do you guys fly with Bing Data World Graphics ON and photogrammetry on? or one or the other?

thanks

mike

I have both on. While photogrammetry is a matter of taste I guess, Bing Data World Graphics is indispensable for me. It‘s one of the main reasons the scenery looks that good. Without it, MSFS looks like FSX. 

Edited July 7, 20214 yr by Shack95

1 hour ago, mikeymike said:

do you guys fly with Bing Data World Graphics ON and photogrammetry on? or one or the other?

thanks

mike

Bing Data World Graphics is what MSF is all about. Having it off doesn't make sense. ON

Photogrammetry is extremely nice but a little rich for my old jalopy's blood. OFF

3 hours ago, Shack95 said:

I have both on. While photogrammetry is a matter of taste I guess, Bing Data World Graphics is indispensable for me. It‘s one of the main reasons the scenery looks that good. Without it, MSFS looks like FSX. 

Plus, it's not only the satellite imagery. Orthos alone look very bad when you get close to the ground - but the way MSFS combines it with fitting texture masks and objects (like grass) makes it a joy to fly VFR. Also the other objects like houses or trees blend in very well. They don't look artificially placed.

The only thing I don't really like, is the contrast with which streets are overlayed sometimes. It stands out too much.

Plus the offline scenery could be much better.

 

9 hours ago, mikeymike said:

do you guys fly with Bing Data World Graphics ON and photogrammetry on? or one or the other?

thanks

mike

You need bing world graphics on to use Photogrammetry, so it's either both off or just world graphics on.

5 hours ago, tweekz said:

The only thing I don't really like, is the contrast with which streets are overlayed sometimes. It stands out too much.

completele agree. I wish we could disable they overlays or that they‘d implement better street textures, but that might be tricky.

On 6/22/2021 at 10:30 PM, styckx said:

Yeah. Was wondering this myself.

In Philadelphia the Comcast Technology Center (a 1,121ft 60 story skyscraper) was completed in 2018 (started in 2014) yet in game it's not even so much as under construction and still a parking lot. Kinda weird looking at your home city and seeing a giant piece of infrastructure that is 3 years old  missing. 

https://flightsim.to/file/7694/downtown-philadelphia-usa

32 minutes ago, Shack95 said:

completele agree. I wish we could disable they overlays or that they‘d implement better street textures, but that might be tricky.

Or maybe just fade those road overlays out to the side?

43 minutes ago, jpe828 said:

https://flightsim.to/file/7694/downtown-philadelphia-usa

Yeah I've known about it. 

1. It's a burden as it's gigantic (nearly 1gb) and unoptimized. Doubles loading times 

2. It's not well done. You can clearly see color differences between what it covers and default Asobo. It doesn't blend in at all. This was done in the early days when everyone and their sister were just ripping Google maps with no color correction or optimizing 

1 hour ago, styckx said:

Yeah I've known about it. 

1. It's a burden as it's gigantic (nearly 1gb) and unoptimized. Doubles loading times 

2. It's not well done. You can clearly see color differences between what it covers and default Asobo. It doesn't blend in at all. This was done in the early days when everyone and their sister were just ripping Google maps with no color correction or optimizing 

I didn't find that at all. Yes it is large... but that's fine. Yes, it takes awhile to load. I thought it looks good. His NYC ones even better. YMMV

5 hours ago, jpe828 said:

I didn't find that at all. I thought it looks good. 

 

I don't know how you can't un-see this. It's clear the developer just dragged and dropped a gigantic section from Google and copied it in place as is. It's ugly and you can't unsee how hastily done this was. There was zero effort to blend it in. It looks awful.. 

Literally anyone seeing this, even not from the area could look at this and see the problem.  It's terrible. Even as freeware I wouldn't dare release this.. It's simply trash..  It doesn't matter if it's free. Bad is bad price tag or not

Edited July 7, 20214 yr by styckx

I think when I flew by, the lighting wasn't as vivid... didn't look so bad. That does not look great. 

Most of what is called "satellite" imagery is actually aerial photography from aircraft.  Though heaps of people will argue till they are blue in the face that photogrammetry is really from "satellites" it just is not.

Which is why this stuff is often out of date, it is not just a case of downloading the latest imagery from some satellite floating around up there, you need to contract someone to re-fly the aerial photography.

here is an example of a dedicated DA42 aerial photography aircraft:

 

Edited July 8, 20214 yr by Glenn Fitzpatrick

3 hours ago, Glenn Fitzpatrick said:

Here is an example of a dedicated DA42 aerial photography aircraft:

Well then, that's the answer.  With all of the thousands of MSFS simmers, if we all had one of those in the sim we could cover the whole world in high detail in no time! 

2 hours ago, bobcat999 said:

With all of the thousands of MSFS simmers, if we all had one of those in the sim we could cover the whole world in high detail in no time! 

Considering that the huge majority flies in the same places where they live all the time, we would end up with the same regional difference in quality. 😉