16 hours ago, MatthewS said:

Frankly, given the excellence of everything we've seen so far, these oversized "autogen" trees are an absolute shameful debacle.

It seems that mediocrity is setting in.  Bean counters at work?  I can imagine the discussion, "We don't have time for photogrammetry trees, those autogen trees we took straight out of FSX look so beautiful, the users wont notice."

 

You’re overreacting. The sim is still a WIP in an alpha state. Things change all the time. This is why there’s an NDA. To stop people like you from complaining about an incomplete product.

Also these Autogen trees appear to be full 3D models, the ones in FSX are 2D cutouts.

Edited January 3, 20206 yr by Tuskin38

Unsubscribe. 

The sim is still in alpha state, nothing is final and everything is open to tweaking or even being totally redone.  Tree size is a minor issue at this stage of development as its easily corrected.  What is far more impressive is the snow accumulation on the sat images and photogrammetry buildings and yes even the larger than life trees.

The video is showing us the mechanics they've implemented to give us seasons, and those mechanics look out-fracking-standing.

Alpha state people.  ALPHA.

11 hours ago, MatthewS said:

 

 

Sure, I understand it's a difficult concept for you, but the photogrammetric trees and buildings in Google are correctly scaled relative to each other.   Go to NYC (or look at a picture of the same scene) and you will see that the scale of the "autogen" trees posted by the OP is a fantasy and do not match reality.  Got it now?

Well, I've checked them around my place... they're not 100% accurate... so... maybe they're not as accurate as you believe?  I do realize that trashing the new sim is the thing you apparently live for the most... but seriously... Google is not the tree height expert.

17 hours ago, MatthewS said:

these oversized "autogen" trees are an absolute shameful debacle.

Overreacting much?

6 hours ago, Noodle said:

What I find "comically oversized" is the shrieking concern of a few people who think they're visionaries for pointing out the obvious. As if we (and Asobo) can't see with our own eyes that the new trees are incorrectly scaled.

Sure thing, as if you know what Asobo is thinking... What we have instead is an official video showing comically oversized trees. Until Asobo proves otherwise we should consider FS2020 as having "jumped the shark" scenically.  If you have evidence to the contrary then do share.

56 minutes ago, WarpD said:

Well, I've checked them around my place... they're not 100% accurate... so... maybe they're not as accurate as you believe?  I do realize that trashing the new sim is the thing you apparently live for the most... but seriously... Google is not the tree height expert.

I'm not trashing the sim...  Any official video showing conifers in Central Park taller than my penthouse in Park Avenue (not 🙂) deserves to be criticised.

Edited January 3, 20206 yr by MatthewS

9 minutes ago, MatthewS said:

Sure thing, as if you know what Asobo is thinking... What we have instead is an official video showing comically oversized trees. Until Asobo proves otherwise we should consider FS2020 as having "jumped the shark" scenically.  If you have evidence to the contrary then do share.

same video at 0:12, seems photogrammetic version.  at 0:13 autogen version. for me they want snow gradually impact 3d objects. and it's in working stage.

it's that like bridge, they say clairly bridge still on work in september in preview footage.

Edited January 3, 20206 yr by azulkb

“Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.” ― Mark Twain.

5 hours ago, alkan said:

You know so little about computer graphics I physically cringe when reading your sad, misinformed ramblings. I'd suggest you pick up "Intro to OpenGL"-type tutorial and stop embarassing yourself.

Modern GPUs can easily handle millions of those "triangles". It is not their count which limits performance. To name a few other bottlenecks in render pipeline:

* number of draw calls (bane of 12-yo kids who want to develop a Minecraft clone... turns out, simply rendering 1000 separate cubes doesn't work that great)

* number and switching of render targets,

* number of shaders, where do they sit in the pipeline and how complex they are.

Rendering pipelines of modern games are ridiculously complex. However, because programmers - unlike the incompetent likes of you - are quite skilled, they developed methods to optimize the hell out of this process.

For instance, ever heard of occlusion culling? (of course you haven't, because you know as much about computer graphics as you know about computational flight dynamics and modelling...) It's one of techniques used to reduce the number of those triangles (breathe, they can't hurt you now) that actually have to be sent to the GPU in a VBO or something.

Also, I'd wager that after smoothing by Azure most buildings have relatively simple meshes. Hence it's not like rendering each building would be so demanding. The shape of buildings also makes shadows easier to compute and render. See? Not so bad after all, with all those triangles. 

Yeah, unfortunately no game has ever had implemented something like a slider - Graphics to "low", "medium", "ultra". And do you not realize that people are playing Tech Alpha 1 right now and the performance is considered to be reaaaaly, suprisingly... good? Considering they haven't really started optimization yet, I'd say that we aren't looking at any significant downgrades. But sure, ignore every bit of info people throw at you. Show us where Microsoft touched you.

Great post and thanks for explaining... but ... do you really have to be so condescending?

12 minutes ago, Casualcas said:

“Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.” ― Mark Twain.

LOL! Love that one 🙂 

“Against the assault of laughter, nothing can stand.” ― Mark Twain.

Edited January 3, 20206 yr by Anders Bermann

30 minutes ago, azulkb said:

same video at 0:12, seems photogrammetic

again.

nope.

still autogen, just from a greater distance.

6 hours ago, Noodle said:

Weren't you just complaining about a lack of near-field detail? What are you arguing for or against? More triangles equals poor performance? Cosmic analysis there, guy.

That Asobo dont "really" have much new to offer in terms of graphics. (especially with dx11)

current sims can all be pushed beyond the limits of current hardware.

and (aside from a few really nice city clips) SHTF2020 hasnt even got that far yet.

So all this "its graphically years ahead of all the competition" is just hyperbole.

Its not good, its not bad, its just an alpha with some fancy artwork and a lot to do with a release date only months away.

Edited January 3, 20206 yr by mSparks

6 hours ago, alkan said:

Also, I'd wager that after smoothing by Azure most buildings have relatively simple meshes. Hence it's not like rendering each building would be so demanding. The shape of buildings also makes shadows easier to compute and render. See? Not so bad after all, with all those triangles. 

Which was also the appeal of the photogrammetric trees (ie "tree blobs", simple meshes) versus the seemingly new approach of individual "autogen" models.... I wanted to see vegetation (and buildings) extend out to the horizon (subject to visibility limits) and not pop into view suddenly at about 10NM (like with FSX/P3D).

Wouldn't surprise me if pop-up "autogen" trees are back in FS2020, just for the sake of falling leaves in autumn, in Asobo's "Walk in the Park Simulator 2020".

Well done Asobo! Well done....  🙄🤦‍♂️

24 minutes ago, mSparks said:

current sims can all be pushed beyond the limits of current hardware.

Exactly... Hence the apparent move back to individual FSX/P3D style "autogen" tree models, instead of the simple photogrammetric tree meshes are a big compromise, see above.

 

Edited January 3, 20206 yr by MatthewS

1 minute ago, MatthewS said:

pop-up "autogen" trees

nothing should "pop out" variable lod is actually something asobo have already proved themselves in.