active Orbx - Rest of UK (MS Flight Sim 2020)

[SirDezzy]

Hi,

 

Are we going to see scenery updates for the rest of the UK from yourselves? I love flying Xplane with the GB addon, MS Flight Sim 2020 has many missing scenery items outside of London, Newcastle Tyne Bridge for example looks shockingly boring as it is at the minute but is perfect in Xplane GB addon.

 

Thanks.

[aero-3fsx]

As Orbx have done for London they may do a landmark package to fill in these missing items. At least the base simulator is so much better than either P3D or Xplane. Orbx took time to work their magic with both these older sims so just give them time and they or someone else will fill at least some of the gaps

[azphilosopher]

I second this suggestion.  While I live in Phoenix, Arizona, my best friends in the world live near Liverpool and the are is simply stunning from the bridges over the Mersey Estuary to the city of Liverpool.  Manchester is real eye candy as well.  I haven't wandered up yet to the Lake District in MSFS but I imagine it's beautiful but generic.  I'll certainly be a customer for an all-England add on.

[EvidencePlz]

2 hours ago, azphilosopher said:

I second this suggestion.  While I live in Phoenix, Arizona, my best friends in the world live near Liverpool and the are is simply stunning from the bridges over the Mersey Estuary to the city of Liverpool.  Manchester is real eye candy as well.  I haven't wandered up yet to the Lake District in MSFS but I imagine it's beautiful but generic.  I'll certainly be a customer for an all-England add on.

 

Hey there,

 

Just chiming in to say I'm in Liverpool as well, only a couple of miles away from EGGP where popular flight sim content creator and ProjectFly founder Matt Davies takes his irl flight lessons. 

 

Coincidentally it was only last week when I was watching Vanina Walsh on youtube doing her first solo flight at Chandler Municipal airport, Arizona.

 

Digital Design did a phenomenal job for EGGP and a large portion of the surrounding areas in the past for one of the past sims (Prepar3D). I 'd like to echo your request to the maestros at Orbx to make a better version of EGGP, Liverpool and the whole UK.

[dtrjones]

Don't forget UK2000 are working very hard on the UK too. I'm sure this will be well served in the next 6-12 months.

 

The London city pack was largely successful so that bodes well for the expansion for the rest of the UK. I can't wait!

[rockliffe]

I am desperately disappointed with 2020 around the south west of England where I live. The Mendip hills are covered with tall trees everywhere, the Chew Valley in north Somerset, is littered with high rise flats, there's no Bristol supsension bridge, no Wells Cathedral in any shape or form. I know it's early days blah blah, but I can't help feeling there's a lot that needs fixing.

[fabs79]

9 hours ago, rockliffe said:

I am desperately disappointed with 2020 around the south west of England where I live. The Mendip hills are covered with tall trees everywhere, the Chew Valley in north Somerset, is littered with high rise flats, there's no Bristol supsension bridge, no Wells Cathedral in any shape or form. I know it's early days blah blah, but I can't help feeling there's a lot that needs fixing.

That's the result when you let an AI algorithm decide where to place vegetation and buildings just from analyzing a flat satellite image. The AI probably sees round green shapes and interprets them as vegetation, but without a database ist doesn't know if those are low level shrubs or 30 metre trees. The true earth scenery use databases for building and tree heights and manual editing of obvious errors. An AI generated scenery that relies solely on the shape and color of things (and maybe a rather incomplete OSM database to go with) will never be as accurate, which is also why all the guys who told everyone that nobody would need Addon scenery anymore were dead wrong. 

[rockliffe]

29 minutes ago, fabs79 said:

That's the result when you let an AI algorithm decide where to place vegetation and buildings just from analyzing a flat satellite image. The AI probably sees round green shapes and interprets them as vegetation, but without a database ist doesn't know if those are low level shrubs or 30 metre trees. The true earth scenery use databases for building and tree heights and manual editing of obvious errors. An AI generated scenery that relies solely on the shape and color of things (and maybe a rather incomplete OSM database to go with) will never be as accurate, which is also why all the guys who told everyone that nobody would need Addon scenery anymore were dead wrong. 

Sure, well, I have to admit at being more impressed with the TrueEarth GB scenery on a flight with my friend's sim than I have been so far with 2020. 

[wain71]

yeah I am just flying south from EGGD and Orbx TE in XP11 does look much better, however if you go out of a TE area MSFS2020 does a much better job than XP.....I do enjoy both but need more addon planes in MSFS........

[Doc_Z]

If you are disappointed with MSFS2020. the best place to complain is the MSFS forums.  They can't fix things if people don't tell them what's wrong.  Complaining on Orbx doesn't help improve a sim (2020) that has major issues.  There is also a MSFS forum on here that would be the best place to talk about it if yo have to do so.

[sidfadc]

On 8/26/2020 at 8:55 AM, rockliffe said:

Sure, well, I have to admit at being more impressed with the TrueEarth GB scenery on a flight with my friend's sim than I have been so far with 2020. 

Yea but difference is MSFS is out of the box no £££ required, except for the base sim.  I would say considering the scope was the whole of the frikkin planet I think the AI is doing a marvelous job of at least giving us something resembling reality outside the 3D cities (which are jaw dropping to be fair).  However I do agree its the little details which the AI can't do, which the seasoned eye homes in on.  I would say all if Orbx stripped out all the POIs seen in True Earth GB and ported to MSFS it would be the perfect match.....

