This is one of my tree draw checking test flights. The airway is V31 between ULW and FQM VORs. The two lat/lon waypoints lie over two visually prominent mountain ridges. The northern ridge is called Tower Hill, and the southern ridge is called Armenia Mountain. They are exactly 10 nm apart. In SU4, I could not see the trees on Armenia when flying over Tower Hill. In SU5 I could, and still can in SU6. Armenia Mountain also has 20+ power generation windmills on the ridge line, which are well represented in MSFS.

I would also point out that when flying this route in a real airplane at 5,500 feet MSL, you really cannot pick out individual trees on Armenia when over Tower Hill unless the visibility is absolutely crystal clear. The windmills are easily seen though…

 

Edited September 10, 20214 yr by JRBarrett

LOL - But this was a world update, not a sim update... and it was not mentioned as being fixed in the release notes.... 

Just repeating what others would usually respond with.... don't shoot the parrot! 🙂

I don't love the tree draw distance either but still lovin' the sim right now. 

1 hour ago, z06z33 said:

Back to X-Plane and Potato graphics...

Potato graphics can't possibly be better than MSFS, even with a cr@ppi tree draw distance? 🙂

Edited September 10, 20214 yr by RaptyrOne

17 minutes ago, JRBarrett said:

This is one of my tree draw checking test flights. The airway is V31 between ULW and FQM VORs. The two lat/lon waypoints lie over two visually prominent mountain ridges. The northern ridge is called Tower Hill, and the southern ridge is called Armenia Mountain. They are exactly 10 nm apart. In SU4, I could not see the trees on Armenia when flying over Tower Hill. In SU5 I could, and still can in SU6. Armenia Mountain also has 20+ power generation windmills on the ridge line, which are well represented in MSFS.

I would also point out that when flying this route in a real airplane at 5,500 feet MSL, you really cannot pick out individual trees on Armenia when over Tower Hill unless the visibility is absolutely crystal clear. The windmills are easily seen though…

 

I think many people complaining about the trees have never flown in a real GA aircraft at lower altitudes, and they don't realize that seeing trees from miles a way doesn't happen that often. They expect to see a rose bush from 10 miles away. Not going to happen in a real aircraft. 

18 minutes ago, Bobsk8 said:

I think many people complaining about the trees have never flown in a real GA aircraft at lower altitudes, and they don't realize that seeing trees from miles a way doesn't happen that often. They expect to see a rose bush from 10 miles away. Not going to happen in a real aircraft. 

Thats what i'm saying since the start of the trees banter. You look at your instruments, at the map or maybe a 2 miles radius to spot and compare landmarks with your map.   You dont try to spot a road 20 miles out because it can be anything your looking at.  the same goes for the horizon. Maybe there are places or time of year that have unlimited view. but 99% of the time views are rather limited.

In my early RW flying days it took a while to realize that I could actually see quite far and I needed to get my eyes off the landscape immediately below my aircraft and eyeball my flight path - that airport I was looking for was out in front of me and could be seen (mattering on the amount of haze that day) for some distance.

However, it was the runways/taxiways that were becoming visible... I don't recall that I could see much (if any) of the trees around the airport.

22 minutes ago, Bobsk8 said:

I think many people complaining about the trees have never flown in a real GA aircraft at lower altitudes, and they don't realize that seeing trees from miles a way doesn't happen that often. They expect to see a rose bush from 10 miles away. Not going to happen in a real aircraft. 

Gosh, when do you guys finally understand that it is not about "seeing single trees"... if the ground is covered by trees, you do not have to recognize or "see" single trees, immersion is already ruined by the fact that if trees are depicted, the ground has a different colour. Best seen when flying around in winter when landscape is covered in snow. In some distance, the ground seems plain white, if you get closer and the trees are rendered, it is not white anymore but green. This is extremely obvious when flying in the mountains and the hills and valleys in front of you look white but they are actually covered fully in green trees, they are simply not rendered.

If YOU do not see this, fine. But those complaining do and if it was again changed for the bad due to WU6, it is fair to complain about it. I really wonder why some people always think to jump in such threads and teach all others about how unimportant their complain is and how they obviously lack real world experience and so on...

34 minutes ago, Bobsk8 said:

I think many people complaining about the trees have never flown in a real GA aircraft at lower altitudes, and they don't realize that seeing trees from miles a way doesn't happen that often. They expect to see a rose bush from 10 miles away. Not going to happen in a real aircraft. 

Main problem with trees is perpective...

1 hour ago, JRBarrett said:

The tree draw distance has not changed on my system with SU6. It was noticeably improved in SU5, and remains the same in SU6. I do not doubt that this is indeed a problem for those who are reporting it, but it appears that it is not “universal” on all MSFS installations.

It also depends on the latitude, it's way worse in northern countries. Try the Finland bush trip for example.

I am not complaining about it and it was not an immersion breaker but for info: I was in a group flight yesterday in VR, and in the Germany Rhein area there were lots of places with Bing Maps tree cq forest areas, where even when I was flying right over them there were only a few  (10 or 20 or so) 3D trees  rendered. In a forest area!? I thought it was strange, but on the other hand: when a bit higher it did not look bad, as the texture of the forest was detailed and variable enough to also enjoy.

Edited September 10, 20214 yr by Rene_Feijen

Meh...I haven't seen an issue with trees since the latest update, then again I don't really scrutinize what I see to that level of detail, nor do I look at stuff that may have garnered my attention in earlier releases.  I think for it to bother me, it has to really reach out and grab my attention; otherwise, it's business as usual for me.  Even when the tree draw distance issue first came up, I didn't notice it until people complained about it, then I just shrugged it off and continued to enjoy the sim.  The moral of my story is, one simmer's feature fail is another simmer's nothingburger.

Edited September 10, 20214 yr by SmokeDiddy

Looks perfectly fine to me from the Virtual cockpit. Of course those whizzing a drone around at 20,000 feet may see differently. 

Edited September 10, 20214 yr by Ianrivaldosmith

This tree distance problem is broadcast only in Sim Update and not in Word Update.

21 minutes ago, Ianrivaldosmith said:

Looks perfectly fine to me from the Virtual cockpit. Of course those whizzing a drone around at 20,000 feet may see differently. 

I put the drone photo to emphasize the thing, but this is a shot I took at 2,600 ft during the Finland bush trip. In cockpit view, trees are drawn only below the aircraft!

Such a short draw distance spoils the entire experience of bush flying because triangular areas of trees literally pop-in in front of you as you travel. The fact that this phenomenon depends on the latitude is a nonsense and clearly a bug that needs to be addressed.

 

 

Guys, pls try bush trip in finland. You will immediately notice what we mention here. 

2 hours ago, RaptyrOne said:

LOL - But this was a world update, not a sim update... and it was not mentioned as being fixed in the release notes.... 

Just repeating what others would usually respond with.... don't shoot the parrot! 🙂

I don't love the tree draw distance either but still lovin' the sim right now. 

Potato graphics can't possibly be better than MSFS, even with a cr@ppi tree draw distance? 🙂

What does the term 'potato' graphics mean?

I fly both MSFS and XPlane.  Both of them are great simulators of flight.  MSFS has more eye candy but XPlane graphics are sufficient for VFR flight (with $20 of addons).  

I prefer to use MSFS for the eye candy and superior eye candy,  but the excellent aircraft in XPlane still makes it worthwhile for me.