Trees are way too big and it's killing the sense of speed at low altitude

[draconus]

3 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Caucasus has only one size of tree...

Wrong, already proven otherwise in screenshots.

[snowman[FR]]

In forests, having big trees and all around the same size is no problem (You don't fly in forest) and understandable for performance issue, it's more about having more diversity around and in cities.

[Dragon1-1]

28 minutes ago, draconus said:

Wrong, already proven otherwise in screenshots.

Let me rephrase that: Caucasus has a narrow range of tree sizes, with the typical tree being too big. Even if you can find smaller trees, they're way too rare.

[Bucic]

I don't need much in DCS, mostly I do circles around an airfield I chose for stalking. But man, this brakes immersion so much!

Out of the many means to improve the old trees:

- FIX the tree textures/normals

- add pre-baked shadows to entire forested areas

- use solid or partially solid geometries for entire forest areas

ED has chosen this

An older discussion.

https://forum.dcs.world/topic/171738-scale-of-speedtrees-in-25/

 

Edited August 9, 2023 by Bucic

[MAXsenna]

On 5/26/2023 at 11:53 PM, snowman[FR] said:

In forests, having big trees and all around the same size is no problem (You don't fly in forest) and understandable for performance issue, it's more about having more diversity around and in cities.

Don't fly helicopters much do you? 

The trees are so huge I can take an Mi-8 down between them.

[Crouz]

That's why i dont buy maps and hélicos anymore. trees sizes, grounds are so poor and without ambiant occlusion

[LucShep]

13 hours ago, Bucic said:

An older discussion.

https://forum.dcs.world/topic/171738-scale-of-speedtrees-in-25/

 

That DCS World 1.5.8 vs 2.5 side by side video there is an excelent ilustration of the problem.

Yes the old 1.5x had the proportions quite right for the Caucasus trees, much better.
The Caucasus trees in 2.x always looked wrong, at least 50% bigger than what they should be. But in Syria they look alright, proportions wise (to me anyway).

Edited August 10, 2023 by LucShep

[draconus]

Other way around, DCS 1.5 had the trees too small.

[Bucic]

1 hour ago, draconus said:

Other way around, DCS 1.5 had the trees too small.

Sure buddy

[MAXsenna]

On 8/10/2023 at 2:09 PM, LucShep said:

But in Syria they look alright, proportions wise (to me anyway).

I thought so too. Then I watched this video. Watch all the way until you can see that one pilot on the ground, and compare him to the size of the leafs on the trees. He's not even a midget, it's a mouse. 

Edit: It's actually in the thumbnail below. But it's more noticeable in the video. 

 

Edited August 12, 2023 by MAXsenna

[cfrag]

On 5/23/2023 at 3:33 PM, SharpeXB said:

Google what a tree looks like if you’ve never seen one. 

Even though I feel that I roughly know what trees look like, I followed your kind advice. I believe that there is a point to be made here, if perhaps a weak one. The incidence of tall trees (which do exist) appears a bit to high in DCS, and also, when these tall trees are scaled up to their height, they no longer match the proportions that I would expect in densely populated areas (probably because people mess with them and trim them). Many (not all) large trees that I see in my town appear elongated ("slim"), not fully rounded - that seems to only happen to trees that stand alone and have room to grow. 

Here's a picture of the waterfront in Batumi as depicted in DCS. Note how many bulbous (round-crown) trees are higher than three- or even five-story buildings. That can happen, but the incidence and density seems off to me. Also, the bare, branchless area below the crown seems excessive - branches should reach down to almost ground level) - probably another scaling artifact. So I think that something looks off here and perhaps can be improved. Or, as is also a possibility - the buildings are off-scale, and the trees are just fine.

Now, here's a real-world picture of roughly the same area (which I hope to visit soon - it seems drop-dead beautiful), with the incidence of such large trees much reduced.

I note that there are trees higher than buildings, but they are not as prominent, and there are far fewer 'round-crowned' (for lack of better word) really tall trees. 

