Gamers are replacing Bing Maps objects in MS2020

[wthomas33065 994]

1 hour ago, RXP said:

I find there is an opposition for now between "modding has been part of this product since..." and "modding is in the FS2020 DNA".

I see our disconnect.

I see "modding" as modifying the base product as a whole.  Modifying the individual user experience through the use of addon's and other products that "add" to the user experience.  Which MSFS 2020 has clearly done and was designed to be done.

However, if you feel "modding" is the ability to modify existing company issued files, then I can see why that might be discouraged, especially when other people have their names associated with the product.  

I think that is why the Fly By Wire A320 project might not have gotten all the "support" that was hoped for from Asobo.  This product isn't creating a new aircraft, but modifying the existing one.  And we are not sure if such modifications were part of the agreement that Asobo/MS may have made with Airbus.  Perhaps some of the cockpit controls were required to be "inoperable" due to the insistence of Airbus, and not some creative choice by the publisher.

Corporations can be very jumpy about intellectual property and how it is used.  And can sometimes have issues with things the average flight simmer would think nothing about.  

Such a user created mod might be well afoul of that, so I can understand why some of the core products are indeed "sandboxed" to prevent user modification, and that is well worth a discussion to have.

But that's just pure speculation on my part.

What is clear, is that my idea of "modding" and your's were entirely different, and now I better see your point.

[RXP 2,338]

43 minutes ago, wthomas33065 said:

What is clear, is that my idea of "modding" and your's were entirely different, and now I better see your point.

I don't think they are entirely different in the end, just different on some aspects only. I've just pushed my  explanation about modding to its extreme end but there is an areas in the middle which is overlapping:

Modifying the A320 Javascript code files to add features and correct others, or fixing the tall buildings in v1.9.3 thanks to the modifications I've published with the famous Building-Fix file, are both examples of modding and FS2020 is allowing this kind of modifications easily. And in this particular case of modifying existing files, it is definitely superior to other simulators thanks to its VFS (Virtual File System). But this is limited to modding 'configuration' files and 'script' files.

The Sandbox I'm talking about is how FS2020 is limiting compiled code from running inside the simulator. This is limiting for examples add-ons from loading files from your drive (well they can but only from their own folder). This is limiting add-ons from connecting to online live services in order to get data (think live weather or any other kind of network traffic necessary). This is limiting add-ons from rendering their own graphics in a very efficient way (but you can render them the FS2020 way and think you might get a slight performance advantage but you won't or at least, not always). And there are tons of other limitations with the FS2020 restrictions and their sandbox.

Of course you're right the Sandbox, with the inherent limitations it is imposing on 3rd party developers, is also protecting the simulator from rogue code running. In essence it is not dissimilar to "loosen some of your liberty and we'll enhance security".

With Sandboxing integral part of the SDK, it makes possible to positively restrict what can be developed so that the same DLC runs both on PC and XBox. But honestly, if the sole driver behind Sandboxing was ensuring DLC would run on both PC and XBox in limiting the number of function any 3rd party compiled code could call, this shouldn't have precluded to offering an un-sandboxed DLC capability which would be code compiled and distributed for PC only without the sandboxing restrictions.

I have no doubt the main driver behind sandboxing the SDK is not much about protecting you, the customer, from running rogue code crashing the simulator, it is more about protecting FS2020 from running code which could circumvent the DRM in the Market Place. Hence again the question whether modding or selling DLC is the DNA of FS2020.

NB: for those wondering about the graphics I'm open to further discussing why among the 3 graphics API available in the WASM environment, the lowest level of these, which is supposed to be the most direct path to the graphics card, is still limiting performances to the level of FS9, especially when comparing to X-Plane SDK. I wish I'd be wrong with this one.

 

PS: Mind you, this is just a beginning and we have strong hopes once initial bugs are solved things will evolve to the better!

 

 

Edited October 20, 2020 by RXP

[ryanbatc 12,857]

2 hours ago, Bert Pieke said:

Yes, and Yes, I believe, based on the Developer Q&As that I have seen.

Asobo seemed genuinely surprised that the Garmin issues made it to the top of the user list..

Also, they indicated that their aircraft development partner was not stepping up to the plate of enhancing the avionics capabilities of their payware offerings as they had expected, but instead preferring to fall back to the Asobo provided gauges.

I would hope that they would be open to a dialogue with other 3rd parties about how to fill this requirement.

Is it possible that the Garmin company has not been consulted, or that they have indicated that they would prefer not to see Trainer based products appear in MSFS?

Edit: Just to clarify in case Asobo is reading this...  I very much hope that Asobo is in active discussions with Garmin about how to best showcase their products in MSFS and that Garmin is supportive of this effort!

And... that a reason that many of us actually use Carenado products for "serious" IFR flight training, is

1. that Carenado supported 3rd party GPS replacements, and

2. the FSX/P3D Community figured out how to further refine these avionics by  user provided mods 🙂

This is another solid Bert Pieke post.  And I agree completely.  Who is their aircraft development partner?  It's not Carenado is it?  From speaking to Carenado directly, Microsoft has not yet allowed them to sell their MSFS addons on their Carenado main site.  I find that odd and disturbing honestly.  This means Carenado has a direct agreement with Microsoft - some agreement that the end user has no idea about.  Does this agreement benefit the end user or does it benefit Microsoft and Carenado, in a monetary sort of way?

[AmeliaCat 201]

WELLLL..... Hopefully Microsoft is feeling a bit embarrassed that gamers are importing scenery from  a competitors map app and MS will pick up their game as far as scenery QA .

