Bing Maps vs Google Maps: Put to the test.
This topic comes up fairly regularly on this subreddit:
Which really is better, Google Maps or Bing Maps?
People seems to have their own strong opinions, as do I, so how about we do some random test to see if we can determine an unbiased answer?
So I've used this website:
https://www.random.org/geographic-coordinates/
To pick random places on the planet (excluding ocean) which I'll then zoom in on with both Bing and Google to see which is superior.
I've picked 10 locations and compared image fidelity and color quality by eye to try and determine which would give a better result if used in MSFS. So here are the results:
-
Latitude: 15.67594, Longitude: 79.16208
Google: https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@15.6759452,79.1598913,1113m/data=!3m1!1e3
Bing: https://maps.windows.com/?form=WNAMSH&collection=point.15.67594_79.162079_15.67594%2C%2079.16208
Winner: Bing
2) Latitude: 44.295730, Longitude: 108.187640
https://goo.gl/maps/LZva49whawb76hjB8
https://maps.windows.com/?form=WNAMSH&collection=point.44.295731_108.187637_44.29573%2C%20108.18764
Winner: Draw
3) Latitude: 26.32519, Longitude: 98.53714
https://goo.gl/maps/Fy3KR55KBmgcUrBE9
https://maps.windows.com/?form=WNAMSH&collection=point.26.32519_98.53714_26.32519%2C%2098.53714
Winner: Bing (with a caveat)
Comment: Scroll a little to the left and Bing's map quality plumments to the same as Google Maps but as this test is about picking only random spots, the prize has to go with Bing.
4) Latitude: 23.88081, Longitude: -13.45534
https://goo.gl/maps/ZqGYCWVJocFwou4GA
https://maps.windows.com/?form=WNAMSH&collection=point.23.88081_-13.45534_23.88081%2C%20-13.45534
Winner: Google.
Comment: Whilst the fidelity of both is similar, Google's clearly has more color detail.
5) Latitude: 66.15975, Longitude: 56.09841
https://goo.gl/maps/ZFWNRr6xuFZ9xNbK6
https://maps.windows.com/?form=WNAMSH&collection=point.66.159752_56.098412_66.15975%2C%2056.09841
Winner: Marginal Google
Comment: Both are very low quality with Google having a very subtle edge.
6) Latitude: 6.86758, Longitude: -7.53936
https://goo.gl/maps/LPpKHVfLkQ26UaFf6
https://maps.windows.com/?form=WNAMSH&collection=point.6.86758_-7.53936_6.86758%2C%20-7.53936
Winner: Draw
7) Latitude: 34.66837, Longitude: -100.32075
https://goo.gl/maps/nD56jKPGKVShu4Jz8
Winner: Google
Comment; At full zoom level on Google Maps I can make out individual rocks on the ground where Bing is a blur.
8) Latitude: 44.52744, Longitude: 38.32942
https://goo.gl/maps/NX6QqoQodiojnWsn9
https://maps.windows.com/?form=WNAMSH&collection=point.44.527439_38.329418_44.52744%2C%2038.32942
Winner: marginal Bing
9) Latitude: -31.85913, Longitude: 122.40563
https://goo.gl/maps/DJjZzbhr5ABJAAp56
Winner: marginal Bing
Comment: Color quality is superior for Bing
10) Latitude: 53.89050, Longitude: -115.58705
https://goo.gl/maps/8BXsxMSD6FPCBuzG9
https://maps.windows.com/?form=WNAMSH&collection=point.53.890499_-115.587051_53.8905%2C%20-115.58705
Winner: marginal Bing
Conclusion:
It's actually a tough call so far and really need to do more tests but on the basis of the above tests I'd give the edge to Bing. But really there's surprisingly less in it for this comparison than I was expecting. I had Google Maps down as far superior but it's not as clear cut as I expected.
A fair caveat to add here is that these random locations are all pretty remote. Whilst that's a good test for people that like Bush flying, for those that like city detail this probably needs a different test.
What are your thoughts? Feel free to add your own random lat,long tests in the comments.
Sort by:
Best
Open comment sort options
Best
Top
New
Controversial
Old
Q&A
![r/MicrosoftFlightSim - Release Notes - Sim Update 15 [1.37.18.0] Available Now](https://b.thumbs.redditmedia.com/0Ed1Ggz0Lchr8dZtiGzdr5AvLb-HOzi_HsxDXIPTo1E.jpg)
The way I understood the discussion, what people are hinting at primarily is Google having orders of magnitude more photogrammetric 3D cities.
This is my main gripe. I love the tech, but thought they would at least have photogrammetry for the largest cities in Japan. Maybe they couldn't be bothered because they know they won't sell xboxes here.
Bridges and water in general also need work.
That said, cruising around the countryside at 5000ft+ is an amazing experience. I imagine it will just keep getting better over time.
There is that but there has been plenty of diffusion on general image quality also. Since a tiny fraction of the planet has 3D data, the rest of what we see is highly dependent on the aerial imagery used.
On that note... has anyone ever compared the visual quality of Google's vs. Microsoft's 3D cities? At first glance they look about on par, but I never compared them directly.
