# Microsoft Virtual Earth beta launched



## n8dagr8 (Aug 14, 2004)

Looks pretty cool. I guess they got a little upset when google started handing them their a......anyway, here it is

http://virtualearth.msn.com/


----------



## Smthkd (Sep 1, 2004)

Wow! Excellent Link! I Have A New Webpage I Like Now!


----------



## invaliduser88 (Apr 23, 2002)

I still like Nasa's World Wind application.

http://worldwind.arc.nasa.gov/


----------



## ebaltz (Nov 23, 2004)

Yeah and Keyhole is WAY better, the images are in color and way more up to date.


----------



## n8dagr8 (Aug 14, 2004)

nice, invaliduser88! 

keyhole? google, right?


----------



## cdru (Dec 4, 2003)

n8dagr8 said:


> keyhole? google, right?


Yes. Google bought Keyhole. Not sure if they are still considered Keyhole or not.

Microsoft is a day late and a dollar short. Google's interface is much more refined to me and the street level overlays are much better IMHO. Plus Google Earth adds a ton more features that the MSFT version appears to be lacking.


----------



## n8dagr8 (Aug 14, 2004)

Notice, it's still a "Beta". I'm not too impressed with all of the maps google has. A lot of the areas I have looked at are horrible - really fuzzy.

I did just download googles though. Pretty cool. Can't seem to find Everest, though.

Here is what I'm talking about (see added pic). It looks like google has newer images but microsoft seems to have more complete images. Google is on the right, MS on the left - this is Lipscomb University in Nashville, Tn (FYI).


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

Keyhole is no more. It is officially "Google Earth".

Competition is good - we now have a race to higher resolution. My locale has recently been "up-rezzed" on Google Earth and I can now clearly see my apartment complex, my building, the pool and the mailbox cluster. My parking spaces are empty, so I must be out, but my neighbor's car is there so I know she is home.

My son's home east of ABQ is on a hillside facing NW. Using Google Earth, I "flew" east along I-40 at a low altitude from downtown ABQ to Edgewood and was able to "see" and recognize his house from an apparent altitude above the surface of about 500 ft.


----------



## ntexasdude (Jan 23, 2005)

Is Google Earth a pay service like Keyhole was?


----------



## Chris Blount (Jun 22, 2001)

I really like Google Earth and the interface. Very smooth. Google Earth is free but for $20 a year you get some of the extra features including the ability to interface with a GPS device.


----------



## n8dagr8 (Aug 14, 2004)

Yeah, I spent waaaaayyyy too much time "playing" with google earth. I found (saw) some really cool things. MS doing this will hopefully get everyone else in high gear to get better maps out. It does look like google is using more recent maps.


----------



## Chris Blount (Jun 22, 2001)

n8dagr8 said:


> Yeah, I spent waaaaayyyy too much time "playing" with google earth. I found (saw) some really cool things. MS doing this will hopefully get everyone else in high gear to get better maps out. It does look like google is using more recent maps.


I know what you mean. Google Earth is just a plain cool toy to mess around with. I did find something interesting though. The Capital in Washington DC is blurred out.

MS Virtual Earth could be a nice addition to the lineup. We will have to wait and see.


----------



## Danny R (Jul 5, 2002)

Speaking of these maps, did you folks see the one of the Moon that Google put up to commemorate the anniversary of the landings?

http://moon.google.com

Make certain you bring your crackers.


----------



## homeskillet (Feb 3, 2004)

I love the 3D builings view in Google Earth as well. Here are a couple images I took while looking at downtown Kansas City and then downtown Denver (with Stadium)


----------



## Chris Blount (Jun 22, 2001)

homeskillet said:


> I love the 3D builings view in Google Earth as well. Here are a couple images I took while looking at downtown Kansas City and then downtown Denver (with Stadium)


Yes, those are cool. I just wish they would do something with the buildings. Maybe add some details or something. What I really like it how they do some of the 3D terrains. Check out The Grand Canyon and Mount Saint Helen. You can explore them by using the different angle controls. Very cool!


----------



## n8dagr8 (Aug 14, 2004)

Danny R said:


> Make certain you bring your crackers.


Had a friend tell me about this the other day. Good to see they have a sense of humor!


----------



## Chris Blount (Jun 22, 2001)

n8dagr8 said:


> Had a friend tell me about this the other day. Good to see they have a sense of humor!


Ah! Now I see it. Pretty funny. Nice little Easter Egg.


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

I thought we were the first to land on Earth's only satellite, but according to google (and they should know) it looks like the Swiss beat America to the moon. In '69 I watched wall-to-wall coverage on two tvs - one, a 9" B&W, and our new 19" color set we bought for around $400 for the landing. Somehow it slipped my notice that the Swiss beat us to the punch. I would say that the tv coverage definitely had holes in it.


----------



## Bogy (Mar 23, 2002)

n8dagr8 said:


> Yeah, I spent waaaaayyyy too much time "playing" with google earth. I found (saw) some really cool things. MS doing this will hopefully get everyone else in high gear to get better maps out. It does look like google is using more recent maps.


I got started playing with them last night. Went to bed waaayy later than I planned. Showed my wife when I was home for lunch. She will be seeing her mother at a family reunion next week, so I printed out 2 pictures of the roof of her house. One each from GoogleEarth and VirtualEarth. GoogleEarth zooms really smooth, and it is cool the way it flies from one place to another, and it will zoom much closer, but it is really fuzzy. VirtualEarth takes distinct steps in zooming, but the pictures are much more distinct. A lot of new building just took place north of her house, and judging by the stage of building, GoogleEarth was from about a year ago, and VirtualEarth from about 2 years ago. In VirtualEarth we can see her brother's truck in his driveway (two doors away), and her other brother's station wagon is his driveway. VirtualEarth has a problem with frames not immediately coming up, leaving gaps the "scenery" until they finally pop up.