So to me I think that a case can be made for a adapted distribution of tall trees in populated areas. Which, incidentally, is where I'd fly my choppers. Oh, and when ED are at it, they might as well remove all trees from airfields (Senaki anyone?). Who wants a hazard like than next to runway?

[SharpeXB]

5 hours ago, cfrag said:

Even though I feel that I roughly know what trees look like, I followed your kind advice. I believe that there is a point to be made here, if perhaps a weak one. The incidence of tall trees (which do exist) appears a bit to high in DCS, and also, when these tall trees are scaled up to their height, they no longer match the proportions that I would expect in densely populated areas (probably because people mess with them and trim them). Many (not all) large trees that I see in my town appear elongated ("slim"), not fully rounded - that seems to only happen to trees that stand alone and have room to grow. 

Here's a picture of the waterfront in Batumi as depicted in DCS. Note how many bulbous (round-crown) trees are higher than three- or even five-story buildings. That can happen, but the incidence and density seems off to me. Also, the bare, branchless area below the crown seems excessive - branches should reach down to almost ground level) - probably another scaling artifact. So I think that something looks off here and perhaps can be improved. Or, as is also a possibility - the buildings are off-scale, and the trees are just fine.

Now, here's a real-world picture of roughly the same area (which I hope to visit soon - it seems drop-dead beautiful), with the incidence of such large trees much reduced.

I note that there are trees higher than buildings, but they are not as prominent, and there are far fewer 'round-crowned' (for lack of better word) really tall trees. 

So to me I think that a case can be made for a adapted distribution of tall trees in populated areas. Which, incidentally, is where I'd fly my choppers. Oh, and when ED are at it, they might as well remove all trees from airfields (Senaki anyone?). Who wants a hazard like than next to runway?

[Bucic]

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=power+line+towers+dine+sions+russia&t=fpas&iax=images&ia=images

[ollk22]

On 5/17/2023 at 8:49 PM, pixie said:

Yes I know about the relation between FOV and sense of speed. Before VR and DCS ruined every other hobbies of mine, I was playing Assetto Corsa.

The fact is, whenever I fly over cars, I suddenly get a proper sense of scale, and I can't help myself thinking : " Wow ! I'm fast after all". 

Therefore my sense of scale is wrong most of the time, I believe (but could be wrong) the big trees are a likely culprit.

You might be surprised how far out you think sense of speed should be. Things do not feel as fast as you would expect when up in the air!

[Mad_Shell]

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

 

Man in your picture we see ONE big tree, equivalent to the average tree we see in the Caucasus map, and a bunch a smaller trees (2-4 floors high, which almost don't exist in the Caucasus map). Your picture proves exactly cfrag's point...

 

[SharpeXB]

12 minutes ago, Mad_Shell said:

Man in your picture we see ONE big tree, equivalent to the average tree we see in the Caucasus map, and a bunch a smaller trees (2-4 floors high, which almost don't exist in the Caucasus map). Your picture proves exactly cfrag's point...

 

The point being it sure looks like there are some large trees in the region. I don’t think a game map can get all the foliage right though. I’m sure they just auto gen the same few trees everywhere. 

[MAXsenna]

Man in your picture we see ONE big tree, equivalent to the average tree we see in the Caucasus map, and a bunch a smaller trees (2-4 floors high, which almost don't exist in the Caucasus map). Your picture proves exactly cfrag's point...
 

That's not even a particularly large tree. Park a real Mi-8 next to it. Then you park the DCS Mi-8 next to a DCS tree...
I person were to climb a real tree, you probably could see him all the way. Now imagine those tiny soldiers in DCS do it.
Only place I've seen really huge trees were outside Seattle. Mount Rainier I think. Two kids, and five adults had to hold hands to reach around it.

Now, do understand why it is like this in DCS. I just hope this can be adjusted in the future.


Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk

[draconus]

10 hours ago, cfrag said:

...they no longer match the proportions that I would expect in densely populated areas (probably because people mess with them and trim them). Many (not all) large trees that I see in my town appear elongated ("slim"), not fully rounded...

