27 minutes ago, XCLTM3 said:

The trees at Sydney airport and city/suburbs are way off from reality.

It's not only Sydney... Those rainforest/tropical trees you see in Sydney are everywhere in FS2020... They are 10+ storeys tall... It's ridiculous.  🤷‍♂️

But don't worry because all the Asobo apologists will tell ya it's just an "Alpha" or "Beta" or whatever and will be fixed. Rubbish. 🤦‍♂️

Asobo dropped the ball with these types of trees (and also with the conifers).

FS2020 looks comical 🤡

Is it that time already? I thought we weren't due for another post about tree sizes for at least an hour.

I can’t wait to see screenshots from Matthew S once he hits the disable tree button inside the MSFS options.  Should be some smashing shots😆

Whoops, there’s another post about trees Chock!

5 minutes ago, pinlifter said:

Whoops, there’s another post about trees Chock!

🌲 Here's another, that makes tree of them.  🤣

Edited August 2, 20205 yr by Chock

1 minute ago, pinlifter said:

I can’t wait to see screenshots from Matthew S once he hits the disable tree button inside the MSFS options.  Should be some smashing shots😆

I'd rather have no trees than the 10+ storey tall abominations I've seen in the Sydney videos. 🤦‍♂️

Tree's taller than the Opera House and Harbour Bridge (even though its not currently modelled). Absolutely comical 🤡, ruins the experience (for me).

Of course, there are many that are happy with mediocrity, for which no doubt, Asobo counts it's blessings. 🙏

I think you'll see the water FX issue fixed at release. The files are already there (including other FXs that are not enabled in the game as well). 

I think you'll gradually see the issue with bridges fixed and the first step will be the World update in September. 

Edited August 2, 20205 yr by bonchie

There is a reason for it. And it's compromise, but it's a sensible one.

Let's say you need 100 vector points for a tree model, plus a texture for it, so, that's a specific amount of data. In most 3D programs, to then create a forest, you would simply use an array, in other words instead of making another tree model, you'd simply tell the software, now display that first model again and place that one x amount of pixels to the left of the first one, and so on. This means less calculations because the program is not drawing something different, just the same again, but the program still has to draw the thing, so it isn't free in terms of calculations, just more economical. This is the essence of good 3D design, where you balance fidelity versus performance.

Now consider the calculations to create a forest. You could have that 100 vector point tree be actual size, so it has a footprint of maybe 20 feet radius, or you could make it bigger, so it has a footprint of 40 feet, and that will mean there'll be considerably less trees needed to cover an area in the sim, and they won't need to be a close to one another either to take account of slant range views still looking like a forest from oblique angles, but for considerably less data processing because you are just scaling the distance between vector points for the bigger tree model.

The benefit is a better frame rate. Yes it is a compromise, but it has had to be done like that because we are talking about replicating the real world, where there are loads of bloody trees. This will change in a few years when there are faster and better computers, but it takes time and is exactly why FS95 had simpler tree models than we could have in FS98, and so on. Feel free to develop a supercomputer which costs 500 quid to speed up this process if you like, and we'll all buy one, but in the meantime...

Now everybody, all join in...

 

Edited August 2, 20205 yr by Chock

This is more appropriate for you guys:

 

Trees are too big in fsx/p3d as well.  They iirc are more correct in xplane, but I’ve always found the tree density in xplane to be too sparse, which is the other possible compromise.  In p3d the big trees were at least balanced by the fact that the buildings were too big as well. presumably that’s no longer the case in fs20?

11 minutes ago, Mace said:

This is more appropriate for you guys

That's debatable given the fact that he managed to plant himself. And this whilst flying a plane he didn't pre-flight correctly, nor refuel adequately, and took off in whilst he was not actually permitted to fly owing to numerous drunk driving convictions and a propensity for indulging the 'Jamaican Woodbines', which, great as it is, is really what the song Rocky Mountain High is actually about incidentally, forcing the FAA to revoke his status on medical grounds...

Edited August 2, 20205 yr by Chock

2 hours ago, MatthewS said:

 

FS2020 looks comical 🤡

Don't buy it then and you'll save yourself a lot of angst 😉

1 hour ago, MatthewS said:

Of course, there are many that are happy with mediocrity, for which no doubt, Asobo counts it's blessings. 

This comment is just bizarre.  Every sim available as of yet requires its users to deal with outrageous levels of mediocrity.  Lockheed and Laminar certainly have counted many of those blessings.

I'm hoping that somewhere in the sims innards where it tells it to load a Bing map ,a computer whiz makes a mod to load Google map instead.It's obvious why Asobo and Microsoft can't do this(if it can be done at all) but someone is sure to try.

Edited August 2, 20205 yr by Bigsby
spelling

1 hour ago, Chock said:

There is a reason for it. And it's compromise, but it's a sensible one.

Let's say you need 100 vector points for a tree model, plus a texture for it, so, that's a specific amount of data. In most 3D programs, to then create a forest, you would simply use an array, in other words instead of making another tree model, you'd simply tell the software, now display that first model again and place that one x amount of pixels to the left of the first one, and so on. This means less calculations because the program is not drawing something different, just the same again, but the program still has to draw the thing, so it isn't free in terms of calculations, just more economical. This is the essence of good 3D design, where you balance fidelity versus performance.

Now consider the calculations to create a forest. You could have that 100 vector point tree be actual size, so it has a footprint of maybe 20 feet radius, or you could make it bigger, so it has a footprint of 40 feet, and that will mean there'll be considerably less trees needed to cover an area in the sim, and they won't need to be a close to one another either to take account of slant range views still looking like a forest from oblique angles, but for considerably less data processing because you are just scaling the distance between vector points for the bigger tree model.

The benefit is a better frame rate. Yes it is a compromise, but it has had to be done like that because we are talking about replicating the real world, where there are loads of bloody trees. This will change in a few years when there are faster and better computers, but it takes time and is exactly why FS95 had simpler tree models than we could have in FS98, and so on. Feel free to develop a supercomputer which costs 500 quid to speed up this process if you like, and we'll all buy one, but in the meantime...

Now everybody, all join in...

 

What I think is feasible though, and an area for significant enhancement by Asobo in the future, is a much greater degree of geographical region-specific variation of vegetation type. So while there are definite computational limitations to the number of tree species for example that you can display in any one specific geographical location, the sim could in fact be capable of displaying a very large variety of total different type of tree species when we consider the planet as a whole; that is, there would be very high-resolution region to region variation of the limited number of species that can be displayed at one time. Northern California vs Southern California, Australia -coastal and inland, east and west sides of the Rocky Mountains as examples of areas I'm most familiar with could be represented quite uniquely by say 5 - 10 predominant tree species being displayed in the sim and make each region very unique and even more accurate to be flying in. It's interesting how recent flight simulators have focussed way more on building type geographical variation than on vegetation type variation (which I think is possibly equally as important).