Microsoft Flight Simulator 2020
Discussion
FourWheelDrift said:
kowalski655 said:
"See how amazing it is to fly over the beauty that is Naples, or Barcelona, or Zurich, or err..Southampton 
Notice it was a dull day over Southampton 
This is what impresses me, the classic Barcelona block, it would have been so easy to copy and past just a few versions but every one is different not just the textures but the shapes (roof top levels).
Which makes me think the accuracy of others will also be very good, no generic buildings. I wonder how they will deal with towns and villages, will you be able to see your own house properly?
Which makes me think the accuracy of others will also be very good, no generic buildings. I wonder how they will deal with towns and villages, will you be able to see your own house properly?
Google have spent millions laser scanning the major cities in the world. In fact not just cities but a lot of towns too.
They seem to increase the resolution every few years.
For example at my house I can see a blob on my kitchen window ledge that is a small spray bottle with some water in it. It can only be 20cm tall. 3 years ago cars were just blobs.
Then of course they have a "satellite" photo of every building too which means they can easily overlay on the mesh - its getting pretty incredible the level of detail now. Trees are the only thing they are struggling with due to the fuzzy nature of them but buildings are a doddle.
They seem to increase the resolution every few years.
For example at my house I can see a blob on my kitchen window ledge that is a small spray bottle with some water in it. It can only be 20cm tall. 3 years ago cars were just blobs.
Then of course they have a "satellite" photo of every building too which means they can easily overlay on the mesh - its getting pretty incredible the level of detail now. Trees are the only thing they are struggling with due to the fuzzy nature of them but buildings are a doddle.
This'll be using BING maps of course, not Google, because Microsoft. Low level imagery is done by aircraft rather than satellite, it switches over at certain zoom levels.
AIUI, it is procedurally creating buildings in the right place, but they won't necesarilly look exactly right. Xplane 11 does something similar, there's a house where my house is, but it is procedurally created, not an image of my house. Here, that stuff will all be done in the cloud and streamed down. Presumably that'll let them reuse a load of static stuff and apply lighting/weather effects dynamically.
AIUI, it is procedurally creating buildings in the right place, but they won't necesarilly look exactly right. Xplane 11 does something similar, there's a house where my house is, but it is procedurally created, not an image of my house. Here, that stuff will all be done in the cloud and streamed down. Presumably that'll let them reuse a load of static stuff and apply lighting/weather effects dynamically.
CrutyRammers said:
This'll be using BING maps of course, not Google, because Microsoft. Low level imagery is done by aircraft rather than satellite, it switches over at certain zoom levels.
AIUI, it is procedurally creating buildings in the right place, but they won't necesarilly look exactly right. Xplane 11 does something similar, there's a house where my house is, but it is procedurally created, not an image of my house. Here, that stuff will all be done in the cloud and streamed down. Presumably that'll let them reuse a load of static stuff and apply lighting/weather effects dynamically.
Yep.AIUI, it is procedurally creating buildings in the right place, but they won't necesarilly look exactly right. Xplane 11 does something similar, there's a house where my house is, but it is procedurally created, not an image of my house. Here, that stuff will all be done in the cloud and streamed down. Presumably that'll let them reuse a load of static stuff and apply lighting/weather effects dynamically.
"Assets will not only include all of our planet’s 197 million square miles of land and water, but more than 2 million cities and over 40,000 individual airports. To achieve this, developers at Asobo Studio are tapping directly into Microsoft’s Bing Maps dataset. Flight Simulator will draw from two of the service’s three available petabytes of geographical information. That includes satellite imagery and 3D photogrammetry data, with some resolutions down to just three centimeters."
https://www.polygon.com/2019/9/30/20885197/microso...
FourWheelDrift said:
This is what impresses me, the classic Barcelona block, it would have been so easy to copy and past just a few versions but every one is different not just the textures but the shapes (roof top levels).
Which makes me think the accuracy of others will also be very good, no generic buildings. I wonder how they will deal with towns and villages, will you be able to see your own house properly?
Which makes me think the accuracy of others will also be very good, no generic buildings. I wonder how they will deal with towns and villages, will you be able to see your own house properly?
The detail looks spot on on the approach to Southampton (10:24 into the Cities video to see a better view). The houses have the correct styles, different roads have different looking houses and things like trampolines and messy gardens are very clear.
ETA Ground level view of 3 houses just down from where the bright red car is parked.
Edited by chow pan toon on Tuesday 19th November 14:34
CrutyRammers said:
This'll be using BING maps of course, not Google, because Microsoft. Low level imagery is done by aircraft rather than satellite, it switches over at certain zoom levels.
AIUI, it is procedurally creating buildings in the right place, but they won't necesarilly look exactly right. Xplane 11 does something similar, there's a house where my house is, but it is procedurally created, not an image of my house. Here, that stuff will all be done in the cloud and streamed down. Presumably that'll let them reuse a load of static stuff and apply lighting/weather effects dynamically.