WorldWind is also cool. Especially the horizontal view. I zoomed along the Missouri valley (Chesterfield Valley) where we used to live in St. Louis County. I had the place names on, and so we could pick out where my son used to go to school etc. One of the interesting things is that the church I served there is named, but it is at the original sight, down in the flood plain. Thirty years ago they built a new church on top of the second highest point in St. Louis Co. 

All three of these programs are amazing, and excel in different areas. They are only possible with broadband and advances in computers. I didn't keep exact track and I am not at my computer at home right now, but I think WorldWind takes up over 500 meg, GoogleEarth about 200 meg, and I don't remember the size of VirtualEarth (or I could have the last two turned around.) I remember the first time I downloaded pictures like this on a dial up connection. And zooming or scrolling? Molasses in January in Minnesota is much faster. Now, scrolling and zooming are virtually seamless. I love the competition. It can only make things better.


----------



## Bogy (Mar 23, 2002)

Nick said:


> I thought we were the first to land on Earth's only satellite, but according to google (and they should know) it looks like the Swiss beat America to the moon. In '69 I watched wall-to-wall coverage on two tvs - one, a 9" B&W, and our new 19" color set we bought for around $400 for the landing. Somehow it slipped my notice that the Swiss beat us to the punch. I would say that the tv coverage definitely had holes in it.


I watched the landing on a 9" B&W. Two of them. I bought one before we left for vacation. We were going camping, and there was no way I was going to miss the moon landing, so I bought a 9" TV to take along. As it happened, when the landing took place we were at my aunt's, and all she had was a 9" B&W, so we had them both on for different coverage. An interesting element was that two British friends of my aunt were also there, so I got the perspective of non-Americans on the accomplishment.


----------



## Danny R (Jul 5, 2002)

Sadly I missed it, as it was still two months till I was even conceived.


----------



## cdru (Dec 4, 2003)

Chris Blount said:


> Yes, those are cool. I just wish they would do something with the buildings. Maybe add some details or something.


Hang on. It's coming. Mapping a 2D surface of roads or even 2.5D with elevation is relatively easy. Adding complete 3D take a whole lot of effort.


----------



## Shappyss (Jun 26, 2004)

look for area 51...good luck!


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

Bogy said:


> I watched the landing on a 9" B&W. Two of them. I bought one before we left for vacation. We were going camping, and there was no way I was going to miss the moon landing, so I bought a 9" TV to take along. As it happened, when the landing took place we were at my aunt's, and all she had was a 9" B&W, so we had them both on for different coverage. An interesting element was that two British friends of my aunt were also there, so I got the perspective of non-Americans on the accomplishment.


I can't get TV from Philadelphia and you expect me to believe that you watched live pictures from the moon. Hogwash!


----------



## Tim Lones (Jul 15, 2004)

This may seem like a dumb question..but how do you all get such sharp pictures of buildings In Google Earth? when I zoom in too far it all gets blurry..


----------



## n8dagr8 (Aug 14, 2004)

Tim Lones said:


> This may seem like a dumb question..but how do you all get such sharp pictures of buildings? In Google Earth? when I zoom in too far it all gets blurry..


Nope, that's a good question. I wondered that myself.

If you notice it seems to be big cities and some random spots that have high quality pics.

I would guess it has something to do with the age of the picture - the newer the pic, the better the camera, the better the image.


----------



## Bogy (Mar 23, 2002)

n8dagr8 said:


> Nope, that's a good question. I wondered that myself.
> 
> If you notice it seems to be big cities and some random spots that have high quality pics.
> 
> I would guess it has something to do with the age of the picture - the newer the pic, the better the camera, the better the image.


The cities definately get more attention when it comes to having pictures with higher definition. I can zoom in and almost pick out individual seats in Bush Stadium in St. Louis (although the pics are from over a year ago, since they show a parking lot south of the stadium, and not the construction of the new Bush), and the roof of my daughters apartment building. I can pick out my brother in laws truck sitting in his driveway in Rancho Cucamonga in California. But I can just make out a fuzzy picture of our house and the church in Ackley Iowa. They just don't map everything as completely as they do large cities.


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

Google Earth, and Keyhole before it, have concentrated on rezzing up the urban areas first. When I first got Keyhole, Savannah, 60 miles to the north, was in medium-high res, while my town was still lo-res (fuzzy), About the time Google bought Keyhole, a new pass got me up th med or hi res.

If you zoom up to an altitude where you can see parts of several states, you will see different shades and colors, like a patchwork quilt. Typically, the darker patches are hiires areas. It's a work in progress.

An interesting hi-res area is D.C., also, mountainous areas like the Rockies, when viewed at a low angle. I've "flown" toward Pikes Peak at an apparent altitude of about 500 ft. When I approached the mountain, the software automatically increased my altitude so it looked like I just flew right over the tip of the mountain.

A fun thing to do is "fly" into airports, particularly those with which you are familiar. I've flown into ATL, ABQ and San Diego, where that building is right at the end of the runway on the right. If you're lucky you might catch a plane on the runway, or nearby on the ramp.


----------