Maybe they will eventually hire teams of people to scowl the earth looking for errors and fix them.. sounds life lifetime employment opportunity .

 

[wthomas33065 994]

1 minute ago, AmeliaCat said:

Hopefully Microsoft is feeling a bit embarrassed that gamers are importing scenery from  a competitors map app and MS will pick up their game as far as scenery QA .

Why would they be embarrassed?

1.  Google maps Photogrammetry is more detailed, but it's not color corrected and the amount of polys in much of the photogrammetric mesh bring MSFS to a stand still in very dense urban areas.  Bing Data, being less detailed offers the advantage of less storage needed, less bandwidth needed to stream to customers, and better performance on the app.  Bing Data is sufficient enough for almost all flight scenarios short of buzzing buildings at roof top level.

2.  Bing conceded the map game the second they pulled out of the mobile market.  Apple and Google maps are driven by mobile device usage, not desktop usage and certainly not via google earth, which is little more than a tech demo.

Bing data was already available without need for licensing or to pay a third party a fee.  

I suppose Microsoft COULD have used Google Maps photogrammetry and then charged the user a subscription fee to pay the licensing for Google.   But we know how well that would have gone over.

Microsoft will upgrade the photogrammetry on Bing if they see that the investment will result in a significant fiscal return, not out of some sense of shame because some Flight Simulator enthusiast modified a scenery area using Google Photogrammetry.

[AmeliaCat 201]

13 minutes ago, wthomas33065 said:

Why would they be embarrassed?

 

If u were Mercedes and introduced a new car and people bought it then started swapping out parts for BMW parts, it would be embarrassing. Same concept .. Real simple.

My comment is about whether or not google is better than bing its about consumers choosing a competitors product over thier own.. That cant make anyone happy. And the articles on the net lately that have been about this happening makes MS Bing look bad. Hopefully it gives them a kick in the butt and they improve things , which I think they are already.

Edited October 20, 2020 by AmeliaCat
more better words

[wthomas33065 994]

1 minute ago, AmeliaCat said:

If u were Mercedes and introduced a new car and people bought it then started swapping out parts for BMW parts, it would be embarrassing. Same concept .. Real simple.

Not if the BMW parts eventually made the Mercedes slower than a Nissan Versa.

[AmeliaCat 201]

Pffft ok.. lol

[wthomas33065 994]

2 minutes ago, AmeliaCat said:

Pffft ok.. lol

Extensive Google photogrammetric areas punish frame rates and increase load times.  That's demonstratable.  

[AmeliaCat 201]

Just now, wthomas33065 said:

Extensive Google photogrammetric areas punish frame rates and increase load times.  That's demonstratable.  

I AM NOT ARGU🤪ING WITH YOU!!!!!!  i was just laughing at what you said,,

[wthomas33065 994]

7 minutes ago, AmeliaCat said:

I AM NOT ARGU🤪ING WITH YOU!!!!!!  i was just laughing at what you said,,

sorry.  emoji's aren't my strong suit.

 

[Glenn Fitzpatrick 3,798]

There is going to be "fair use" limitations on what you can do with google maps. Mods for personal use are likely OK. Freeware mod are probably borderline but I suspect they may be ignored if the mod acknowledges the source, we will have to wait and see. Any commercial products using google imagery may well get hit up for licence fees, the stuff is not actually public domain.

Technically the same might apply to Bing maps. It is not necessarily the case that you can produce a commercial addon using Bing maps without licencing, 

In theory addon planes in flightsims can also attract licence/royalty fees, it is just not worth the effort/cost/time/bad-publicity for most manufacturers to pursue it for small addons.

Edited October 20, 2020 by Glenn Fitzpatrick

[RXP 2,338]

2 hours ago, Glenn Fitzpatrick said:

In theory addon planes in flightsims can also attract licence/royalty fees, it is just not worth the effort/cost/time/bad-publicity for most manufacturers to pursue it for small addons.

And in certain cases some might even consider it free advertising! Let alone free advertising on a highly specific population hooked to anything flying related usually!

Edited October 21, 2020 by RXP

[marsman2020 1,310]

Someone started a thread on the news article about Google assets imported into MSFS on the official forums today, I watched it get deleted before my eyes.  I'm thinking because the way they worded it was not very friendly, but still.

As great as this might look I'm not sure doing it is smart, it might result in things becoming more locked down in the future as far as what scenery will work in the Community folder vs from the Marketplace.

[Keto Ketchup 240]

19 hours ago, Noel said:

I don't see any reason to believe Bing data will not get better over time as well, to keep up with Apple & others.  This seems like one of the underlying beauties of this cloud-based architecture because as imagery improves so can it w/o a complete re-write.  It's our job to enthusiastically support MSFS and continue to help morph it into a mega success--it has a great start going for it already.

I'm keeping my fingers crossed that this is the case, because I really don't want have to import Google or Apple aerial photography to make my region passable.

Speaking of, I swear there was a time when Bing actually had good aerial photography for my area, better than Google's. Could it be that by "updating" the map in recent years they actually downgraded it for my area? Is there a way to pull up older photography in Bing Maps? I'm talking the actual maps.bing.com, not the flight sim. Of course, it could just be confusion on my part - it would have been a few years ago when I thought Bing was better.

Regardless, hopefully Bing Maps is seen by Microsoft in a new light now that they have Flight Simulator, and thus hopefully it will get more attention.