No! Because its not Google!AIUI, it is procedurally creating buildings in the right place, but they won't necesarilly look exactly right. Xplane 11 does something similar, there's a house where my house is, but it is procedurally created, not an image of my house. Here, that stuff will all be done in the cloud and streamed down. Presumably that'll let them reuse a load of static stuff and apply lighting/weather effects dynamically.
LimaDelta said:
My big concern for this is the bandwidth I expect will be required to see the decent scenery. Not sure if my 10Mb-on-a-good-day rural broadband will cope.
Happy to be proven wrong of course.
Odd that all of the Youtube comments are about computer specs but not internet specs. I'll be downloading my local patch if it is super demanding so I can fly a 747 a few above my local Lidl. Happy to be proven wrong of course.
If this gets VR for sure I'll probably never leave it.
Mind being to think it's come to this when I remember gasping in astonishment flying my 'Apache' between a few green lines that were supposed to be a mountain range on my dad's Amstrad.
bloomen said:
If this gets VR for sure I'll probably never leave it.
That's the other thing. I don't understand why this is not VR from the outset. I have recently made the jump to VR for XP11 and DCS and there is no way I can imagine going back to a small screen now. It just ruins the whole immersion aspect. Everything just feels that much more 'real' with VR.LimaDelta said:
bloomen said:
If this gets VR for sure I'll probably never leave it.
That's the other thing. I don't understand why this is not VR from the outset. I have recently made the jump to VR for XP11 and DCS and there is no way I can imagine going back to a small screen now. It just ruins the whole immersion aspect. Everything just feels that much more 'real' with VR.Sim games typically have a high cost of entry when you start looking at peripherals etc. and it's not like they're targeted at the casual gamer.
The difference between a flat screen, or frankly even if there were 9 flat screens in a big dome, compared to VR is night and day in terms of immersion. Quite simply as far as your silly brain is concerned, you ARE there.
A friend hadn't tried VR so wanted to have a go on a flat screen first, I had a quick lap after him out of curiosity (as I've not used it since having VR) and for want of a better phrase, it felt like a toy, like I was playing a game and made being sat in a racing seat with wheel and pedals looking at a TV feel a bit ridiculous.
Put VR on again and you're in a car, other cars are car sized, I never used to race with AI, much preferred driving / lapping by myself, but since having VR I always drive with AI cars on, just because it's so fun having actual real cars around you, I really can't articulate just how much better it is.
If you get your kicks out of flying a plane, I can only imagine how much better that will be if you are actually sat in the bloody cockpit and can stand up and look down over the nose at the approaching Lidl / neighbour's house etc.
SturdyHSV said:
I'm more of a driving sim man myself, although used to enjoy A10 Cuba and F16 Fighting Falcon back when I was much younger, and totally agree. Any game purporting to be a 'sim' really should target VR support as a must-have.
Sim games typically have a high cost of entry when you start looking at peripherals etc. and it's not like they're targeted at the casual gamer.
The difference between a flat screen, or frankly even if there were 9 flat screens in a big dome, compared to VR is night and day in terms of immersion. Quite simply as far as your silly brain is concerned, you ARE there.
A friend hadn't tried VR so wanted to have a go on a flat screen first, I had a quick lap after him out of curiosity (as I've not used it since having VR) and for want of a better phrase, it felt like a toy, like I was playing a game and made being sat in a racing seat with wheel and pedals looking at a TV feel a bit ridiculous.
Put VR on again and you're in a car, other cars are car sized, I never used to race with AI, much preferred driving / lapping by myself, but since having VR I always drive with AI cars on, just because it's so fun having actual real cars around you, I really can't articulate just how much better it is.
If you get your kicks out of flying a plane, I can only imagine how much better that will be if you are actually sat in the bloody cockpit and can stand up and look down over the nose at the approaching Lidl / neighbour's house etc.
I’ve only got laptops and iPads and an Xbox but I’ve got an oculus quest.Sim games typically have a high cost of entry when you start looking at peripherals etc. and it's not like they're targeted at the casual gamer.
The difference between a flat screen, or frankly even if there were 9 flat screens in a big dome, compared to VR is night and day in terms of immersion. Quite simply as far as your silly brain is concerned, you ARE there.
A friend hadn't tried VR so wanted to have a go on a flat screen first, I had a quick lap after him out of curiosity (as I've not used it since having VR) and for want of a better phrase, it felt like a toy, like I was playing a game and made being sat in a racing seat with wheel and pedals looking at a TV feel a bit ridiculous.
Put VR on again and you're in a car, other cars are car sized, I never used to race with AI, much preferred driving / lapping by myself, but since having VR I always drive with AI cars on, just because it's so fun having actual real cars around you, I really can't articulate just how much better it is.
If you get your kicks out of flying a plane, I can only imagine how much better that will be if you are actually sat in the bloody cockpit and can stand up and look down over the nose at the approaching Lidl / neighbour's house etc.
