Title says it all really! Just downloaded and installed the 'medium' setting (256x256) tree replacement textures that are new in the library today; they look great and have only a very small filesize. I'm able to have a lot more trees visible without any frame-rate impact :)Thanks Aime Leclerq :)

Same here. Gained me more fps than MS seems to be aiming for with SP1. Nice work all round.Allcott

Hmmm...any pics guys? This sounds interesting if the trees look as good as the default ones. Are there multiple varieties like the defaults?________________________________________________________________________________________________Intel D975XBX2 'Bad Axe 2' | Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 @ 3.20Ghz | 2 GB Super Talent DDR2 800 | Big Typhoon VX | eVGA 8800GTS @ 565/900 | Seagate 2x320GB SATA RAID-0 | OCZ GameXStream 700W | Creative X-Fi | Silverstone TJ-09BW | Matrox Triplehead Setup

>Hmmm...any pics guys? There are a number of pics with the file and four preview pics on the download page of the file. :-)

Allcot, why the cheap shot at MS? This post was about the new trees, not MS. Was that necessary?Jim

I think what the commenter was lamenting was a recent post by MS that indicated that they are looking for a 20% improvement in FPS. I immediately thought this: Hmmm, 20% of 12 is 2.4 and 14.4 is, while certainly flyable, not what the community is searching for.I'm not being critical of MS, but noting that the community's expectations seem to be a lot higher than this judging from the vitriol in some of the posts.

I believed that post from Phil was what he was refering to also. But this thread is about the photorealistic tress recently uploaded to the library and not about MS & performance. There are enough posts about that subject already. Why can't a subject (not related to MS or performance) be discussed without all the cheap shots & accusations?To the author of the new trees, I look forward to trying them tonite.Thanks for sharing them with the community!Jim

>I believed that post from Phil was what he was refering to>also. But this thread is about the photorealistic tress>recently uploaded to the library and not about MS &>performance. There are enough posts about that subject>already. Why can't a subject (not related to MS or>performance) be discussed without all the cheap shots &>accusations?>>To the author of the new trees, I look forward to trying them>tonite.>>Thanks for sharing them with the community!>>JimI believe if you look at my post again without applying your own personal prejudice you will find that I did actually comment on the freeware. Unlike you I have actually installed and tried them. It's not a `cheap shot` to say that I got a better than 20% increase in fps. It's a reported fact that might be of interest. The opening if such a discussion might give rise to a technical breakthrough at ACES that could increase fps for everyone. Perhaps the removal of the canopy is the key. Perhaps the texture sizes is. Report the findings then discuss them. Isn't that how we do things around here? By your own admission haven't even installed them. So if my opinion causes you such pain why do you express yours when you have nothing to say? Allcott

And I believe if you go back and look at my post I never insinuated nor directly stated that you commented about the freeware package in a negative way. I only asked why you took the cheap shot at MS when the post was about the trees package. You can try to mask it as whatever you like, but the only reason to post " Gained me more fps than MS seems to be aiming for" is to take a shot at them, not to encourage them to look at this work and maybe learn from it.I saw the new files in the library and then came to the forms to see a post which I believed was discussing the package itself only to read your reply instead. Since I am at work and can not install them at his time, I will do so later when I am at home. I'm sorry that you took exception to my reply to what I view as just another chance to rip MS. There are enough of those posts already, why bring it here to this post?ThanksJimedited for spelling

to have autogen on, and probably more than bit. Which I can't, for one, with my 3.2-2-256 system. If you want a logical connection between the trees and performance, that's the first that comes to mind. The trees look very good however. Just wish I could use them.

Good grief!I never imagined that my original post would spark such a heated debate! Please gents, just calm down a little...if you've downloaded this trees update package, then try and enjoy it... :) All I intended to do was to thank the original contributer, Mr. Leclerq for his excellent work...To reply to this last poster; if you have problems with autogen (as most of us do!!), if you install the 'mid' setting textures then you may be in for a pleasant surprise! Using the CFG tweak for autogen, I can run with trees set to 2000, and buildings down at 200, then set to 'Sparse' in the sim settings page.On my PC this is very playable; averaging 25-30 fps over open terrain, small towns and cities. I haven't had a chance to test over large cities yet..London etc.Infact, I now have to the whole re-install thing again as I've just upgraded to Vista Premium 64bit....Time will tell!!

>I saw the new files in the library and then came to the forms>to see a post which I believed was discussing the package>itself only to read your reply instead. Since I am at work and>can not install them at his time, I will do so later when I am>at home. I'm sorry that you took exception to my reply to what>I view as just another chance to rip MS. There are enough of>those posts already, why bring it here to this post?>>Thanks>>Jim>>edited for spellingJim, that's just what he does. It is his mission in life to get a dig in on MS or FSX whenever he can. Just ignore it.

Here is a pic...this looks fantastic...that is the sim, right?

I've been tweaking for the last 10 years... And apparently, it's getting more and more complicated. My post was in logical and neutral response to another poster who seemingly could not see a connection between this very good add-on and performance issues.There is a lenghty thread about 3rd party add-ons, above or below, with ACES' participation, which amply demonstrates that the two aspects are not only connected but enmeshed. Clearly, there is really nothing here to be polyannaish about and this apparently needs to be repeated.In addition, and only *as far as I am concerned*, the autogen function is only interesting immersion-wise when full right, and probably only at low altitudes (due to way better photo textures), which is also when performance is paramount.All this does not make Leclerc's contribution any less valuable or appreciated. On the contrary, since in addition to the high-quality work, it shows creativity and disinterested interest, ingredients in sorely short supply.It is also important to remember that without shadows and dark areas the world is flat and bland.

Holy crap, that is nice. Is this just a texture re-size or a replacement?Pat