9 minutes ago, ckyliu said:

But the worst crime is it has filled our national parks with 6 storey blocks of flats, almost every farm it renders as apartment blocks so I am hoping they will fix this as it really detracts from the rural flying experience.

I assume you already made Zendesk aware of this. Given they are working on the UK right now there's a good chance either they will handcraft these or at least tell the AI how to do better there.

Kind regards, Michael

@pmbI believe I did report it but it's so long ago now I don't recall exactly! It was an issue across the UK and I presume also endemic in Europe. Hopefully the new building types discussed include a stone farm house, curved roof barn and modern cow shed!

Larger churches should be very easy for the AI to pick out as they are almost always cruciform in outline with the spire or tower located where all four arms intersect. They also clearly marked on maps as places of worship. Although I dread the uproar if the AI misidentifies non-Christian PoW as churches, or it misidentifies buildings like sewerage treatment or nightclubs as a church, people get very touchy about that sort of thing!

Edited November 27, 20205 yr by ckyliu

@ckyliu, how strange that of all the cities in the UK only those two have photogrammetry data. Hardly the first names that spring to mind for foreigners.

So it's down to BlackShark and users pointing out the deficiencies. PLus of course any additions that come along. I'll bide my time until it gets better.

11 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

@ckyliu, how strange that of all the cities in the UK only those two have photogrammetry data. Hardly the first names that spring to mind for foreigners.

So it's down to BlackShark and users pointing out the deficiencies. PLus of course any additions that come along. I'll bide my time until it gets better.

rally? but there is fantatstic flying to be done all around the globe.

12 minutes ago, wim123 said:

rally? but there is fantatstic flying to be done all around the globe.

Each to their own. I prefer IFR flights to VFR. I'm desperately waiting for Concorde to arrive which will give me far more pleasure than VFR flying no matter how nice the scenery.

On 11/26/2020 at 1:02 PM, Chock said:

Hoping they improve EGCC Manchester considerably; allegedly this is going to happen, so let's hope it's a decent facelift.

The default airport is only really vaguely akin to the real place, the buildings, stands and piers are more or less correctly placed although not completely correct as are the taxiways in terms of placement at least, but the structures themselves are for the most part nothing like the real ones in appearance. The control tower is broadly similar to the real one in shape.

I had to look twice to see if I was actually at the right airport the first time I loaded it up and although I did work at the place and so am possibly a bit harder to please than most, I still think it is a pretty lacklustre effort for anyone who is after a bit of realism. Considering that it is one of the UK's major airports, I think that's not too unreasonable an expectation, particularly given that Aerosoft are partnering up with Asobo and they have access to a decent 3D model of the place which could be supplied as the basis for an improved model. Guess we'll find out in a week or so.

 

23 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

@Chock, I don’t have MSFS but was watching a YT video yesterday and the author was landing on 23R in an A320neo. What we’re all those office blocks where Heald Green is? I hardly recognised it.

Have a look here

 

As an example of how fussy I am.....I recently discovered that a new P3D version of the MAIW RAF Coningsby scenery was available. I assumed that this would be more detailed than the FSX version that I already had installed, so I upgraded. However, I have just completed a flight from Cardiff to RAF Coningsby in my PMDG 737-600, and when I was about to touch down on runway 25, I realised that the runway was a custom texture job.....and the white runway centreline markings were all over the place! Frankly, runway marking/lighting misalignment is something that I detest. It is completely unnecessary, and once I have seen it, I am doomed.

That single issue caused me to dump the new P3D version of RAF Coningsby, and return to the FSX version. The latter works just fine in P3Dv4, and it has more than enough detail to satisfy my rather sensitive visual cortex.

I am not doubting that the new Microsoft Flight Simulator has some stunning visuals, and that it would look better than even a TrueEarth GB upgraded P3D in certain situations. However, what about the airports and airfields? Does Heathrow look as good as SimWings Heathrow Professional in P3D? Does Glasgow look as good as UK2000 Glasgow 2020HD? Do the small airfields scattered around the country have the same detail and character as those in the UK2000 VFR Airfields packages? Can the AI environment at the major airports possibly compare to the custom AI database that I have installed in P3D? Does Microsoft Flight Simulator include the same number of 3D landmarks, or a network of electricity pylons? These are all questions that really need positive answers, and I suspect that (at the moment) it falls short. That is not the same as saying that I think P3D with TrueEarth GB looks better than the UK in Microsoft Flight Simulator. It's just that it includes some very important elements that I would miss a lot if I switched (not the least of which is the super detailed airliner that I fly around in).

Edited November 27, 20205 yr by Christopher Low

Just stick to FSX and P3D.🙂

Only for you to have a look what's come so far, and all for free. https://flightsim.to/by-country/GB not many for IRL yet https://flightsim.to/by-country/IE but there is no TE for Ireland.

