Getting back to one of issues raised previously, it does appear to me that although vegetation.bgl has been updated via HD Trees, most of the growing season models that I see are still low complexity (2 plane models). The level of detail that is generated by the higher resolution textures seems to exaggerate the "stick figure theater" character of the deciduous trees. For some reason this problem was not as noticeable to me with either the default low resolution textures or the Zinertek textures.

 

I wonder if it has something to do with transparency. Any thoughts?

Getting back to one of issues raised previously, it does appear to me that although vegetation.bgl

 

Comparison pictures Jay ? would help the cause - I also have Zinertek trees not sure what your seeing thats odd

 

 

I wonder if it has something to do with transparency. Any thoughts?

 

I not exactly sure what you mean, but if you are referring to the outline around the trees, then Yes the HD trees do appear to have much more of an outline which can cause the tendency to shimmer.

 

I have see this tree "outline" (usually a cyan color) on many of the Orbx custom trees.  I'm not really sure why it's there ... it does tend to make the tree look less realistic ... so I can't imagine it's by design?  I was trying to envision that maybe this is how they are optimized or a side affect of that optimization.  Or perhaps some limitation in the SDK?

 

I'm not sure why it isn't just an alpha?  Perhaps that would cause speckles similar to other fine detail objects (fences, poles, etc.) that can only be cured with SGSS AA or FXAA.

 

Cheers, Rob.

It's difficult to show with a static screenshot, but take a look at this ORBX video at approximately 4:35 to 5:00 where the aircraft is flying low over autumn deciduous trees:

 

https://youtu.be/GTJpEbEWZlc

 

 

To me, the trees  stand out not as 3D (or even 2.5D) but rather two 2D planes at a 90 degree angle. It's almost like either that the blurry nature of the default low resolution trees masked this issue (no pun intended) or that the transparency of each plane has been lessened so that one can't see through to the other plane. Maybe it's just the nature of the approximation that ACES used to simulate trees in ESP and can't be helped.

If the difference is there, I'll notice. In the meantime, until I get this product installed during the weekend, when I have time........................I just don't care for too many more subjective opinions on the subject. With my system, a decrease in frame rates would be welcomed.  They're so high now, that it's almost embarrassing to talk about, in front of a common computer.....

 

WOW wonderful to know that! ! We were all waiting for such a contribution to this thread!

 

What system do you have BTW? Nasa Computer?

 

I read a lot of satisfied comments so i am wondering why coming here even bothering to post instead of flying to 100 FPS?

(...)

 

To me, the trees  stand out not as 3D (or even 2.5D) but rather two 2D planes at a 90 degree angle. (...)

 

 

Confirmed:

http://www.orbxsystems.com/forum/topic/95998-hd-trees/?p=870878

 Oliver,

 

Thanks. I had seen that link before. It's not that the trees are two 2D planes painted with HD textures. It's that appear more 2D to me for some reason, which I can't pin down exactly. Maybe it's the depth of field in the original photos that were used to mimic each tree. The outer branches should be sharp and the inner branches should be out of focus and more blurry, in order to given a illusion of depth. Or maybe the transparency of the textures doesn't let the background plane show through as well.

 

I give up on this, though. The product looks at least as good as the Zinertek product and does look a lot better than the default trees, without sacrificing performance.

I've done a comparison video myself to see the difference before and after installing HDTrees coming from FTX Global.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aiW5i-HNUcQ

 

The difference goes from barely noticeable to a marked improvement in definition of the treelines. In most cases the color is more natural looking. There's no noticeable difference in performance.

 

I would say if you enjoy flying low over wooded hills you'll get your money's worth.

Amongst the undulating opinions when a product surfaces, quite often, a consensus emerges.

 

This product at face value is art, therefore can be subjective. On this occasion, it's gone beyond being just art. It was marketed as more than that.

 

Just image the kudos that could have been gained by releasing this product and the users themselves posting that not only does there virtual world look better, but now they have an unexpected performance boost. if this was the case, I'm sure sales would be good.

 

As expected, opinions vary on the subjective side. However, I've so far read very few that can demonstrate without doubt that they are getting anywhere near the claimed performance boost advertised by the developer. More importantly a performance boost that can be replicated not by all but by the majority.

 

So what's going on?

Whatever the marketing claims, are they misleading or not?

if someone asks the question, "if I buy this, will my trees look better?" Answer would probably be yes.

If someone asks the question, "will I get a performance boost?"

 

I already have trees I like and with give me zero impact on performance. I was going to buy this product for several reasons. Because it depicted cherry blossom in spring. Because perhaps the overall look of the world might look even better and the main reason because I (rightly or wrongly) trusted ORBX. I feel a huge doubt now of the integrity of the latter unless something drastic changes in the future to change my opinion.

If Jim's post (#165) is right, then unequivocally there are performance improvements as it relates to draw calls and tree LODs.

 

If people aren't seeing a performance boost then I suspect there is sufficient overhead in their video card rendering to cover for the original textures and vegetation autogen and/or being cpu limited. Or perhaps the 2048 textures are negating the performance impact.

 

But to say performance improvements are just marketing speak is simply wrong. There are potential realisable performance gains because, basically, tree LOD is decreased across the board.

 

 

It's that appear more 2D to me for some reason,

I found this to be the case as well, especially from above. However I had vegetation receive shadows checked and that really exacerbated it. With those receive shadows off, it looked considerably better in that regard and now requires me to be dangerously close in my plane to notice. 

 

 

 

I feel a huge doubt now of the integrity of the latter

Not meaning to pick on you individually Dark, but I have to admit, this is quite the drama-filled thread. Then again, I did have small performance gains in non-urban heavily forested areas (with TML at 2048 BTW) and to be honest, I'm less likely to feel swindled by those developers who give me massive numbers of free P3D versions of FSX stuff I already bought (drastic enough?). There are only 7-8 aircraft and scenery developers who in my mind form the top-class of the industry (and ORBX is one of them) and yet most of the rest of the industry whose products tend to fall short in some way or are even just selling freeware-quality payware don't have product descriptions on Simmarket or whatnot which accurately portray their lower quality. C'est la vie (or C'est la Madison Avenue?). Do most of those 7-8 elite developers occasionally display excessive hubris as a result of pride in their accomplishments? Yes, and in some cases it really gets people here (and other places) up in arms, yet in other cases people will actually defend it or just don't even bat an eyelash. Then again, information technology is the most religious technological area I know of (except for maybe hi-fi audio and pickup trucks/muscle cars) so perhaps such angst shouldn't be a surprise. I've bought many flight sim add-ons which were quickly uninstalled (or at least never re-installed) for one reason or another (usually inferior quality or they induced excessive performance issues), and this one does not fall into that category. Lastly, I tend to only really get upset in cases where patently absurd demands are made of my funds, of which this is also not an instance. 

Hey guys in your opinion does it worth if you almost fly IFR? Can I obtain better perfomance during approach?

Hey guys in your opinion does it worth if you almost fly IFR? Can I obtain better perfomance during approach?

I installed HD Trees yesterday.  I thought, 'Meh'....

 

I had been running with ORBX Vector 1.20

 

I then installed UTX USA v2.1 for FSX:MS (boxed edition)...and went for a spin over Virginia.

 

LOD: 6.5

 

I don't know what happened...perhaps the landclass calls from UTX 2.1...but the trees combined, now LOOK like forests, and by these two pictures, most beautiful, in low level passes.  From what I see now...it was worth the cost to purchase, if even I am seeing any er...performance increase. Not from my FPS counter, it seems...but the forests and rurals...are very pleasant to the eyes.  I thought I wasted the money. I have since changed my mind by post-adding UTX2.1 to the mix....it really does something great with the HD Trees....

 

Post Edit: BTW,  UTX USA v2.1 is freakin' FANTASTIC!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

One important note for those who may be seeing no discernible change in the appearance of the trees and frame rates. Did you install and run the new Version 2 of the FTX Central configuration program? If this new version is not run post-install, I believe that the new trees will not actually become active.

 

When I installed FTX trees, there was a message from the installer asking if I wanted to install FTX Central version 2, to which I answered "yes". However, when the installer was finished, my FTX Central icon on the desktop was still linked to the original version 1. I ran the sim (P3D 2.5), but did not see an obvious change in trees at the default airport where I was parked. (KBWI).

 

I exited, and took a look in the ORBX\Scripts folder in my P3D installation. There WAS a setup executable in that folder for the new V2 FTX Central - but if it was supposed to run automatically during the initial install, on my system it apparently did not. I ran the setup manually, and it did replace my desktop icon with the new V2 version. I ran it, and hit the button to apply changes, then re-started the sim.

 

On the next load, the sim created quite a few new scenery indexes, and when fully loaded, the trees did look more "lush" for lack of a better term - and I had gained about 90KB more free VAS per the in-game FSUIPC VAS monitor.

 

There is no mistaking the new Version 2 FTX Central app when you run it - the user interface is quite different from the original Version 1.