Properly scaled trees is very important for a modern simulation platform. If trees are not properly scaled and you are coming in for a landing, it appears that you are lower in altitude than you actually are. 

I very much hope that trees, as well as all autogen, will be the correct scale. 

Generating a draft of procedural content to populate the planet and display for Alpha previews and tests does not mean it's the final version of the procedural world... 

As the (procedural) trees seem to have replaced the photogrammetry ones as well... This looks to me as a first step in the implementation

And then the procedural tree generation is similar to the footprint based infrastructure, not necessarly refined and finished in terms of rules and algorythm parameters.

If you look at the infrastructure generated from footprints (collected by Azure AI), you also notice that they do not look finished when it comes to plausible height, architecture type per region etc... 

So the tree height is relatively easy to finetune with the rules set to generate the vegetation. Data for tree types vs height should be available. I see no complexity in that... 

And if the tree types are ready made 3D in a Library, then again, adjusting the size should not be an issue in comparision to the amazing things they already implemented...

It's just a matter of incremental implementation... Dev people here know that.

I think we must know by now how Asobo work. I can compare all the things they created, added and improved etc since the early previews. 

So I am confident, these could and will most probably be refined with the algortthms and rules or 3D library finetuning... Maybe someone is already working on this task as we speak...

Unless of course, MS tell Asobo to put this refinement at the bottom of the backlog and give priority to other tasks..

...And did you notice (maybe I am mistaken) that the tree types are still the same (Evergreen?) 

Again, looks to me as a normal incremental implementation process...

I don't think its 'trees stacked on top of each other'.  At 1:21, at Courchevel, is a tree on the right that appears the same procedural tree that is seen in the other pics in this thread.

Personally I like the trees in these shots.  I'm not sure whats going on in the O'hare area near the terminal but the trees on the right of 10C look more than fine to me.

It is a personal peeve of mine the way XPlane demands that runways are devoid of trees.

When taxiing to takeoff toward the west at KPNS you are nearly surrounded with very tall pine trees in real life.  They're quite noticeable.

I just don't see 'comically oversized trees' in any of these recent shots.  Only the Central Park shot looked wrong to me.

Edited February 21, 20206 yr by sightseer

I have definitely seen oversized trees in screenshots.. they dominate the scenery in an "unreal" way..  This may well be location dependent, and I would also think that the developers can adjust this as they work out the kinks. 

Edited February 21, 20206 yr by Bert Pieke

1 hour ago, Claviateur said:

So the tree height is relatively easy to finetune with the rules set to generate the vegetation. Data for tree types vs height should be available. I see no complexity in that... 

And if the tree types are ready made 3D in a Library, then again, adjusting the size should not be an issue in comparision to the amazing things they already implemented...

It's just a matter of incremental implementation... Dev people here know that.

I would agree that it should be relatively easy to finetune things to have trees display in the correct scale, but my question is will the team do that. I am hoping so. 

10 minutes ago, Bert Pieke said:

I have definitely seen oversized trees in screenshots.. they dominate the scenery in an "unreal" way..  This may well be location dependent, and I would also think that the developers can adjust this as they work out the kinks. 

Could you give me an example other than Central Park or the O'hare shot?

14 minutes ago, sightseer said:

I don't think its 'trees stacked on top of each other'.  At 1:21, at Courchevel, is a tree on the right that appears the same procedural tree that is seen in the other pics in this thread.

Personally I like the trees in these shots.  I'm not sure whats going on in the O'hare area near the terminal but the trees on the right of 10C look more than fine to me.

It is a personal peeve of mine the way XPlane demands that runways are devoid of trees.

When taxiing to takeoff toward the west at KPNS you are nearly surrounded with very tall pine trees in real life.  They're quite noticeable.

I just don't see 'comically oversized trees' in any of these recent shots.  Only the Central Park shot looked wrong to me.

In the shots in this thread, there is a certain type tree that seems to always be stacked. You can clearly see the delineation line in the middle of the tree.  Some of the procedural trees look great and are a normal height, but whatever this one is, it needs tweaking.  It may look fine to someone that’s never been to Chicago, but that doesn’t make it correct.

Here are two comparison shots.  These are not 1 story buildings.  They are quite tall.

