Before I read this thread I was flying leg 5 of the Germany Bush trip. I suddenly realized there were no trees being drawn!  I looked below and all I could see were trees that were part of the ground texture.  Not an unusual occurance, but then I realised every area of trees around me were just textures.

Flew later on in the evening and the trees looked normal.

I flew over St. Petersburg tonight, and the tree and autogen pop-up was terrible.

Edited September 10, 20214 yr by Ixoye

4 hours ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

I suddenly realized there were no trees being drawn!

I find that the streaming service has its "brownouts".. where autogen is missing and scenery reverts to basic textures.

Just once in a while.. 😉

8 hours 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.

I have a test flight I use to check this over the heavily forested terrain of northern Pennsylvania between KELM and KIPT. I have flown this same route many times in a real C172, and know exactly how far various landmarks and hills are from the aircraft at any point in the flight.

FWIW, I have not yet tried changing the cache slider from “medium” to “ultra”. The “medium” setting is apparently the equivalent of what SU5 had by default.

Likewise I flew today from KSJC, San Jose, Ca, USA, to Portland, Or, USA.  Want to see trees?  I'll show you trees!  I was at 8,000 ft.  Absolutely no issues.  I should also mention that if the issue is about skipping along the tree tops looking for rare white squirrels then my feedback will be of no use.  I don't do that.  Never flew that way back when.  Never fly that way in a sim either.

BTW, my birthplace, Brevard, NC, and my current town of residence, Queenstown, Md. both have populations of rare white squirrels.

Edited September 10, 20214 yr by fppilot

9 hours ago, AnkH said:

Well, seriously Asobo. As this topic was such a broadly discussed thing with a lot of feedback from the customers I do not have a single bit of understanding how they could possibly release a WU resulting in reduced draw distance again. Seriously, do they have a single person doing tests? I mean, regarding the noise this topic created after SU5, I would have for sure marked checking tree draw distance with a fat, red marker on any list about what to absolutely test before releasing WU6, but obviously no. Unbelievable, really...

The problem I surmise is the WU guys and the guys fixing things like tree draw distance aka bug team are on two separate teams.

 

 

Is this maybe something to do with the off screen casching setting? This is very frustrating if the problem is back. Maybe a mod conflict somewhere? 

10 hours 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.

I have a test flight I use to check this over the heavily forested terrain of northern Pennsylvania between KELM and KIPT. I have flown this same route many times in a real C172, and know exactly how far various landmarks and hills are from the aircraft at any point in the flight.

FWIW, I have not yet tried changing the cache slider from “medium” to “ultra”. The “medium” setting is apparently the equivalent of what SU5 had by default.

It has changed in WU6. It was really good after SU5, without any config tweaks and with Terrain LOD set to 200 it was 10nm, it was enough for me.

At my first flight in WU6 I really thought that I have some mod or addon conflicting with the tree distance, I was sure it was my fault that I can't see trees anymore. But I have done everything to cross those out and I have friends who has said the same thing, plus the thread which was linked in first post.

 

What comes to the KELM and KIPT, there is a lot of trees indeed. KIPT has a VOR so I did a quick flight in there.

 

5nm from the FQM VOR (the VOR is exactly in that red line)

 

Screenshot from Navigraph which shows the FQM VOR and position of aircraft when above screenshot was taken:

 

And screenshot from behind the plane where you can see the airfield, same time as above screenshots were taken. (Check the background, you can see clear line where trees stop)

 

This time it doesn't matter if you are flying south or north, latitude doesn't matter. 

5 hours ago, bLindye said:

This time it doesn't matter if you are flying south or north, latitude doesn't matter. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latitude

In geography, latitude is a geographic coordinate that specifies the north–south position of a point on the Earth's surface. Latitude is an angle (defined below) which ranges from 0° at the Equator to 90° (North or South) at the poles.

7 hours ago, Kilo60 said:

The problem I surmise is the WU guys and the guys fixing things like tree draw distance aka bug team are on two separate teams.

That is what I mean, no idea about how a proper QA works over at Asobo. If it is done by two separate teams, this would make a test performed by the other team even more valuable, not done. Or if done, I wonder what they need to check, obviously not those things that were heavily discussed after the last patch *facepalm

the trees look good on my end . If this was a tree cutting simulator ill be worry about it a bit more . 

It is not only the now proverbial trees, outside the LOD the ground image is degraded. It was very apparent yersteday in a flight I did in Austria where the ground texture was very good in the LOD area and the bluish tint was not very nice outside. And the outside was close enough...

SU5+WU6 have brought some welcome optimization and excellent scenery structural elements (mesh, imagery, autogen) but there are things which were better before. 

 

Edited September 11, 20214 yr by Dominique_K

18 hours ago, spitzer45 said:

They should add tree and building draw distance sliders. 

Why don’t we just get sliders for most graphical features so we can hit the sweet spot of our own PC’s capabilities’ or personal preferences.

18 hours ago, Bobsk8 said:

I have flown around the Atlanta area in RL, and the trees in MSFS look pretty similar. 

You can't be serious, the trees are way to high and big compare to RL. 

Edited September 11, 20214 yr by nas123

This is how it looks around ESSA Stockholm, just as bad it was before SU5  https://pasteboard.co/S4PdGaxLnHH3.png

Edited September 11, 20214 yr by Ixoye

21 hours ago, hansb57 said:

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.

If your only looking 2 miles from your plane your doing it wrong. I say this as an Airline Pilot and CFI with over 2000 hours of instruction given. I always taught VFR students to put their points checkpoints 10-15,maybe even 20 miles miles apart so they could see the next point from the previous point. Obviously if visibility is restricted then you have to move them closer but most VFR pilots have no business flying in less than 5 miles visibility anyway.  Also roads are horrible checkpoints by themselves as you could be anywhere along a 100 mile stretch of road. If students used roads we would make boundary points 10 miles to either side of a planned road crossing so you could judge if you were on course.

Edited September 11, 20214 yr by z06z33