Trees draw distance is bad again

[spitzer45 99]

So, why we dont still have these sliders after numerous updates? Like autogen draw distance, tree draw distance etc...? If so, you didnt have to cut these things for xbox performance. 

[Kilo60 660]

5 hours ago, Rockliffe said:

Absolutely agree 100% Chris. It seems a nonsense.

Well when there’s two separate teams injecting stuff into the sim and obviously no cross checking compatibility what do you expect would happen!

 

Really surprised Aboso haven’t figured this out by now!

[MrBitstFlyer 3,892]

54 minutes ago, rtodepart said:

 your first time quoting me you talked about me sounding like argumentative and AGAIN you got it wrong and now you are back at it questioning me . 

 

Look  the three thing is a issue that needs fixing like many others  important things like default airplanes that need fixing because we  cant operate  the way they work in real life we know that everyone knows it . I instead  choose to vote on all the polls and send info directly to those who can do something about it .  

again im not denying there's an issue I learned my lesson from previous attempts to try and communicate the right way about a few issues  with no positive results and  just simply choose to enjoy what we have and wait till it gets fixed and again like i said before trust me if there's another million and a half threads directly from someone thats able to actually fix things where we can vote to fix things and the three issue is there I WILL VOTE ON IT TOO . 

 

I replied to a post where you said 'the trees look good on my end . If this was a tree cutting simulator ill be worry about it a bit more.'  That sounds argumentative and not acknowledging the problem many people are seeing.  Your second post contained 'In my case i just really don't focus on trees that much while flying up high or low or while in the ground taxing . I understand that some really want to look down and be able to see trees that are miles away for what ever reason'.  Again, you seem dismissive of why people find tree drawing distance important.

Only now do you say 'the three thing is a issue that needs fixing' and 'im not denying there's an issue'.  If this was in your first post I wouldn't have replied. I fly 100% VFR, so trees are a very important part of the experience.  Roads, railways, lakes etc can all be hidden by trees, thus making VFR flight realistic.  If tree drawing distance is reduced, VFR flying becomes less immersive.  We had good tree drawing at release, so it is justified to complain about a reduction in tree draw distance after an update.  MS/Asobo need to know this.

Rather than me getting it wrong, you must see how your post sounded?  You are right in many aspects of MSFS could be improved and like you I am happy to wait for those upgrades, but I wouldn't reply negatively to anybody who has an issue with something that was in the sim but taken away in an update..

 

[pmb 5,138]

Hi,

I tried to reproduce the short tree radius issue, but I failed. Here are two shots, the first one is a view over Munich

the second over the Ammersee South of Munich

The brown trees are Bijan's Autum trees (which, however, don't modity tree LOD). Granted, I may feel guilty for setting both LODs (Terrain and Objects) to 4, but without a noticeable disadvantage (you can read off fps on my dated system), so why shouldn't I?

And boy, doesn't Munich look and perform gorgeous? I recall my continuous tweaking to get ORBX Germany South Munich just over 15-20 fps and stutterfree in Prepar3d only a few years ago. (To be honest, it certainly performs better those days as well.)

And as a sidenote, while there is certainly still room for improvement - PG Munich is in just another league than PG London, why ever. 

Kind regards, Michael

 

[Flic1 998]

I have made several flights in WU6 (FBW 320) and have to admit to not noticing any tree pop-ups or tree lines at all.  In fact, I was impressed with how I don't even see much, if any photogrammetry tree pops either as this was always a distraction.  I always can pick up on the tree pops though and was disappointed with prior versions but this is now looking really good (best since the days of the tree distance mod). I have been flying in mid-latitudes within USA so maybe it is an issue with certain areas.  I just departed KATL and have never seen the trees look as good as they do on this version.  I always had PG tree issues in that area.  I even went back to Terrain LOD 200 from 300 that I was using in last version.  

Edited September 11, 2021 by Flic1

[Noel 4,561]

2 hours ago, Langeveldt said:

Will it be fixed?  How long has it been?!

Let's see how many days since WU6?

[Noel 4,561]

1 hour ago, pmb said:

Hi,

I tried to reproduce the short tree radius issue, but I failed. Here are two shots, the first one is a view over Munich

the second over the Ammersee South of Munich

The brown trees are Bijan's Autum trees (which, however, don't modity tree LOD). Granted, I may feel guilty for setting both LODs (Terrain and Objects) to 4, but without a noticeable disadvantage (you can read off fps on my dated system), so why shouldn't I?

And boy, doesn't Munich look and perform gorgeous? I recall my continuous tweaking to get ORBX Germany South Munich just over 15-20 fps and stutterfree in Prepar3d only a few years ago. (To be honest, it certainly performs better those days as well.)

And as a sidenote, while there is certainly still room for improvement - PG Munich is in just another league than PG London, why ever. 

Kind regards, Michael

 

Most of Germany is flat out gorgeous!  I flew out of EDDM and EDDF recently and just fabulous!

[Republic3D 1,232]

3 hours ago, pmb said:

Hi,

I tried to reproduce the short tree radius issue, but I failed. Here are two shots, the first one is a view over Munich

the second over the Ammersee South of Munich

 

The brown trees are Bijan's Autum trees (which, however, don't modity tree LOD). Granted, I may feel guilty for setting both LODs (Terrain and Objects) to 4, but without a noticeable disadvantage (you can read off fps on my dated system), so why shouldn't I?