Yes, but image quality and depth is far more important when trying to use A.I. to generate buildings. In my city it doesn't even have our football stadium (30K seats) while in Google Maps I can even watch it in 3D in Google Maps.
yea but you don't really fly around low altitude in the middle of nowhere , the most concentrated areas of flight are cities and Google maps beats Bing maps hands down and by miles in good looking and accurate 3D cities
I did make that point in my post. However many people like to bush fly and explore the vast expanses of the planet leaving the cities far behind. You're really restricting your MSFS experience if you just stick around the cities. Just look at the MSFS Earth map and all the airfields all the way across the planet. There are airfields everywhere in some darn crazy remote places.
yea but the most famous thing people try to do in msfs is find their house and you cant really do that with bing maps but with google you can even find it in the smaller cities in smaller countries. But i'd also like to ad that Google does not have worse 2d imagry tha bing anyways, So having used google would only have improved the game buy adding a shit to more and better cities
What is the purpose of the Cub, the XCub and the Shock Ultra then?
I still think even googles flat images look at least as good And those are only 3 of 30 planes
Google Earth VR vs MSFS isn't even a contest in Photogrammetry. Google is higher resolution. You can make out lots of detail, like billboards and business signs. Not so much in MSFS. Also, the AI in MSFS turns lots of places into I Am Legend by adding trees and bushes everywhere, often times covering up whole buildings.
The lower resolution photogrammetry could be a decision by Microsoft to lower bandwidth requirements and improve performance.
Outside of Photogrammetry, MSFS wins since it looks OK from up high. Google is flat satellite imagery.
You can make out the Costco sign on my neighborhood costco in MSFS. There's a david copperfield billboard on one of the hotels in Vegas in MSFS. So there's definitely close up detail present. Maybe not as much as Google would have but enough for a pretty immersive experience
Yes some billboards and signs are visible. It just struggles compared to Google Earth. For example, large Burger King signage are clearly visible in Google. In MSFS, you can make it out, but it is smudged. Even McDonald's signs are smudged and the M is sometimes not legible.
All that said, it works fine as a 2D conventional game. I'm just gonna be very sad once they release VR support.
I like this idea. What I'd offer as a suggestion for you to do is source a neural network that can determine image fidelity of a batch of images and let it run for a few hours. That would be a very interesting experiment.
That's a great idea. And way beyond my intellectual abilities. If someone knows of a way to do this please let us know.
In the other thread where I have been arguing, here are places I have explored in FS2020:
Singapore, Indonesia, NZ:
https://imgur.com/a/iuUg2oJ
https://imgur.com/a/caQrHwi
https://imgur.com/a/lWM5qNf
Bali:
https://imgur.com/a/yMqcUlX
Malaysia and Thailand:
https://imgur.com/a/l0TOIIv
Australia:
https://imgur.com/a/SyWRjNX
More NZ, including Queenstown (looks beautiful on Bing):
https://imgur.com/a/jvcuoiZ
In my opinion bing is superior in the country, google superior in main metro areas.
Bing also seems to use some sort of smoothing of satellite imagery that doesn't link up properly that google does not.
Bing also has a lot more 'levels' of detail in places.
Bing gets colours right, Google makes everything look the same shade of green.
I dont wanna sound rude or anything but your conclusion should and must be that: well my 10 locations are such a small sample size as we are talking about the freaking entire earth that i cant conclude anything. The idea behind though is fair you just need to test like 10k random locations if you use truly random location and still everyone could argue its to less. I mean your idea is still great but sadly doesnt show anything
The real issue with results here is less the sample size (agree it should be larger) but more the subjective reporting of a single “analyst”. In visual quality analysis of remotely sensed data, you have to aggregate multiple observations, using a baseline metric such as NIIRS or some equivalent. However, I do applaud the scientific thinking the OP exhibits here and it’s a great start (and method!) for comparison. Just need some tweak to the process.
Yep i totally agree with you. I just wanted to make clear that the approach is the right idea but the conclusion is kinda false. I mean he already states he needs more testing but i think he underestimates the amount of samples he needs to provide to actually see some trend.
To try an analogy he kinda tries to determine the dice experiment while the dice of the frist throw is still in the air but the current phase looking upwards is a 5...Statistic is a bitch but it sometimes help to give a perspective on what you are doing
Absolutely
From my experience with actually using both in real life, Google seems better/uptodate for cities while Bing is massively better for rural areas but is not recent.
One caveat that needs to be called out is that Bing is not equivalent to MSFS data. Multiple players have found accurate structures where Bing doesn't have photogrammetry (and didn't add a hand-modeled landmark at that point), and Asobo has been very clear that they are using many other data sources. Bing is just the largest.
Too often people seem to be thinking MSFS data is exactly Bing data and they aren't. Naturally that doesn't make kemb0's investigation any less interesting though!
I think they're also using some open street map data in some places, that's why that one building was 200ft tall, because someone made a mistake when editing the height data.
But Google is usually always up-to-date.
Usually always :o
60% of the time, it's up-to-date all the time.
Though there is only a 40% chance of that.
ehh, sometimes. It's definitely a few years old in some places. Especially the photogrammetry.
This is a really neat test!
Thanks. I'd love to have done more tests but real life is calling so need to shoot off.
The larger question for me is how they handle my personal and session information when I use their product. Google loses. Every time. Clearly, they have invested more over the last decade and a half than MS on commercial satellite/aerial imagery and photogrammetric-quality 3D modeling of urban areas. So they’re expected to win out on coverage and resolution. But at least MS isn’t using my commute and cross referencing that with my email and web browsing for targeted advertising and other big data analytics. Remember, if a product is “free”, you and your data may be the product.
BTW, from a geospatial sciences professor: awesome job on the randomized sampling visual analysis!