?

No Amsterdam, Rotterdam or The Hague 🤨

All free.

https://flightsim.to/by-country/NL

And Flytampa..

"Yes AMS, like most of our airports, will come to MSFS and most of them (when needed) will also be significantly upgraded to match the new engine."

Edited September 18, 20205 yr by Nyxx

I don't think I would buy this - but I think it's better than photogrammetry cities.  With PG cities you get that melted look if you're not right up to the buildings.  If Orbx models the actual buildings they will be sharp all the time.

5 minutes ago, ryanbatcund said:

I don't think I would buy this - but I think it's better than photogrammetry cities.  With PG cities you get that melted look if you're not right up to the buildings.  If Orbx models the actual buildings they will be sharp all the time.

I would buy this for my "home" cities, places I've lived IRL (I moved around a lot) that I like to revisit. Now I live in a little rural town, which nobody will make scenery for, so I may just tackle this myself once I figure out the SDK.

I have a mixed opinion on city scenery packages.  If they are cheap, I’d be more likely to buy them.  But unless it’s a city I fly over a lot I’ll probably only do one tour and then not fly there again for a long time.

The screenshots are no doubt impressive, just doesn’t feel like progress though. If we have to go back to downloading endless amounts of scenery at what cost to our wallets and hard drives. I would rather see the Bing data invested in and seriously ramped up.

2 hours ago, GSalden said:

No photorealistic city from the Netherlands ?

No Amsterdam, Rotterdam or The Hague 🤨

They will be underwater soon so whats the point I guess ...

1 hour ago, ryanbatcund said:

I don't think I would buy this - but I think it's better than photogrammetry cities.  With PG cities you get that melted look if you're not right up to the buildings.  If Orbx models the actual buildings they will be sharp all the time.

100% agree....I have become a bit disenchanted with the photogrammetry areas for the reason you mention.  I like seeing cities/buildings out in the distance but the PG areas look like a nuclear wasteland on approach with the melted, pointy buildings & trees which does not resolve until you are very close....

Edited September 18, 20205 yr by Flic1

MSFS invites me to explore the whole world (or „planet“ how it is called nowadays) more than the „old sims“ did because of the increased autenticity of the landscape / architecture and geography. Traveling and sightseeing makes more sence.

When I was flying more localy I was easier inclined to spend much money into airports and local details - in the MSFS I will more often land on and depart from airports only once. so why should I buy airport or city addons for single locations?
 

What I would like is Asobo continue increasing the number of „handmade airports“  and improving the photogrammetry - maybe added by some important landmarks - the quality of those disigns is good enough for me to use them once or twice or to overfly them from time to time ore once - fair enough as payware packages for certain areas.

What I do not need are exessivly detailed airport cities where you can watch avatars through windows walking along. I am interested in a flight simulator, not an airport or city simulator.

7 minutes ago, Flic1 said:

100% agree....I have become a bit disenchanted with the photogrammetry areas for the reason you mention.  I like seeing cities/buildings out in the distance but the PG areas look like a nuclear wasteland on approach with the melted, pointy buildings & trees which does not resolve until you are very close....

Try my settings Eric see if it helps? Your PC is better than mine. So you should be good.

 

37 minutes ago, Carts85 said:

I would rather see the Bing data invested in and seriously ramped up.

I agree, this would be the best way to ensure constant and efficient improvement. I used to believe that Bing Maps follow their own agenda and that the MSFS team just have to live with what they get from them. Now, after last week‘s Threshold interview, I‘m inclined to believe that the Bing Maps team do have MSFS on their radar. Maybe I read too much into Neumann‘s words or it‘s just wishful thinking on my part, but I can imagine that this sim will have an impact on Bing Maps‘ decisions when it comes to future mesh and imagery acquisition. So I‘m cautiously optimistic in this regard.

A big turnoff for me in tbe past has been needing to spend 100s of dollars to get things to look reasonable.  Actually my #1 turnoff from flight sims in general.

I really want MS/Adobo to continue to improve/upgrade the the base world.  I don't want them to stop in order to avoid "stepping on toes" or make sure 3rd parties can make a profit.  Some of the comments in that regard have been a bit discouraging in interviews.  

I have no plans to spend a ton of money on 3rd party scenery for this sim.  

Aircraft - maybe one or two that I am most interested in.  But not scenery.