5 hours ago, Nate1 said:

It is really bad - significantly sub XP, or FSX default.

 

 

Really under FSX or XP default??? Did you see these cities in default FSX or XP? 🙂. OK, it's not so good, as can be, but much more better, than FSX or XP default.

Edited August 4, 20205 yr by ludekbrno

4 hours ago, B777ER said:

Still think N.E. is enough or better?? I told you the P3D night lighting looks ancient compared to MSFS.

It depends. Those low altitude screenshots really looks good. But in my eyes sometimes overdone  compared to reality. Like Orbx has overdone the TE lighting.

And what I don’t like at all, a bit off topic, are cars on the Bing maps. And then AI cars driving over them. Day and Night. 

At higher altitude I do not know how MSFS looks but N.E. then looks like in reality.

But being a total new sim it looks very good 

 

 

Edited August 4, 20205 yr by GSalden

2 hours ago, Der Zeitgeist said:

You will find that smaller towns often look more convincing than larger cities, simply because there's less opportunity for the AI to misinterpret some well-known landmark or building that everyone then complains about.

And these particular landmarks will be one area where I suspect a huge "army" of amateur third party developers will get to work on as soon as the SDK is released.

This really hits the nail pretty well, IMHO. 

To set things in perspective, take any of the cities in the clip and compare to naked FSX/P3D/XP.

Kind regards, Michael

4 hours ago, ludekbrno said:

Really under FSX or XP default??? Did you see these cities in default FSX or XP? 🙂. OK, it's not so good, as can be, but much more better, than FSX or XP default.

Ok I might have overstated this 🙂

From memory, both defaults had Canary Wharf, St Pauls, etc. The former really being a big part of the EGLC approach.

Admittedly I use ORBX TE in XP, which is way ahead of the MSFS offering. I think it will be a shame if we have to pay for decent scenery for London, when (for example) Gulfport, Mississippi will have photogrammetry. So I'm hoping Asobo/Bing have something up their sleeves.

5 hours ago, Der Zeitgeist said:

No.

See, that's what people don't get. With cities that don't have photogrammetry, the AI that generates the autogen doesn't care if a town is big or small, or if it is London, Baghdad, or Wolverhampton. It always works the same, and the quality is determined by the quality of the data on Bing maps

I know this, I'm simply pointing out that Bing Maps data coverage is not universal, there are many places where it is incomplete. Asia, Africa and part of South America in particular lack the coverage necessary for it to work accurately. It's good, but it's not magic.

See the list on this wiki page for a reasonably up-to-date list of places covered. There are lots of places which have limited data, and they're not all in the middle of nowhere:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bing_Maps

Helsinki did not look good, mostly grass and gravel roads.

1 hour ago, Ixoye said:

Helsinki did not look good, mostly grass and gravel roads.

He flew right over my home and I was impressed how easy it was to recognise the streets and buildings that are very familiar to me. Not perfect of course but he also flew way way lower than you normally would.