Your post totally makes me want to buy a gaming pc.
El stovey said:
I’ve only got laptops and iPads and an Xbox but I’ve got an oculus quest.
Your post totally makes me want to buy a gaming pc.
There are some beefy laptops out there. I travel a lot, so only have my (Aorus x7v7) laptop. It is still slim form (not a fan of 3" thick laptops) but has an 8Gb 1070 which is more than enough for running VR at half-decent graphics levels.Your post totally makes me want to buy a gaming pc.
Narcisus said:
I've just put a new machine together but last time I looksed at VR stuff they were slow with low res sceens and cost a fortune.
Whats the latest ?
Resolution still isn't going to compete with a 4k monitor, and it's possibly in a flight sim where reading small gauges at a glance etc. is essential that perhaps it wouldn't be up to it yet, I've not had a go on any of the newer headsets, I have an Oculus CV1 and use an old 970GTX to play Assetto Corsa mainly, so by no means cutting edge hardware.Whats the latest ?
In terms of the motion sickness, there's a few things to consider. Firstly, for me vertical movement and going backwards were initially the only bits that felt a bit uncomfortable, or rather, it caused a sort of mental dissonance where my brain sort of complained that it didn't like what it saw but hadn't felt...
There's a lock to horizon setting in most driving games (which wouldn't work in a flight sim
) that makes the car movement infinitely more natural and comfortable, and then in addition it is just a case of getting your VR legs. There's a few FPS that again take a bit of getting used to, especially rotation / strafing whilst looking around etc. but personally with regularly shortish periods of exposure it is now absolutely fine.A few friends have tried it and even on a first go the worst only had an issue after about 20 minutes (at Brands Hatch no less, so a bit unfair) and another was absolutely fine for about an hour or so and then suddenly it hit him. I would be pretty confident with regular exposure it'd pass.
Do not try Dirt Rally as your first VR experience, that is a hell of a ride
i think generally the concensus is if you get motion sickness, don't try and fight through it as that'll have a far longer lasting effect than if you just stop for 15 minutes or so at the first sign of it and then go back in, you'll progressively build up familiarity. There are also plenty of fairly stationary games to get used to being in VR and moving about a bit without actually moving.
I've only tried one aerial game which was just in a futuristic craft that you were flying around amongst a rainy city as a tech demo. Even with my VR legs, the pitch and roll triggered the same sort of mental dissonance, it didn't cause any sickness but it would take a bit of getting used to to be 100% comfortable, and definitely first time in VR that would have been challenging!
Personally I'd say it's worth it, for sim usage with peripherals, there really is nothing like it, it sounds Matrixy but you really can't be shown what VR is like, you have to experience it yourself, the closest approximation I can say is that it's not LIKE you're there, you ARE there, and for something like sim racing (or flight sims, anything cockpit based) for me it renders screens etc. totally obsolete in terms of immersion.
ash73 said:
I use a TrackIR headset, you just move your head slightly while keeping your eyes on the monitor and it amplifies your movements and looks around. Probably not as immersive as VR but it can be used with any standard PC and screen.
https://youtu.be/Ib10dW3uUrA?t=428
Yeah i've had 3 TrackIR's... I seem to keep them about a year then sell them on then think it would be a good idea to have onother mainly for DCS.https://youtu.be/Ib10dW3uUrA?t=428
I think it's wearing the hat that ultimatley p##### me off.
Narcisus said:
ash73 said:
I use a TrackIR headset, you just move your head slightly while keeping your eyes on the monitor and it amplifies your movements and looks around. Probably not as immersive as VR but it can be used with any standard PC and screen.
https://youtu.be/Ib10dW3uUrA?t=428
Yeah i've had 3 TrackIR's... I seem to keep them about a year then sell them on then think it would be a good idea to have onother mainly for DCS.https://youtu.be/Ib10dW3uUrA?t=428
I think it's wearing the hat that ultimatley p##### me off.
As for VR induced motion sickness, this has never been a problem for me, but some people I've had test out my headset have had to stop after as little as 5 minutes. I guess it is just down to what you are used to.
ash73 said:
I use a TrackIR headset, you just move your head slightly while keeping your eyes on the monitor and it amplifies your movements and looks around. Probably not as immersive as VR but it can be used with any standard PC and screen.
https://youtu.be/Ib10dW3uUrA?t=428
That's what I use, perfect for racing games and Elite Dangerous as you don't need to look around any further than the Track sensor range allows you.https://youtu.be/Ib10dW3uUrA?t=428
ash73 said:
The version I use has three LEDs on a boom which clips to a headset.
The only problem I had was having to press the re-centre button quite frequently.
Yeah thats the pro version isnt it ? I was always too tight to spend the extra lol ! Probably would have been cheaper in the long run...The only problem I had was having to press the re-centre button quite frequently.
Gassing Station | Video Games | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff