First, let me start out by saying that I am not a troll, or upset.

Anyways... 

I think the most recent video confirms that MS/ASOBO has indeed found a way to replace the blocky photogrammetry trees with generic 3D tree models, which should mean no more blocky trees as we’ve seen in a few of the previous videos.  This is indeed a step in the right direction.

With that being said, the new generic trees in the recent snow video look way too tall.  This was a known issue in FSX as well.  While I realize this is still very much in Alpha, and may very well already be noted already, but I would still like to humbly request the size of these generic trees are reassessed.

 

Here you can see the new generic trees are nearly as tall as the buildings surrounding the park:

Here is the original MSFS2020 Central Park footage in which you can see the photogrammetry trees (notice the height compared to buildings).

Here are the photogrammetry trees from Google Earth (useful in referencing height of actual trees):

In the Chicago photo, you can also see these custom trees (and their extraordinary height) in the background:

Also, as an aside, in this photo, you can see that there are some photogrammetry areas where they do in fact keep the original photogrammetry trees with an applied snow layer:

Again, I think that generic trees in photogrammetry areas is a great step towards eliminating the blockiness of the photogrammetry ones.  It also makes all sorts of seasonal textures an easy possibility, as seen in the new snow video.  All I am asking is that the sizing of the generic trees be looked into and corrected if necessary.

Best Regards,

Rob

Edited January 2, 20206 yr by ual763

I still thinking that photogrammetry trees give a better leafy effect from the air. And also gives some size variation between trees. 
 

The problem with autogen ones is that always have the same size. And not always match the real trees form. 

That is a very valid point.  I do see that there are some slight variations in height in the autogen trees, however, as a whole they are way too tall in the above shots, and as you said, they appear to all be coniferous rather than deciduous.  I guess, I just assumed that Azure could distinguish the differences (as it does with building heights/colors) and populate accordingly.

Edited January 2, 20206 yr by ual763

3 hours ago, ual763 said:

Here you can see the new generic trees are nearly as tall as the buildings surrounding the park:

if (trees == tall && !user.Name.Equals("mSparks"))
{
     trees.FindAll(t => t.Height > realistic).ForEach(tr => tr.Height = believable);
}

Just add this code snippet in <install_directory>/Asobo/FS2020(he-he-he)/Modules/Genius/workarounds.fs after line 10.

3 hours ago, ual763 said:

I think the most recent video confirms that MS/ASOBO has indeed found a way to replace the blocky photogrammetry trees with generic 3D tree models, which should mean no more blocky trees as we’ve seen in a few of the previous videos.  This is indeed a step in the right direction.

With that being said, the new generic trees in the recent snow video look way too tall.  This was a known issue in FSX as well.  While I realize this is still very much in Alpha, and may very well already be noted already, but I would still like to humbly request the size of these generic trees are reassessed.

Good observations.  It does indeed look like they found a way to replace the blob trees with sim trees. That's a big deal IMO, even bigger than snow effects.  And if they can solve that, it should be relatively easy to size the trees better.  Those ones are Massive.

I'll take either but prefer the big trees, and they will figure out the scale at some point! To be honest I'm just happy to see Snow 🙂 Once again Alaska here I come in the X-Cub, the TBM 930, and other aircraft! Almost sure my first flight, ( well after messing around looking for my house and just getting used to the new sim ), will be PASI to PAFE, a quick Alaska flight. And if I see a Penguin ( not even sure they are in Alaska ) I'll freak out 🙂

The realism guys will definitely freak out if you see a penguin in Alaska.

4 hours ago, aleex said:

I still thinking that photogrammetry trees give a better leafy effect from the air. And also gives some size variation between trees. 
 

The problem with autogen ones is that always have the same size. And not always match the real trees form. 

Autogen trees can have different sizes in P3D/FSX, for the same kind of tree or bush. You see that when you place them by hand with IS3 for instance.

PG trees may look good from altitude not so much at lower height. If you fly at 8000 feet over mountainous jungle, you see individual autogen trees. With PG trees I suspect you see a mass of blobs.

Since the beginning, I found that trees were the weakest spot of FS20, Asobo should hire a Ph.D. in trees 😄. 

Nice find. This looks promising indeed. I’m sure adjusting the scale shouldn’t be much of a problem.

They also seem to have found a way to mix generic and photogrammetry trees as can be seen in the third image (Strasbourg).

the autogen tree are to big actualy yes, but if you look the screen, we can see they have different size.

I think the to hight scale it's not so hard to fix , because the hardest part was replace photogrammetic tree with autogen tree.

7 hours ago, domkle said:

Autogen trees can have different sizes in P3D/FSX, for the same kind of tree or bush. You see that when you place them by hand with IS3 for instance.

PG trees may look good from altitude not so much at lower height. If you fly at 8000 feet over mountainous jungle, you see individual autogen trees. With PG trees I suspect you see a mass of blobs.

Since the beginning, I found that trees were the weakest spot of FS20, Asobo should hire a Ph.D. in trees 😄. 

Well, I’m referring more to photogrammetry cities. In mountains and other places autogen it’s a better option (but maybe some more trees variation should be added at some point. I mean, I love what We have seen so far, but as far as I know Central Park doesn’t have that kind of pine tree, same as Statue of Liberty).

I miss some of those mass of blobs on other sims. I mean, there are places where you can’t difference one tree from the other from above.

Anyway, Let’s see how good they made this. They are making brilliant things with most of the weakest parts of the sims, so I expect the same with trees.

Edited January 2, 20206 yr by aleex

While we’re on the subject of trees, won’t annuals have dropped their leaves and so show much less snow cover? An algorithm that randomly mixes together annuals and perennials in a believable ratio for the region would be nice (possibly beyond Azure’s ability to distinguish between the two).

32 minutes ago, Bottle said:

While we’re on the subject of trees, won’t annuals have dropped their leaves and so show much less snow cover? An algorithm that randomly mixes together annuals and perennials in a believable ratio for the region would be nice (possibly beyond Azure’s ability to distinguish between the two).

 

53 minutes ago, aleex said:

 I love what We have seen so far, but as far as I know Central Park doesn’t have that kind of pine tree, same as Statue of Liberty).
Anyway, Let’s see how good they made this. They are making brilliant things with most of the weakest parts of the sims, so I expect the same with trees.

Mixing of annuals and perennials is something important ! Conifers and birch trees for instance, in the Great North. And I was also a bit surprised to see a forest of tall conifers in Central park. Come on Asobo, you can do better !

Trees have always been the poor cousin in FS sceneries. Lack of diversity, poor 3D modeling etc. I hope that Asobo will see to that.

53 minutes ago, aleex said:

 you can’t difference one tree from the other from above.

Define "from above" 😉. 

Edited January 2, 20206 yr by domkle

"wrong trees too high, snow not deep enough, missing snoring bears"
this questions are from a Minecraft Forum! 😂😉

Kind of reminds me of xplanes  20 foot water towers and 100 story churches