Do the "forests" in the Alaska scenery seem a bit thin to you guys?

 

I know real Alaskan trees tend to be thinner and shorter than their lower-latitude cousins, but in Flight, all the forests look *too* thinned out. I've been to Alaska a bunch of times in real life (but never flying around), and the forests never seemed nearly as sparse as they are represented in Flight.

 

It's like they are in need of Rogaine.

 

Cranking up the scenery to Maximum doesn't help on the tree density; it just drops the frame rates.

 

Has anyone been able to find a "lush" place in Alaska? If so, what's the nearest airport?

Do the "forests" in the Alaska scenery seem a bit thin to you guys?

 

I know real Alaskan trees tend to be thinner and shorter than their lower-latitude cousins, but in Flight, all the forests look *too* thinned out. I've been to Alaska a bunch of times in real life (but never flying around), and the forests never seemed nearly as sparse as they are represented in Flight.

 

It's like they are in need of Rogaine.

 

Cranking up the scenery to Maximum doesn't help on the tree density; it just drops the frame rates.

 

Has anyone been able to find a "lush" place in Alaska? If so, what's the nearest airport?

 

How much flying have you done in Alaska? I have flown there and it looks pretty realistic to me.

Try flying around TOK Junction (I think that's what it's called...).

I have not done anying flying in AK.

 

The sparseness is also apparent when comparing the against the splash screen:

 

http://forum.avsim.n...d/#entry2409301

vs

http://forum.avsim.net/topic/378436-does-anyone-know-where-in-alaska-this-splash-screen-can-be-viewed/#entry2408591

How much flying have you done in Alaska? I have flown there and it looks pretty realistic to me.

 

Exactly how much and where have you flown up here? I fly for a 135 outfit based in Anchorage and fly all over the state. Depending on where you are the the forest are thick enough so you can't even see the ground(south east). Other Places pretty thin (the interior).

Might I suggest a bit more tact in your replies Bob. He said he hadn't flown up in Alaska it just seemed thin. Was absolutely no reason to get snippy with him.

I've got the options set to Scenery Density and Scenery Quality on Maximum, and the trees are quite thick, the same as the splash screens. There may be some reduction depending on your hardware.

 

Actually, on my system, there may be too many trees. :) But most of the time it doesn't affect performance.

 

Hook

Well, I agree with the OP: quite often I feel there should be more trees. On Hawaii, where the trees were wider or thicker (or whatever you call that) the forests looked more dense here and there. In Alaska I have hardly, if ever, seen really dense forests.

They might have thinned the autogen trees out for frame-rate tuning.

Of course your settings will dictate tree density....but I think it's all a nice balance. Trees will affect performance, it's a logical fact as each tree represents at least a few polygons, even if they are all showing the same texture. I personally wouldn't want more trees and I am running a GTX590 dual GPU.

That being said, the tree density is often very satisfactory to me, even if it's not as dense as actual alaska.

 

 

Yes, it's not that I hate how it is but it's not as dense as I would like. I am used to Orbx forests and they could be really dense: in Flight I can always see the ground and often it doesn't feel like a forest but a bunch of trees. Like on the pictures matt_gold posted: when you look down you don't see a forest but a field with trees. If you know what I mean. But again, it's not that it bothers me or anything, but I DO agree with the OP.

I wish I could contribute to topics like these, but I always have to run Flight on medium since I have to play on my laptop... Oh well, maybe when I build my desktop I can complain about tree density :Cry:

They might have thinned the autogen trees out for frame-rate tuning.

 

Probably, but in an interview I read not too long ago I read something about a change in how autogen trees were used: instead of every tree being a single er... something, they could now use one tree and repeat it in such a way that the computer still sees it as one tree............. Yeah, well, something like that LOL So MORE trees shouldn't be a real problem...

On the data-storage side (vertexes, textures, etc) they can probably treat them as one (with a random seed for rotating them or other alterations so they don't all look alike), but the GPU is still going to be rendering them individually, I'm sure. So, whatever they did probably helps a good bit, but there's still going to be an increased GPU workload as the tree-count increases.

Probably, but in an interview I read not too long ago I read something about a change in how autogen trees were used: instead of every tree being a single er... something, they could now use one tree and repeat it in such a way that the computer still sees it as one tree............. Yeah, well, something like that LOL So MORE trees shouldn't be a real problem...

'

 

Microsoft Flight uses SpeedTree technology I think... So generally speaking you are right, but with the sheer amount of trees visible at an altitude of thousands of feet even SpeedTree would start to hog resources.

Hi,

 

I recall hearing (or reading) at one time or another that the treeline was at sea level at Nome's latitude. It seems as though I saw trees north of Nome as I was checking out Little Diomedes. It would make sense that denser forests would exist in southern Alaska. I'll have to start paying attention.

 

Jim F.