aloges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8358 posts, RR: 47 Reply 1, posted (11 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 1628 times:
Open the sidebar, go to "layers" and activate "places" - I've had to translate all the terms from German, so perhaps it's e.g. "towns" instead of "places".
Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
zkojq From New Zealand, joined Sep 2011, 784 posts, RR: 1 Reply 5, posted (11 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 1362 times:
Quoting HAWK21M (Reply 4): is there a possibility of a live feed on Google earth at a cost....
Not possible, because:
1) Google doesn't own any satellites (to my knowledge at least).
2) Most urban areas in google earth/maps are actually done by aerial photography, not satellite imagery.
3) If google did offer such a service it would be immensely popular (for both civil and military applications) and there wouldn't be enough satellites.
4) The weather (more specifically clouds).
5) Imagine all the legal/privacy concerns it would cause.
Rara From Germany, joined Jan 2007, 1829 posts, RR: 3 Reply 6, posted (11 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 1269 times:
In fact there are quite some misconceptions about how satellite imagery works, mainly due to spy movies and suchlike.
In order for a satellite to photograph something even remotely to Google Earth quality standards, it needs to be in low earth orbit. Low earth orbit means that the satellite moves tenths of kilometers every *second*, so you'll only get a still photo of what you're interested in, it'll be low quality, and even if you're military you can only get the next update 15 minutes or so later. Live pictures of moving vehicles, like you'd see in a movie, are impossible. Any photograph you get is a lucky shot.
Of course satellites can be in geostationary orbit, but that has to be a lot further out (as in like a 100 times further out) from which they could theoretically keep observing the same spot, but from that distance you can't get any meaningful pictures (except of a huge area, of a whole weather system maybe).
In other words, Live Google Earth is impossible.
Quoting zkojq (Reply 5): 2) Most urban areas in google earth/maps are actually done by aerial photography, not satellite imagery.
Correct - aerial photography is much better for their purpose..
Samson was a biblical tough guy, but his dad Samsonite was even more of a hard case.
ouboy79 From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 4009 posts, RR: 23 Reply 9, posted (11 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 1133 times:
Quoting wardialer (Thread starter): How can I enable Google Earth to display cities when zooming out like here below in this picture (which is not Google Earth)?
Since your question hasn't been answered. You can't. You would have to create a new layer and code in the settings to display at certain "heights". It is something that has frustrated me as well.
Any opinion/comment posted is that of my own and not that of Southwest Airlines Co.
francoflier From France, joined Oct 2001, 3196 posts, RR: 10 Reply 11, posted (11 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 1053 times:
Quoting HAWK21M (Reply 4): how frequent is Google Earth updated
I would say it depends on the areas. Popular areas would be updated more frequently. The more interesting and frequented areas on Google Earth are low altitude images, so I would guess the satellite pictures used for higher levels aren't updated that frequently as things don't change that much at that resolution anyway.
Lower altitude images would be updated more frequently, but aerial surveys are expensive so, again, it would depend on the viewing traffic in a particular area.
Many areas (desertic, remote, rural) are still only satellite.
I wonder if they manage to get different resolutions depending on the satellite image providers, and if lower resolution = cheaper images?
Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit posting...
zkojq From New Zealand, joined Sep 2011, 784 posts, RR: 1 Reply 12, posted (11 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 1020 times:
Quoting AirPacific747 (Reply 10): Not really a problem.. One satellite could just stream the images to a server that could stream it onwards to several other servers I would guess.
True, but I'm assuming that each user wants to look at a different bit of the earth.
mandala499 From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 6181 posts, RR: 74 Reply 13, posted (11 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 988 times:
Quoting francoflier (Reply 11): I wonder if they manage to get different resolutions depending on the satellite image providers, and if lower resolution = cheaper images?
Yes... general rule of thumb... the higher the complexity, the more expensive it is. Complexity can come in terms of spectral complexity, or resolution. Highly complex spectral imagery at high resolution = very expensive... the image resolution gets translated into the available mapscales.
For live satellite imagery, well, they're very expensive... and these satellites move as they're in low earth orbit (high detailed ones, and cross out geostationary satellite imagery out of our fantasy list at the moment).. so any spot you want to monitor, the satellite needs to position itself onto an ideal orbit which gives it maximum exposure time to view the spot with its camera... ain't cheap... those spy satellites are not called "orbital gas tanks" for no reasons.
Some make these services available to "qualified customers"... but, can't divulge much...
Mandala499
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 1155 posts, 
From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8358 posts, 
From Switzerland, joined Jun 2012, 183 posts, 
From India, joined Jan 2001, 31201 posts, 
From New Zealand, joined Sep 2011, 784 posts, 
From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6019 posts, 
From France, joined Oct 2001, 3196 posts, 
From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 6181 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
