trees fixing

[Gryzor]

Please ED fix the trees? there are awful aspect since the last version, specially those low "surface" fences. In addition, it will be a good idea if in the effort you put a realistic scale, just for not flying over endor world everytime (trees with 150 ft, REALLY is that realisitic?? every tree?? c´mon...)

[Goa]

Please ED fix the trees? there are awful aspect since the last version, specially those low "surface" fences. In addition, it will be a good idea if in the effort you put a realistic scale, just for not flying over endor world everytime (trees with 150 ft, REALLY is that realisitic?? every tree?? c´mon...)

 

 

I absolutely agree, they looks very terrible in terms of visual pleasure....sometimes I have the impression to be flying over a jungle.

Trees were much much better on previous game builts.

[hazzer]

+1 its a glaring error.

[Gryzor]

Most missions, like Ka-50 or chopper designed by ED, are unplayable. Those huge trees (150 ft) makes nearly impossible to locate tanks or other surface targets. In some parts of ther world, there are trees with that size, but in caucasus the general forest doesn´t have ALL trees with sizes about 150 ft. That is totally unrealistic.

 

Trees in other maps are nearly perfect - in how they looks and its scale -, specially on PG malf.

[Goa]

Most missions, like Ka-50 or chopper designed by ED, are unplayable. Those huge trees (150 ft) makes nearly impossible to locate tanks or other surface targets. In some parts of ther world, there are trees with that size, but in caucasus the general forest doesn´t have ALL trees with sizes about 150 ft. That is totally unrealistic.

 

Trees in other maps are nearly perfect - in how they looks and its scale -, specially on PG malf.

 

 

Your statement is incorrect

 

 

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

 

 

It is a large evergreen coniferous tree growing to 55–61 m tall and with a trunk diameter of up to 2 m. In the Western Caucasus Reserve, some specimens have been reported to be 78 m (256 ft) and even 85 m (279 ft) tall,[4] the tallest trees in the Caucasus, Anatolia, the Russian Federation and the continent of Europe.

 

 

 

My only critic to ED is the 3d render quality which is now worse compared to initial/previous dcs 2.5 versions.

 

 

As a matter of fact those trees are in fact very tall IRL.

[PicksKing]

+1 its a glaring error.

 

I guess ED tried to model the partial transparency of leaf. Its a good idea but it definitely needs adjustments.

[Yeti42]

I suspect ED wanted to improve performance by decreasing tree LOD

[wilbur81]

 

 

My only critic to ED is the 3d render quality which is now worse compared to initial/previous dcs 2.5 versions.

 

That was my impression as well, beginning a few updates back.

[Gryzor]

Your statement is incorrect

 

 

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

 

 

It is a large evergreen coniferous tree growing to 55–61 m tall and with a trunk diameter of up to 2 m. In the Western Caucasus Reserve, some specimens have been reported to be 78 m (256 ft) and even 85 m (279 ft) tall,[4] the tallest trees in the Caucasus, Anatolia, the Russian Federation and the continent of Europe.

 

 

 

My only critic to ED is the 3d render quality which is now worse compared to initial/previous dcs 2.5 versions.

 

 

As a matter of fact those trees are in fact very tall IRL.

 

Thanks for the information, sincerely I surprise me a lot those data, maybe you´re right. So if the medium tree size asre about 50 meters, thats correct.

[applesinduck]

It's not the height it's LOD that needs to be fixed. See https://forums.eagle.ru/attachment.php?attachmentid=211385&d=1559866637

 

Sent from my MI 9 using Tapatalk

[wilbur81]

It's not the height it's LOD that needs to be fixed. See https://forums.eagle.ru/attachment.php?attachmentid=211385&d=1559866637

 

Sent from my MI 9 using Tapatalk

 

It's not just the level of detail... that update awhile back swapped out some good lookn' trees for those awful ones in the picture that you referenced. Oh well. :-)

[METEOP]

Has ED removed the SpeedTree implementation at some point?

[wilbur81]

Today's update seemed to have spruced up (no pun intended) the trees from the downgrade several updates ago. I'll have to do some more flying...but they seem better.

[DowntownSIX]

Today's update seemed to have spruced up (no pun intended) the trees from the downgrade several updates ago. I'll have to do some more flying...but they seem better.

 

You think? I thought they render distance dropped off significantly since the previous update and from at a medium distance there is a noticeable pattern to the trees now resulting in neat rows of them.

 

I haven't flown anything low yet so maybe the crappy trees are gone, I shall be a happy bunny if they are.

[wilbur81]

You think? I thought they render distance dropped off significantly since the previous update and from at a medium distance there is a noticeable pattern to the trees now resulting in neat rows of them.

 

I haven't flown anything low yet so maybe the crappy trees are gone, I shall be a happy bunny if they are.

 

The draw distance is great for me (I have the slider set to max), but you're right... from above, there is a wavy row pattern to them that doesn't look the same. I was speaking more from the standpoint of some of those crappy trees from before being minimized... but I might be "placebo-ing."