I think the tree size is purely done because of performance.

Could they reduce the size of the big trees? Surely. But then you would probably need double the amount of trees to get a realistic looking coverage.

9 minutes ago, Carlosx said:

I think the tree size is purely done because of performance.

Could they reduce the size of the big trees? Surely. But then you would probably need double the amount of trees to get a realistic looking coverage.

This. It's akin to using a larger font to more quickly fill up a 10 page essay.

1 hour ago, Carlosx said:

I think the tree size is purely done because of performance

Oh snap, is it FSX/P3D all over again? 🤦‍♂️

Just give me normal sized trees... I don't care if the scene looks less "full".

 

 

1 hour ago, WestAir said:

This. It's akin to using a larger font to more quickly fill up a 10 page essay.

LOL - you mean, like I did in high-school? 😄

Maybe I am treegnorant. I don't bother for the tree size in the screenshots. And I also don't plan to use treegonometry to prove they are out of proportion.

Edited July 28, 20205 yr by tweekz

Personally I'm so glad that we're done with those stupid cardboard cutout trees that I'm finding it really hard to complain about anything regarding the new trees. It would be great to see the scaling improved at some point, but what we have now is a huge improvement from before, and I'm not sure if it would be worth making the effort to improve them further when supposedly there are more pressing matters to attend to.

12 hours ago, adino said:

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/736394145047904336/737324365020135534/image1.jpg

 

This looks so true to life, If it weren't for the watermarks it could easily be claimed as a real life picture and your average Joe wouldn't bat an eye.

4 minutes ago, FAZZ3 said:

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/736394145047904336/737324365020135534/image1.jpg

Wow, that looks absolutely amazing, anyone knows what airport that is?

1 hour ago, MatthewS said:

Oh snap, is it FSX/P3D all over again? 🤦‍♂️

Just give me normal sized trees... I don't care if the scene looks less "full".

Actually, I do.

The dense coverage is one of the things that defines the new FS.

17 minutes ago, FAZZ3 said:

This looks so true to life, If it weren't for the watermarks it could easily be claimed as a real life picture and your average Joe wouldn't bat an eye.

Got me there... How can the AI set this fence and sign this way on its own I wonder (even if these might not be there in real life, who knows - it is just so plausible)... to be honest, I had to look very hard to be convinced that this was not a joke picture of a real airport with watermarks added afterwards... absolutely amazing!! 

20 minutes ago, FAZZ3 said:

This looks so true to life, If it weren't for the watermarks it could easily be claimed as a real life picture and your average Joe wouldn't bat an eye.

I had one of the MSFS screenshots opened on my screen as I was showing stuff to my parents in law on the TV screen, then they asked where that shot was taken. 😄

33 minutes ago, ChaoticBeauty said:

Personally I'm so glad that we're done with those stupid cardboard cutout trees that I'm finding it really hard to complain about anything regarding the new trees.

It can look good from afar, but the closer to the ground the uglier.

I tried to capture this discrepancy on XP with Ortho near LOWI.

27 minutes ago, FAZZ3 said:

This looks so true to life, If it weren't for the watermarks it could easily be claimed as a real life picture and your average Joe wouldn't bat an eye.

The low resolution made the watermarks barely visible and I also thought they accidentally threw a real-life photo in there. Only thing that gives it away are the low-poly rocks on the bottom right corner. The lighting is literally amazing.

Just now, tweekz said:

It can look good from afar, but the closer to the ground the uglier.

What bugged me most is when watching from a top-down view. Even from a higher altitude they looked really unsightly.

Edited July 28, 20205 yr by ChaoticBeauty

2 minutes ago, ChaoticBeauty said:

What bugged me most is when watching from a top-down view. Even from a higher altitude they looked really unsightly.

Or when they are just placed in unfitting locations. Like there was a comparison shot (don't remember if it was Miami or SF) between MSFS and XP/BING lately on reddit. On the XP shot we had the proper ground texture but full of trees on a golf course and trees + houses on a parking lot.

Authentic scenery depiction is one of the things I am looking forward to the most. Will spend a lot of VFR flying.

Ever since first footage of MFS was released I can't help look at P3D and x-plane the same way as FS98 or FS2000 when I fly in P3D or x-plane with loads of add-on scenery. It just look so outdated. The flat lifeless scenery, the ugly trees, the unrealistic shading, the whole atmosphere. It just looks and feels like what I have always associated with flight simulators since early 2000s when I got FS2002. MFS just feel like it's on a completely different level.  Maybe in 10-15 years we'll view MFS in the same outdated way.