Google and Microsoft are getting users accustomed to the value and ease of use of 3d mapping tools. While these two sides (and others) are battling over better data, they are also setting user expectations about what is possible and what is available. The BBC covered an interesting case in which representatives of a government project in Liverpool complained to Google asking why their rejuvenation efforts in the city were not available in the popular Google Earth applications. Google responded:
A spokeswoman for Google Earth said the site relies on external companies to provide the aerial views.
Now, go and have a look at GetMapping's VFR Photographic Scenery. There is a demo video on the site which flies the viewer around Wales. This is perhaps the most realistic rendering of the earth that I've ever seen. It blows away anything that Google Earth or Microsoft is currently offering. So the real issue isn't really what is possible, but what is available and how much it costs. A personal copy of the GetMapping product is less than $100. You can drop it in to your flight simulator and you're good to go - off to Wales.
Below I've put a couple of screen captures. I managed to create these from Windows Media Player 9 following the instructions found here. Remember these are not photos.
Trust the Scousers to find something to moan about, even in Google Earth.
Certainly Google Maps and Microsoft Virtual Earth will always lag specialist apps that maps specific parts of the world (every time I view London in GE or Virtual Earth I find myself thinking, "why didn't they get the virtual map of London in The Getaway [PS2 game of a few years ago]?". What both apps need is an open way for hobbyists to submit visual data about landmarks. Not to understate the cooleness of the video clip you link to, but generating something that looks realistically like Snowdonia is comparatively easy, because there are no vertical (or overhanging) surfaces, and, frankly, if you get a rock or two wrong, no-one will notice. Rendering Big Ben correctly is more challenging.
Then you need to throw in the fact that urban landscapes are changing all the time - in fact, for certain aspects of urban terrain, it's difficult to say definitively what is permanent and what is transitory (for example, how do you render the big ad screens in Trafalgar Square in London or Times Square in New York?).
So there's still a ways to go. But I get a real Sci-Fi thrill about the prospect (not very many years from now) of a pretty realistic 3D model of the entire planet.
Ian
http://www.liesdamnedlies.com
Posted by: Ian Thomas | December 05, 2006 at 03:39 AM