Why won't they fix the excessive trees everywhere in PG

[Kaboki 437]

23 minutes ago, Sceadu said:

Im gtting confused by what people mean by PG Trees now, do you mean autogen/AI trees generated by an algorithm but placed where the Bing satellite imagery shows a tree?

Im confused now too:p, but what I mean is the green ugly blocky photogrammetry trees...

[Sceadu 117]

2 hours ago, Bert Pieke said:

Nope.. PG trees are the Bing trees.

Thats what I thought..I think

Actually I dont know, I thought all 3d trees were AI generated and what you call Bing trees are just the flat 2d Satellite imagery, that might have an AI generated tree on top..clear as mud?

 

Edited November 18, 2022 by Sceadu

[Gulfstream 416]

10 hours ago, ChaoticBeauty said:

In his GDC 2022 presentation, Lionel explains that flattening the photogrammetry trees can be problematic when it comes to LOD pop-in, so they prefer to simply draw the impostor trees on top of them. Slide 74: https://www.asobostudio.com/files/inline-images/Designing_Terrain_System_Fuentes_Lionel.pdf

Amazing presentation, thanks for this.

It really shows how complex this beast is, not that you couldn't tell just by looking at it ... but man, as a software engineer myself, this is really impressive.

[Bert Pieke 7,584]

2 hours ago, Sceadu said:

Thats what I thought..I think

Actually I dont know, I thought all 3d trees were AI generated and what you call Bing trees are just the flat 2d Satellite imagery, that might have an AI generated tree on top..clear as mud?

 

If you look through the referenced presentation, you will see that TIN (Bing) comes with 3d trees that are "not good enough" (ugly).  The solution is to overlay them with "impostors" (AI trees)... To cover them properly, you are getting a lot of slightly bigger trees.. but they are good looking trees.. Clear as..? 😉

[Noel 4,487]

On 11/18/2022 at 3:32 AM, bobcat999 said:

Photogrammetry can look stunning if you have a fast internet connection

I wonder if anyone has established what that threshold is.  I'm at a total of ~300mbps shared by all devices in the house which isn't too many!

[bobcat999 8,444]

1 hour ago, Noel said:

I wonder if anyone has established what that threshold is.  I'm at a total of ~300mbps shared by all devices in the house which isn't too many!

I would say 50-75 mbps should be good enough, if the servers are operating fine!  

[Sceadu 117]

23 hours ago, Bert Pieke said:

If you look through the referenced presentation, you will see that TIN (Bing) comes with 3d trees that are "not good enough" (ugly).  The solution is to overlay them with "impostors" (AI trees)... To cover them properly, you are getting a lot of slightly bigger trees.. but they are good looking trees.. Clear as..? 😉

 

[AOB 78]

Trees Schmeez ... Problem in EVERY sim. FSW which I use on the laptop has trees in sports stadium at Chicago if using DD Chicago X, Aerofly FS2 (and maybe 4) has trees on roads and this one has too many and too high. I do not remember if the Australia V2 add on fixed this in FSX or not, and I do not know about P3D and XP. Best thing is to take off and get up to 3-5000 feet and it does not look so bad. 

[bvdboomen 256]

7 hours ago, AOB said:

 Best thing is to take off and get up to 3-5000 feet and it does not look so bad. 

I you're not familiair with a certain area, it doesn't look bad at lower altitudes either.

[s0cks 116]

On 11/18/2022 at 9:47 PM, Sceadu said:

Yea I suppose its just a limitation of the autogen or whatever they call it these days. im not overly bothered about trees in cities as I tend to fly in more out of the way place, but the regular placing of a 30' tree on the threshold of an already demanding PNG strip does get a bit old

All they need to do to fix this is have an invisible extension off each end of each runway, and if any trees are within this extension, they are reduced in size.