And boy, doesn't Munich look and perform gorgeous? I recall my continuous tweaking to get ORBX Germany South Munich just over 15-20 fps and stutterfree in Prepar3d only a few years ago. (To be honest, it certainly performs better those days as well.)

And as a sidenote, while there is certainly still room for improvement - PG Munich is in just another league than PG London, why ever. 

Kind regards, Michael

 

The tree line is very visible in the last picture. It's way too close. The first picture looks good, but you're also much lower to the ground.

But the important thing is that you're happy with it.

[Virtual-Chris 682]

5 hours ago, pmb said:

Hi,

I tried to reproduce the short tree radius issue, but I failed. Here are two shots, the first one is a view over Munich

the second over the Ammersee South of Munich

The brown trees are Bijan's Autum trees (which, however, don't modity tree LOD). Granted, I may feel guilty for setting both LODs (Terrain and Objects) to 4, but without a noticeable disadvantage (you can read off fps on my dated system), so why shouldn't I?

And boy, doesn't Munich look and perform gorgeous? I recall my continuous tweaking to get ORBX Germany South Munich just over 15-20 fps and stutterfree in Prepar3d only a few years ago. (To be honest, it certainly performs better those days as well.)

And as a sidenote, while there is certainly still room for improvement - PG Munich is in just another league than PG London, why ever. 

Kind regards, Michael

 

This is a perfect example of people seeing what they want to see. The bottom picture has an obvious tree LOD issue, but the poster thinks it’s perfectly fine.

Ps. The melted textures of the buildings mid-frame in the top pic don’t look very good either. Is that bad Photogrametry?

[Bert Pieke 7,589]

1 hour ago, Virtual-Chris said:

This is a perfect example of people seeing what they want to see. The bottom picture has an obvious tree LOD issue, but the poster thinks it’s perfectly fine.

I think you are right about this depending on what you (want to) see...

It looks just fine to me also, but I get that for you, there is an obvious issue  😉

Reminds me of the saying:  "People who think they know it all, are particularly annoying to those of us who do.."

Edited September 12, 2021 by Bert Pieke

[Noel 4,561]

7 hours ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

We had good tree drawing at release, so it is justified to complain about a reduction in tree draw distance after an update.  MS/Asobo need to know this.

You mean the tree drawing distance that was fixed in SU5, that was then undone in WU6? Yes, very unfortunate, but relatively minor in the grand scheme of things, at least according to the folks who set goals at MS/Asobo.  MS/Asobo absolutely knows about this, of course!  They use it all the time!  They just have clearcut goals and use a strict set of criteria to decide when a hotfix is indicated.  At least that's my take based on what I've seen.

[Noel 4,561]

1 hour ago, Virtual-Chris said:

This is a perfect example of people seeing what they want to see.

I don't know if it's 'want to see' more than just what they do see.  You seem to be suggesting there is an agenda driving what the perception is.  I think people look at it and they just see what they see.  In other words perception is decoupled from want or desire.  But there may be some of that going on as well.  When I first read this thread I saw distinct areas of abrupt absence of trees, but this is in an area where that happens in the real world.  I'm thinking.  And out in the distance I could tell there were still cluster/patches of trees.  So I also don't think it's always obvious either.   Some places have a lot of clear cutting of forests.

Edited September 12, 2021 by Noel

[MrFuzzy 2,123]

8 hours ago, pmb said:

The brown trees are Bijan's Autum trees (which, however, don't modity tree LOD). Granted, I may feel guilty for setting both LODs (Terrain and Objects) to 4

The issue is more apparent at high latitudes. Just try Finland or Sweden and you will see it, even with LOD 400.

[bobcat999 8,501]

I am running at higher LOD factors at the moment (400), and it does seem to make it better, so it is a temporary work around. 
However, I recognise not everyone has that option due to performance issues.

Looks like we have to wait for the vegetation distance sliders that were promised.  Although if it is linked to the latitude bug again, that will need to be addressed in any case.

For the usual suspects who think it is funny to come into the thread and be disrespectful to people who care...  Well done!  You are proper men aren't you?  We get it.  You must be proud! 

There is another aspect to this.  What you don't seem to understand is that this is another example of a regression - never mind that it is 'just the trees'. 
MSFS is touted as a visually class leading flight simulator, and the graphics and how it looks are important to us that aren't 'real pilots', you know 'real men' like you who don't look at the trees - just your instruments.

Next time there is a regression that takes out part of your precious autopilot system or flight model, I will be sure to jump on the thread, laugh about it, and say 'stop your whining and take a chill pill man!'. 

Alternatively, if the tree thing doesn't really bother you, do us all a favour and stay off the thread - just jog on.

Edited September 12, 2021 by bobcat999

[Dominique_K 10,151]

13 hours ago, pmb said:

Hi,

I tried to reproduce the short tree radius issue, but I failed.  

 

The autogen radius that I have carefully measured with  the help of Google Earth  flying  at 3000 feet over South Germany is about 5 nm. It is not only the tree line, but also the building line and the low res imagery taking over.