Just now, MatthewS said:

Wish I had you on my debating team in high school 🙄

And here I thought you were raised by trees.

 

 

"There is unrest in the forest

and the creatures all have fled.

As the maples scream Oppression!

and the oaks just shake their heads."

A got a rush from that. What we need are study level trees.

9 hours ago, MatthewS said:

That's right, runways did not undulate in FS2020 until Asobo implemented that feature.  Just like tree scale (for certain types) will remain comically exaggerated until Asobo fixes it... It's not a difficult concept, oh maybe it is, sorry 

I am talking about the real world.

 

6 hours ago, Slides said:

The size of trees or buildings has never detracted from the FSX/P3D experience. It's everything else that has including the general ugliness of the sim. This is very much a non issue even if its never "fixed". And if you're going to tell me that you fly in real life by tree height, I will tell you to retake your pilots license exam.

Uhm, yeah… agreed. 😆👍🏻 See my post above.

14 minutes ago, badderjet said:

Uhm, yeah… agreed. 😆👍🏻 See my post above.

A commenter above tried to convince us that you should use tree height to determine your glidescope. And an "incorrect" tree height will affect your flying. I guess no one can fly in rainforests then. 🤪

2 hours ago, jabloomf1230 said:

A got a rush from that. What we need are study level trees.

Joke aside a lot of people work these days on using GIS AI for "tree intelligence" !   One example among many https://www.20tree.ai/

I am sure that the economic dimension has not escaped to MS and the the Digital Twin project includes the development of potentially lucrative apps. 

37 minutes ago, Slides said:

A commenter above tried to convince us that you should use tree height to determine your glidescope. And an "incorrect" tree height will affect your flying. I guess no one can fly in rainforests then. 🤪

Yes sure, I read it. Totally agree with you. 👍🏻 Obviously there are other, way more ‚flight‘ related issues that need to be fixed first.

I have to say coming from a Sim Racing background where if 3D Grass is not simulated properly "the Sim sucks", it's quite refreshing to see the Flight Sim community is EXACTLY the same regarding nitpicking of the highest order! Now fix  those trees #FirstWorldProblems

Edited August 8, 20205 yr by MarcG

11 hours ago, Hyperfocal said:

I'd like to offer a bit of perspective regarding the tree issue. While it may seem like a trivial task to adjust the size, a workable solution may be far more complex. A piece of software of this scope and complexity has dependencies, especially when AI is involved, where the adjustment of one parameter can cause an enormous amount of downstream impact. A portion of my profession is acting as an intermediary between business-oriented and technical people. I'd be rich if I had a dollar for every time I was in the position of explaining why some "simple" feature couldn't just be thrown in during the eleventh hour of a project and why an enormous amount of further testing would be required. I have illustrated my point below with a flowchart for some of the logic behind sending a notification in Slack. The interplay of a few basic features sharply increases the complexity of the task.

 

You spend your life creating flowcharts like this? You have my sympathies...

On 8/7/2020 at 3:00 AM, Dominique_K said:

Beyond the sometimes ridiculous hype, I have always felt that there is a fundamental spirit at Asobo to do things right. Color me biased but I know the French, I am one after all 😉, and I strongly suspected they would listen to what we were saying about the trees. Because that was the truth.  It is good to have it confirmed that they work on it, thanks Asobo.

People, pointing to what we do not like is the only way to have things moving into the right direction. It is not by repeating 'it is much worse in FSX or XP' or that 'everything is fine' in contradiction with what our own eyes see.  FS ain't a religion, criticism is not blasphem. What really sours the mood is not to criticise such or such things but not to tolerate that people don't have your opinion on something. 

Personally I would have expected the French to have gone on strike when someone complained about their work!

4 hours ago, Slides said:

A commenter above tried to convince us that you should use tree height to determine your glidescope. And an "incorrect" tree height will affect your flying. I guess no one can fly in rainforests then. 🤪

I was taught to use VASI/PAPI lights to judge my glide scope and avoid the trees...

22 hours ago, Slides said:

This is a perfect example of how not to air out your views and criticism. 

No one has dropped the ball. Those of us who are adults understand that compromises need to be made for performance and resource and time availability reasons. Tree height is not a major issue for a flight sim.

They'll fix it eventually I'm sure. It's not a show stopper

Tree height might not be a major issue for you, if you’re flying tubeliners at 36,000 feet. But if you’re flying a Cub in the back country I can assure you that it might very well be a show stopper. 

8 hours ago, Slides said:

And here I thought you were raised by trees.

Boy am I glad I skipped the last five pages of you two.  Can you guys just stop, please? This is ridiculous. 

Edited August 8, 20205 yr by mtr75

5 minutes ago, FrankR409 said:

I was taught to use VASI/PAPI lights to judge my glide scope and avoid the trees...

Two things

- In many airfields I use, there is no guidance light, lucky if there is a windsock. Not only in forsaken places like PNG but it could in Montana or Idaho too.

- As I said in the earlier post, this not about the final glide only. In narrow terrain you do sometimes tight and dangerous turns between valley walls to position the aircraft to final. And you watch the trees.