Again, it only appears to be some of the tree models that are doing this.  I can understand that not all trees can be perfectly height matched, but these trees appear to be global in various previews (such as the Central Park video) and therefore should be scaled down to about 1/2 or even 1/3 the current size.  They dwarf everything.

18 minutes ago, sightseer said:

Could you give me an example other than Central Park or the O'hare shot?

Look at the St. Maarten shot I linked above (Specifically the top of the trees in comparison to the tail of the parked A320), and also the Donegal shot (where you can clearly see the delineation between top and bottom tree sections).  Same problem.  Or on some of the city landscapes shown, look out in the distance.  All you can see are these huge trees.

Or...

Look at Virginia Key in the newest update.  Compare the procedural trees on Virginia Key with the photogrammetry trees on Brickell Key.

 

Here they are side by side. Difference in size between Procedural vs. Photogrammetry:

Edited February 21, 20206 yr by ual763

14 minutes ago, ual763 said:

In the shots in this thread, there is a certain type tree that seems to always be stacked. You can clearly see the delineation line in the middle of the tree.  Some of the procedural trees look great and are a normal height, but whatever this one is, it needs tweaking.  It may look fine to someone that’s never been to Chicago, but that doesn’t make it correct.

Here are two comparison shots.  These are not 1 story buildings.  They are quite tall.

Again, it only appears to be some of the tree models that are doing this.  I can understand that not all trees can be perfectly height matched, but these trees appear to be global in various previews (such as the Central Park video) and therefore should be scaled down to about 1/2 or even 1/3 the current size.  They dwarf everything.

And your going where with this? The tops of the trees are right outside my window and I'm  on the 4th floor

7 minutes ago, Casualcas said:

And your going where with this? The tops of the trees are right outside my window and I'm  on the 4th floor

Which would be normal, and in the acceptable range for realism... These cargo buildings are about 40’ high (or a 4 story building approximately).  These trees in the sim are around 100’ high.  So where I’m going is that they should be reduced to about 1/2 size to be more realistic.  The width is fine, so the density won’t suffer, but the height needs to be reduced.  Not trying to argue here, just pointing out (what one would think) is obvious.  

Edited February 21, 20206 yr by ual763

12 hours ago, MatthewS said:

It's happening for Rio airport as well... Massively oversized trees... Looks comical!

Come on Asobo, get the scaling right!  It can't be that difficult!

If people want an answer as to why ASOBO won't show us more at this point (a 30 minute flight for example), this is the reason. Not Matthew in particular, but the fact that everything is so overanalyzed. 

It's an alpha. This is not the final product. That's what being in alpha means. The idea that people on a message board have a better grasp of the flaws than the development team doesn't add up. They 100% know about the tree scaling issues. 

Edited February 21, 20206 yr by bonchie

That has already been brought up, they are stacked evergreens,  not 1 tree. We all know. And I'm sure alpha testers have Brought it up. At least hope they have.  

1 minute ago, bonchie said:

If people want an answer as to why ASOBO won't show us more at this point (a 30 minute flight for example), this is the reason. Not Matthew in particular, but the fact that everything is so overanalyzed. 

It's an alpha. This is not the final product. That's what being in alpha means. The idea that people on a message board have a better grasp of the flaws than the development team doesn't add up. They 100% know about the tree scaling issues. 

And there is absolutely nothing wrong with me pointing it out.  I’m not being rude about it, just pointing it out.  It’s not like I’ve only pointed out the negatives.  I’ve been more than enthusiastic and impressed with most everything we’ve seen so far.  But, if I see something that appears to be wrong, then by all means, I will at the minimum point it out.  If they want to listen to me, cool.  If not, that’s cool too. But don’t talk down to me for a perfectly fine critique.  

4 minutes ago, Casualcas said:

That has already been brought up, they are stacked evergreens,  not 1 tree. We all know. And I'm sure alpha testers have Brought it up. At least hope they have.  

100% agree!  I don’t like to complain.  And I’m sure they have brought it up.  But, I’m not in the alpha, so I simply don’t know if they have or not, hence the post.  I know Asobo reads these threads.  So if it helps them great.  If not, no harm done either.  We can all agree that the sim will be great regardless!  Have a great day!