New Trees

[Hans_Petter 1]

Since the previous thread wouldn't accept more images I'll try a new one.First image: Jefferson as it appears with the new trees.http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/74091.jpgSecond image: My tree planting experiment at Coupeville Nolf. The new groves are indicated with red arrows.http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/74092.jpgHans Petter

[Christopher Low 5,353]

I would just like to add that Jon's upgraded trees and FBO's are now a permanent addition to my FU3 scenery. They are excellent, and I would like to thank Jon for this superb update. I would also like to upgrade my windsocks too !Chris Low.

[Hans_Petter 1]

You / we might consider upgrading some airports with multiple trees.A good candidate would be Ranger Creek but then, multiple trees may not be more frame-rate friendly. I'd like to see forest wherever there are forests, especially when I'm likely to fly low enough to see the difference. In practice this means a multitude of tree models being placed on "dark green" at either end of a runway. There might be another way to reforest the Seattle region, along the lines of MS FS auto-generated scenery objects. If so, a grove consisting of even simpler tree models might be used to create the illusion of a forest.Hans Petter

[Guest effyouthree]

Folks,As to the autogen, it would be a godsend, although we currently have one! Yesiree, Bob - if trees are placed singly, they 'autogen' quite well, only appearing when a few miles away. Theoretically, one could fill Seattle with trees 'coz you only see them close-up.Of course, this doesn't work (well) with multiple models :-( Another thing, there are lower-res versions of some of the forests but avoid the larger ones for framerates' sake. For example, using 4x small, sparse forests instead of one large, sparse forest will result in better downsizing at a distance. At some distance away, the smaller forests happily trim back to 3-4 trees, reducing overheads markedly.FU3 downsizes models when they occupy less than ~2 degrees of view. This means small things downsize easily whereas the largest forests never do (well, I can't see that far...). My 'row' models disappear quite close-up when you are aligned with them. Perpendicular to them, they stay there for ages ;)Regards,**************Jonathan Point**************"I'd rather be down here wishing I was up there than up there wishing I was down here"

[Guest R_Driscoll]

That's a useful point, about the 2 deg on/off switch. So its OK to mix small and big models together, since the small ones will only take framerate up close. In the same way, we could put more static aircraft around airports if we could have a few distance models, i.e. build an up-close detailed model (say a few hundred, maybe 5-600 polygons) and then a less detailed distance model (say 40-50 polygons), which would make approach rendering faster. So for example I could build (no I couldn't but hypothetically)a model of a comet, called comet0.bin, and then a second simpler distance model, called comet1.bin. FU3 automatically switches between these two models at a certain distanc, showing the '0' model up close and the '1' model at a distance.I did this with a few models, eg glidernut's hangar was built with open doors in the close view, but closed doors at a distance. Probably the switch between close and far models is similar to the angle of view switch described above, possibly at 4 deg view it switches (?). You wouldn't need to do this with hangars though, only with very high polygon objects like static planes and balloons.I think some of these (more technical?) discussions should be copied across to Daniel's site - or a summary maybe.RobD.

[Guest R_Driscoll]

Another point (I forgot). All these small points may seem unimportant, but collectively I think they are helping us build better packages and scenery. Sort of catching up to where LGS was 6 years ago ... hmmm. Anyway, a classic case of poor package development is the London main city (not Hans Petter's part - the bit done before LCA was developed) where I modelled the London Tower Bridge (which was OK - good framerate) but then I wanted to add streetlighting, so I made strips of overhead lights using a single repeating GIF texture but with stacks of transparent bits in it - its a long low flat model, and since streets are at right angles, FU3 always renders at least half of them, even from long distances (see Jon's Law above!). So when you fly near the Bridge, the framerate drops substantially (hey, but it looks good at night). I have also done this around Waterloo station. So now I have some fixing to do! It should be easy to fix the streetlights with no transparency, shorter lengths and get a much better framerate! Weeehoooo. (Australian for "that's a good idea").RobD.