This is the first youtube comparison video that I've seen. The mod has changed just one of the default Asobo files. Each line in that one file has two numbers which are minimum and maximum height for that particular species of grass, shrub, or tree. Therefore you can modify the mod yourself, such as removing somewhere around the same percentage from each number, such as maybe one fourth. To swap, just drop the mod or modified mod into community.

 

Anyway, this guy's video, 5 days ago showing stock mod vs. default. (it's a payware $5 mod, not the free flightsim.to mod).

 

He mentioned city vs. rural. I use another mod, the free one on fs.to. I cut down all the numbers another 1/3. On the block of the street where I live the trees are no longer higher than the houses. So it did work in my city.

I can't believe this still hasn't been addressed by the stock sim. We were complaining about this in the tech alpha!

Microsobo is way too stubborn for their own good.

At least we have options.

8 hours ago, kiwikat said:

I can't believe this still hasn't been addressed by the stock sim. We were complaining about this in the tech alpha!

Microsobo is way too stubborn for their own good.

I don't think they're stubborn. I think this is a deliberate engineering choice.

When you make trees less tall, you also make them less wide. This makes a forest look "thinned out", unless you also increase the number of trees - but that is going to cost performance. (I haven't checked out the mod yet to see if it places more trees in addition to making them smaller.)

And the way it works out, if you make the trees half their original size, you need four times as many trees to achieve the same impression of density. (If you imagine for simplicity that the trees are laid out on a completely regular chessboard pattern., then if you halve the width of the chess fields, there are now four chess fields in the space that was formerly occupied by just one.)

I think Asobo wanted dense forests but found they couldn't get the performance they wanted with trees of realistic size - so they made the trees bigger than they should be.

Should they make a different tradeoff - accept lower tree density, tie tree size to object LOD, give users a slider to control tree size? Maybe. But it's not a simple choice, and I assume they've had lengthy discussions about this.

Don't get me wrong, the unrealistically large trees bug me too, and I'm interested to try out this mod. But I'm pretty sure Asobo had engineering reasons for their choices, and I don't think it's fair to suggest that they're simply being stubborn.

FWIW, Jorg talks about trees enhancements coming in MSFS 2024 at last year's FSExpo at this timestamp: https://youtu.be/VPhScg_FINE?t=1087 (much more tree diversity, 3D trees, correct tree heights, etc)
 

Edited May 9, 20242 yr by lwt1971

2024 must have some wicked optimization for every tree to be a 3D model.

I‘m going to guess some extreme LOD. Only so many trees are full 3D at a time, and probably depends on how close you are.

Edited May 9, 20242 yr by Tuskin38

40 minutes ago, Tuskin38 said:

2024 must have some wicked optimization for every tree to be a 3D model.

I‘m going to guess some extreme LOD. Only so many trees are full 3D at a time, and probably depends on how close you are.

I imagine they can use the current tech which is just fancy tree imposters as a fallback to distant LODs, they already look good from a sane distance.

That and better culling methods, DX12 offers gpu-based culling, question is how evolved FS2024 will be on those aspects.

Having said that the bigger challenge is shadows while LODs change, unlike simple shapes like buildings,  trees are self-shadowing complex structures so shadow popping may be more noticeable.

Edited May 9, 20242 yr by Inu

I've been using this for a while... it's a nice difference I like it

Why would I pay for an addon that just changes some number values?

Edited May 9, 20242 yr by Tuskin38

1 hour ago, martinboehme said:

But I'm pretty sure Asobo had engineering reasons for their choices

I think it's more a hangover from the FSX code base. The rationale remains the same, oversized objects make an area look more dense for fewer objects.

However, as I mentioned in a P3D thread a few years ago, all buildings and trees are approximately 33% ‐ 45% bigger than they should be, which gives a false sense of altitude and speed.

6 minutes ago, F737MAX said:

I think it's more a hangover from the FSX code base. The rationale remains the same, oversized objects make an area look more dense for fewer objects.

However, as I mentioned in a P3D thread a few years ago, all buildings and trees are approximately 33% ‐ 45% bigger than they should be, which gives a false sense of altitude and speed.

Same as the clouds.  There is little sense of speed compared to flying through them in a real aircraft.

1 hour ago, Tuskin38 said:

2024 must have some wicked optimization for every tree to be a 3D model.

I‘m going to guess some extreme LOD. Only so many trees are full 3D at a time, and probably depends on how close you are.

I think tree modelling will be simular to Xplane12 where I think nearby trees are 3D while trees further away they aren't , and don't need to be either.

2 hours ago, martinboehme said:

I don't think they're stubborn. I think this is a deliberate engineering choice.

When you make trees less tall, you also make them less wide. This makes a forest look "thinned out", unless you also increase the number of trees - but that is going to cost performance. (I haven't checked out the mod yet to see if it places more trees in addition to making them smaller.)

And the way it works out, if you make the trees half their original size, you need four times as many trees to achieve the same impression of density. (If you imagine for simplicity that the trees are laid out on a completely regular chessboard pattern., then if you halve the width of the chess fields, there are now four chess fields in the space that was formerly occupied by just one.)

I think Asobo wanted dense forests but found they couldn't get the performance they wanted with trees of realistic size - so they made the trees bigger than they should be.

Should they make a different tradeoff - accept lower tree density, tie tree size to object LOD, give users a slider to control tree size? Maybe. But it's not a simple choice, and I assume they've had lengthy discussions about this.

Don't get me wrong, the unrealistically large trees bug me too, and I'm interested to try out this mod. But I'm pretty sure Asobo had engineering reasons for their choices, and I don't think it's fair to suggest that they're simply being stubborn.

This is a perfect explanation of why all this mods, free or payware, introduce stutters in heavy scenarios. You pull them out of the comm folder and stutters are gone.

REX Accuseason has an option for different tree heights. I'm guessing this works in the same way?