Edited November 27, 20205 yr by Nyxx

45 minutes ago, Nyxx said:

Have a look here...

Thanks but when the time comes I’ll be loyal to Gary Summons of UK2000. Still a work in progress and his website is very slow to load.

9 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

@ckyliu, how strange that of all the cities in the UK only those two have photogrammetry data. Hardly the first names that spring to mind for foreigners.

So it's down to BlackShark and users pointing out the deficiencies. Plus of course any additions that come along. I'll bide my time until it gets better.

To be honest photogrammetry in MFS is not all it's cracked up to be. If it looked like Google Maps I might miss it but it doesn't, everything gets disfigured at more than close distance and the performance overhead is significant; in short I actually prefer the AI generated autogen over aerial photography that most of the already UK has, if only it can be refined a bit more I think I'll be generally happy.

Photogrammetry coverage for most of Europe in MFS/Bing is abysmal compared to Google, but as I said unless photogrammetry LOD and performance improved in sim I'm shall retain a preference for the autogen (you can disable photogrammetry in the options and some people have done comparison shots if you're curious) because as cool it is to see all the landmark buildings rendered perfectly unless you know the are very well you aren't going to notice their absense.

Edited November 28, 20205 yr by ckyliu

@ckyliu, as I'm in no rush to buy MFS this discussion is only of academic interest to me. If the sim is being sold on being very close to the real world then there should be a realistic chance that when I look at familiar areas I should recognise them. That was not the case with that video approaching 23R at Manchester.

How it's achieved is immaterial to me as long as performance is decent. How much fps is hit with these landmark addons will be important to users. Of course they're going to look false if you get too close but from 1500ft flying VFR they need to look decent.

22 hours ago, DJJose said:

I'm thinking about getting the London Landmarks. Is it a good idea now that an update is coming?

I bought it on day one and I don‘t regret it. I can‘t imagine that the world update will be better than this (except they implement photogrammetry which I doubt). For 6$ it‘s definitely worth it if you fly there from time to time. 

2 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

@ckyliu, as I'm in no rush to buy MFS this discussion is only of academic interest to me. If the sim is being sold on being very close to the real world then there should be a realistic chance that when I look at familiar areas I should recognise them. That was not the case with that video approaching 23R at Manchester.

How it's achieved is immaterial to me as long as performance is decent. How much fps is hit with these landmark addons will be important to users. Of course they're going to look false if you get too close but from 1500ft flying VFR they need to look decent.

I really don't know what you want from MSFS I did a flight from EGNX to my house and it could not be any more real even the 3 trees in my garden are not only there but in the right place. I mean what to you really want? Everything to be perfect and no faults at all? Well its not perfect and its still not for airliners or Concord.

Here are some links to extra work for Manchester if that helps?

https://flightsim.to/file/3749/manchester-p3

https://flightsim.to/file/2152/manchester-uk-photogrammetry-scenery-south-p2

https://flightsim.to/file/2151/manchester-uk-photogrammetry-scenery

https://flightsim.to/file/1390/old-trafford-cricket-ground-manchester-england

Or everything for the UK https://flightsim.to/by-country/GB&sort=downloads

That EGCC is £7 does that stop you buying Gary's in 6 months to a years time To support him Ray?

 

Christopher after reading though his reply's it seems him want to me able to fly a PMDG following Power lines at VFR height's like a 172, well each to there own but why even look into MSFS when PMDG is 1+ year away. Never again I just told myself.

 

Edited November 28, 20205 yr by Nyxx

@Nyxx,I’ll return to debate the merits of MFS when I eventually buy it. No point now since I can only go off the available videos.

48 minutes ago, Nyxx said:

I really don't know what you want from MSFS I did a flight from EGNX to my house and it could not be any more real even the 3 trees in my garden are not only there but in the right place. I mean what to you really want? Everything to be perfect and no faults at all? Well its not perfect and its still not for airliners or Concord.

Here are some links to extra work for Manchester if that helps?

https://flightsim.to/file/3749/manchester-p3

https://flightsim.to/file/2152/manchester-uk-photogrammetry-scenery-south-p2

https://flightsim.to/file/2151/manchester-uk-photogrammetry-scenery

https://flightsim.to/file/1390/old-trafford-cricket-ground-manchester-england

Or everything for the UK https://flightsim.to/by-country/GB&sort=downloads

That EGCC is £7 does that stop you buying Gary's in 6 months to a years time To support him Ray?

 

Christopher after reading though his reply's it seems him want to me able to fly a PMDG following Power lines at VFR height's like a 172, well each to there own but why even look into MSFS when PMDG is 1+ year away. Never again I just told myself.

 

Thanks for these links David. This is a wonderful community.

IMO, if a simmer loves VFR flying, there's nothing that even comes close to this sim and the best part is that you don't even need the latest and greatest computer to run it.