Comparing The Super Bowl Site In Google Earth and Windows Live Maps
Cross post: This article is posted both at InsideGoogle and InsideMicrosoft.
Rob did a cool thing and compared the way Dolphin Stadium and the city of Miami are portrayed in 3D in Google Earth and Windows Live Maps. Take a look:
Dolphin Stadium:
Google Earth:
Windows Live Maps:
Miami:
Google Earth:
Windows Live Maps:
Thoughts:
Google Earth has a baseball field because the Florida Marlins play there, too. Portraying a field like that, where the actual field design changes often, is tricky at best, and a terrible idea in this case.
Google Earth’s 3D buildings are either cartoony or gray. That would work on a map view, but overlaid on satellite images, it just looks fake. Windows Live’s buildings look like photographs, because they are photographs texturing a 3D object.
Considering that Google’s is a huge, long-developed piece of software (sometimes costing money), and Windows Live’s is a browser plugin, it is amazing that Windows Live’s 3D buildings look better than Google’s. This is because of a decision by both companies: Google decided to put in gray buildings and invite the SketchUp community to make them realistic. Windows Live decided to create a system that could analyze a building, create a 3D model of it, and put photos of the building on the building.
Obviously, Microsoft’s system is working better than Google’s, and Microsoft’s scales better. Microsoft will have every major building in the U.S. in 3D and texturized long before Google will.
[…] Cross post: This article is posted both at InsideMicrosoft and InsideGoogle. […]
Pingback by » Comparing The Super Bowl Site In Google Earth and Windows Live Maps » InsideMicrosoft - part of the Blog News Channel | February 8, 2007
Nathan, I’m obviously biased since I write an unofficial blog on Google Earth (http://gearthblog.com). But, let me comment on this analysis:
1) I do agree that Microsoft is on the fast track for implementing large-scale 3D textured buildings for their platform. They have spent well over 100 million dollars so far to acquire the technology and sponsor the photography necessary to accomplish this goal. Their approach is very expensive, and I’m not at all complaining they are making it available for free.
2) The example in Miami does not illustrate Google Earth’s full potential. Take a look at Denver for a better example of photo textured building models. See this blog entry for details and a YouTube video:
http://www.gearthblog.com/blog/archives/2007/01/awesome_3d_buildings.html
I think the Denver example is the best 3D building collection available in any virtual globe to date. Google has similar financial resources and a lot of smart people, I wouldn’t count them out too quickly.
Comment by Frank Taylor | February 8, 2007
[…] Last week, after I looked at similar shots of the Super Bowl stadium and downtown Miami in Google Earth and Windows Live Maps 3D, Frank Taylor of the GEarthBlog invited me to check out Google’s 3D buildings in Denver, Colorado. He makes a great case that Google’s buildings there are ways ahead of those in other cities, and thus gives a better idea of what Google Earth is capable of. […]
Pingback by » Google Earth Vs. Windows Live Maps 3D: Round Two » InsideGoogle » part of the Blog News Channel | February 15, 2007
[…] Last week, after I looked at similar shots of the Super Bowl stadium and downtown Miami in Google Earth and Windows Live Maps 3D, Frank Taylor of the GEarthBlog invited me to check out Google’s 3D buildings in Denver, Colorado. He makes a great case that Google’s buildings there are ways ahead of those in other cities, and thus gives a better idea of what Google Earth is capable of. […]
Pingback by » Google Earth Vs. Windows Live Maps 3D: Round Two » InsideMicrosoft - part of the Blog News Channel | February 15, 2007
[…] No es que esto vaya a ser una batalla a más rounds, pero via CGArchitect me entero de un artículo publicado en InsideGoogle e InsideMicrosoft en que se compara la calidad de sus modelos 3d dentro de sus sistemas de mapeo. […]
Pingback by Google versus Microsoft: Round 1 - FayerWayer | April 17, 2007