[Dario]

I agree. I think Orbx should port their many amazing UK airports to MSFS, and also do what they did to London, improving the city, to other cities in the UK. Currently, GA airfields should be the priority, IMHO, because the airliners in MSFS are still very unrealistic, while some GA aircraft are quite satisfying to fly with. Pacific Northwest, Oregon, Australia, should also be on the list  I would love to know what is the Orbx roadmap for MSFS. 

[Dario]

On 8/26/2020 at 10:18 AM, wain71 said:

yeah I am just flying south from EGGD and Orbx TE in XP11 does look much better, however if you go out of a TE area MSFS2020 does a much better job than XP.....I do enjoy both but need more addon planes in MSFS........

Yes, we need more planes and more airports. And I agree with you, Wain, to me TE also looks better than MSFS default. 

[flying_fish]

I'm no expert on this, but from what I understand from reading about Blackshark.ai is that only about 2% of the globe has photogrammetric data to allow very accurate representations of buildings (some 400 cities), the other 98% are reconstructed using a 'neural network' (Axure AI from Bing data) for the ground plan and rooftops, and the facade features from textural data related to geographical location, generating some 1.5bn buildings worldwide. The team use people who, for example, have a PH D in roof construction to 'teach' the AI how to interpret the 2D Bing data, so their task is to train the AI algorithm to become increasingly more accurate over time.

 

On 8/25/2020 at 10:49 PM, rockliffe said:

I know it's early days blah blah, but I can't help feeling there's a lot that needs fixing.

 

The SW of England I guess is constructed using the latter method, and that is why for those who know it (Chew Valley is a favourite fishing destination for me) you are right, not all is well with the Mendips!

 

I believe Orbx (and other third party developers) use autogen which is partly automatic and partly hand placed, plus numerous 'hand made' POI's. I would imagine that it's very labour intensive.

At the moment, therefore we have two very different means of creating 3D buildings, and developers are (it seems to me) having to use the former technology to embellish the latter. 

 

 

So if we are asking for our neighbourhoods to be made more accurate it seems to me that we either get very small/medium geographical areas hand-done by 3rd party developers using the former technology, or AI has to 'learn' to construct buildings that are closer to reality. Presumably this means much more data to be available to the 'neural network and texture engines.

Blackshark.ai's CEO Michale Putz has said "there’s no other way to tackle this challenge because outsourcing to hand-model 1.5 billion buildings is, just from a logistical level and also budget level, not doable".

 

My question would be this: will 3rd party developers have access to the technology that allows the latest AI methods (presumably by developing with a company like Blackshark.ai) or will the data costs or other constraints prohibit this, and we are left with a situation where only small areas get developed beyond the default using autogen and hand modelled POI's?

 

On 8/26/2020 at 8:26 AM, fabs79 said:

all the guys who told everyone that nobody would need Addon scenery anymore were dead wrong

Asobo have always said that other developers will be needed to add 'fine detail and accuracy'  so yes, that was one of the many myths about MSFS. 

 

Presumably the 'I' in 'AI' means that the technology will learn to improve, and  that given some extra inputs the 3D models get better. Maybe the future for 3rd party Devs is to find a way of providing that extra data the AI needs for a region, and the local knowledge to add POI's and VFR's etc as well as airport data so that we get add-ons using the new methodology.

I think the blocky autogen that doesn't sit properly on sloped ground or on it's footprint has served us well, but now with the new AI technology things may move in a different direction.

 

There's a very informative Article on Blackshark that goes into much more detail about how the 3D world is generated, and explains the challenges well.

 

Reference ICYMI: https://blackshark.ai/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Blackshark.ai-Flight-Simulator-Announcement.pdf

[aero-3fsx]

I am sure Blackshark are open to ideas on how they can improve their software

Contact them

[JoseCFII]

On 8/26/2020 at 3:55 AM, rockliffe said:

TrueEarth GB scenery

Some people wonder why I'm so tough on MSFS and why I can't accept what was released. But, when you are used to flying with A2A or PMDG aircraft in the Orbx TE & quality airports along with AS & Sky Force, anything less is going to be a disappointment.

[BigThie]

You are comparing MSFS to heavily modified P3D/FSX, so of course there will be areas where MSFS falls short... for now. All those products or similar ones will be landing in the next couple of years for MSFS to bring it up to a level we have never seen before. If you really expected stock MSFS to come with study level airplanes and terrain comparable to TrueEarth in areas where MSFS does not have photogrammetry, then your expectations were not realistic.

 

I think there is plenty of opportunity for Orbx to help fill some of these gaps and I'm looking forward to it.

[gtsqr]

SW England, especially anywhere coastal, is a bit grim. 

 

The Channel Islands are another one. Sark in this is flat whereas in reality it's a few hundred feet up. None of the others look like they have the right, or any, topography either. 

 

Since Orbx own Earth Simulations info I'm hoping they come up with something special. I was just looking at the Isles of Scilly by them and the detail is seriously impressive even if it's old school looking. In MSFS that's mainly tower blocks right now.