MSFS competition from Google?

[Geofa 108]

Well I am a no autogen runner of fsx so the improvement shouldn't be as a result of lack of autogen on my rig at least.I haven't checked the Yahoo flight sim how it uses Hd drive storage-you have me curious now! :-)http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpgForum Moderatorhttp://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/

[bkircher 0]

i could easily see google doing a fs. that would be great to have some competition in the fs industry!! i dont think it is going to be to long before google adds on their new fs

[boshar 6]

>Hi All,>>How does this look when the snow falls? Oh, that's right, one>season only.>>What happens in areas where the Google textures are black and>white? Oh, that's right, just have to wait for Google.>>How is the night lighting? Oh, that's right, noon lighting>only.>>Wonder how to get boat and carrier traffic in this.>>Sorry all, no competition here.> >Jim>>http://www.hifisim.com/banners/hifi-community-sigbanner.jpg>http://www.hifisim.com/Now thats a bit harsh.This simplistic Google flightsim easter egg has high res photoscenery for the US and Europe. I don't know their total coverage for the world but its huge. The high res photo's also have houses,cars and boats (sure its static flat 2d but they are there). Compare that to the token traffic we have in the FS series. The world is detailed has unbelievable amounts of tree's, houses, boats, cars and people in it. Our FS world is like a little doolhouse with token occupants we are nowhere near the realworld in FS. Until now people have been raving about attempts to get FS scenery out of Google Earth (tileproxy, Aerosoft Luxemburg scenery). Now we can make recreational sightseeing flights in Googel Earth itself and its nothing major?This tool gives us a look at what is possible in a future FS. Maybe it can act as an incentive to ACES to do something major in the FS series (I'm sick of the evolutionairy baby steps we are making now).

[JiBrady 20]

Although I have checked the box for "joy stick", mine does not work? What do I need to do to get my joy stick to work? I was able to get the mouse to function, just not my joystick.jim

[LAdamson 240]

It's the future! And without cartoonish autogen subdivisions!!!Smooth motion, kind of like X-Plane running at high fps.Very good detail, including topography mesh, where Google has high resolution pics.Yep, as the database builds, it's the high tech future unless your flight simming totally consist's of watching a panel for the OBS to align... :-hahL.Adamson

[nateanderson 1]

Thanks for posting this. Very interesting. It even worked with most of the default controls on my X52. And 63fps no less. And SLOPED RUNWAYS!Considering this is an undocumented Easter egg which is the personal toy of some programmer at Google, I'd say we have seen the edge of the future in flight sim scenery.Obviously there are lots of details to work out such as higher res mesh, seasons, surface types and 3d scenery. At this point, I can't imagine Google messing around with a full-fledged flight sim, but would love to see MS or a scenery designer make an agreement with Google.We'll have to wait and see where this leads.Ben

[Guest Mike707]

I wonder if this is something that third party freeware or payware developers can enhance. Any thoughts?

[jrhoads 6]

Yes, I have lots of thoughts...:( Like I said earlier (and I will expound) "any" competition is very good. Any.If you are "normal" It will keep you on your toes, it will make you dig deeper, It will make you strive harder, and hopefully it will make you less complacent and less self serving.Something every one of us needs....Jim

[acmem 0]

With all due respect, it is a long shot from being a workable flight simulator to the likes of MSFS. Talking about blurries, flat land, super blurred tiles in the immediate surrounding etc. It was just something some bored coder at Google Earth did to buy time.Neat indeed but come on guys. Until, like some said earlier, we can map seasons, buildings in the right places, tress, traffic, seasons and load a lot more tiles at once to avoid such horrible blurries, I

[LAdamson 240]

> Each new MSFS has>just been a stolen compilation of third party add-ons from the>past version. >"Stolen"? Why would you say that?In the first place, it's third parties that depend on MSFS for a platform to build on. Without it, they go nowhere, unless they have a few extra million for a partial investment in a new sim. It's also a fact that many third party software designers are invited into the beta process year after year.Personally, I don't believe you have a clue of what you're saying; by using the term "stolen".L.Adamson

[n4gix 4,947]

>> Each new MSFS has>>just been a stolen compilation of third party add-ons from>the>>past version. >>>>"Stolen"? Why would you say that?>>In the first place, it's third parties that depend on MSFS for>a platform to build on. Without it, they go nowhere, unless>they have a few extra million for a partial investment in a>new sim. It's also a fact that many third party software>designers are invited into the beta process year after year.>>Personally, I don't believe you have a clue of what you're>saying; by using the term "stolen".Larry, further evidence to the above was this paragraph:"I don

[Geofa 108]

Yeah-talk about blurries. There is my house-a pile of woodchips on the edge of the driveway-and me actually spreading them along with one of my cars in the driveway and of course a house that looks like my house and all the neighbors looking like the neighbors along with every exact tree placed where it should be.Just like fsx autogen databases-except I get lego looking churches and office buildings, non real trees and placement, a lake with shorelines that doesn't match, and roads that don't match..beauty of course is in the eye of the beholder...I'll take this any day. Even the driveways are correct-now there is a future add in!-fsx driveways-maybe even fsx docks, fsx lake plankton/lake shadows?, fsx cut/non cut grass, fsx sheds and cars in the driveway.fsx pools (inground and above ground)-lots of databases to fill reality, perform more calculations, and bog the sim down! :-lolOr simple reality...at least on the day it was taken.http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpgForum Moderatorhttp://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/177552.jpg

[bkeske 0]

While I think this is interesting, as is TileProxy, there is a lot of limitations with this.As has been said, the images are static from a patchwork of satellite 'photos' that have no ability of changing of season, some areas are sharp and focused, and some are not. Some color, some not. Some even have clouds that are in the way of the scenery. In addition, much of the resources and tools to create the 'mesh' are similar to what are already being used to create mesh by well known FS third party designers, and MS themselves. Same can be said of landclass projects, and yes, photoreal sceneries. In other words, much of the data that is used to create this are also being implemented into FS today. The reason it is not used in this raw form is the static nature of this raw imagery as compared to the variables that FS provides us today.That is where folks like HiFi Simulations, FSGenesis, ScenryTech, Scenery Solutions, Ground Environment, etc etc etc come to our rescue by implementing much of this data into FS today.Why are we trying to find an answer to something that is already being done within a program that already exist, and does a fine job already? And if you don't like 'cartoon' autogen, turn it off. It will only be a matter of time before the third party designers start to create alternatives for those who wish to have them. It was done in FS9, and it will happen in FSX also. Some have already begun the journey into making FSX even better than 'out of the box', and is available to us today. Interesting? Yes. The answer to going out and getting your private ticket? No. If that is what you want, go for it. The real thing is out there ready to be tackled by anyone with the time, health, and monetary means. Other than that, there will always be limitations to a simulation that only costs $50-70 and add-ons that can run you a couple hundred bucks more. But it is still cheaper than the real deal.I'm pretty happy with Flight Sim, even with its limitations.

[acmem 0]

Bill Leaming and L.Adamson,Oh freaking come on, I used

[Guest cwright]

Your shot illustrates perfectly the problem created by high resolution textures with no autogen: the houses look as if they have been flattened by a huge steamroller!Ironically this 'steamroller effect' makes autogen actually more essential if you're flying, like me, low and slow.Best regards, Chris