That's the problem. People expect them to be lower and different basing on their neighbourhood trees. Btw, men cut dead dry branches only, not trim them like shrubbery.

[Crouz]

already 50ft trees is the average high...but 100ft is just to reduce their number and give the impression of dense forest...at low altitude or in a helicopter it's ugly and surreal. because greedy engine and badly made to display many elements.
Those who don't see any problem with it are just ridiculous like someone who sends a screenshot of the only 100ft tree. Here, justified criticism makes fans sick.
What kills the depth and the impression of speed is above all the lighting and the absence of ambient occlusion on the elements more than a few ft away

[DD_Fenrir]

Jesus. Talk about melodrama....

Some of you seriously need to sit back and realise that

IT'S. JUST. A. GAME.

A very realistic one, I grant you, but some compromises have to be accepted to run on a home PC.

The sooner you realise that, accept it, and get just out there and smell the virtual pines, and focus on what DCS does well instead of griping about trees the happier you will be.

Are there somne things wrong with DCS? Sure. But there's a helluva lot of right.

 

[MAXsenna]

That's the problem. People expect them to be lower and different basing on their neighbourhood trees. Btw, men cut dead dry branches only, not trim them like shrubbery.

Nope. I'm basing this on what I see in the forest. To be honest, my parents neighbours have some very large trees. But like cfrag mentions, they're loners.

Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk

[Megalax]

From a professional standpoint, I am a serving Flight Engineer/Crew Chief/Guy yelling in the back/Door Gunner on helicopters. Part of my job consists of calling out heights and distances for the two warm meat autopilots sitting in the front, as from their perspective some tactical sequences can be tricky for them without eyes in the back. As part of my job, when entering confined areas I have to call out heights above the trees as well as above ground once we are clear to move down to land.

One thing I noticed right away about flying helicopters on the Caucasus map is that the trees were very tall for a region at this latitude. I operate on a daily basis in similar latitudes to the Caucasus and can say that the trees are propably 30 to 50 feet too tall. A few techniques we use to call heights in the back is to gauge off the radalt for an initial reading, then use the trees around us and mentally break them down in order to give skid heights as we are usually preoccupied with the clearances around the tail and the sides.

Average deciduous trees are 60 feet in height, while the average evergreen will go between 70-80. Lone pine trees often break the 100ft mark, and can usually be found going up to 120 feet or so. Taller trees, often found in open areas, will sometimes be 10-20 taller than their average counterparts.

The 3 or so types of trees we seem to have on the Caucasus map are very tall. You can easily check your skid height against them and cross check your radalt. The short leafy trees are 110 feet, the Fir evergreen ones 130 and the taller lankier pines are about 150-160.

Reducing their height by 30-50 feet would definitely feel more realistic than how they are in their current state.

Edited October 1, 2024 by Megalax

[Bucic]

On 8/14/2023 at 7:08 PM, DD_Fenrir said:

Jesus. Talk about melodrama....

Some of you seriously need to sit back and realise that

IT'S. JUST. A. GAME.

A very realistic one, I grant you, but some compromises have to be accepted to run on a home PC.

The sooner you realise that, accept it, and get just out there and smell the virtual pines, and focus on what DCS does well instead of griping about trees the happier you will be.

Are there somne things wrong with DCS? Sure. But there's a helluva lot of right.

 

You are mostly seeing drama in what essentially is a discussion on technicalities and realism and you bestow upon us "there good and bad things about DCS." Why don't you read what @Megalaxhposted.

 

[Bucic]

@Megalax

 Thanks for the info! Really appreciated. The discrepancy is clearly there, you pointed out the magnitude of it pretty well.

 

As for ED's decision to go for that compromise - I think the universal stance of people not agreeing with the decision is that the spoiled sense of height/scale is too extreme to be worth it.

Edited October 1, 2024 by Bucic

[MAXsenna]

3 hours ago, Megalax said:

From a professional standpoint, I am a serving Flight Engineer/Crew Chief/Guy yelling in the back/Door Gunner on helicopters. Part of my job consists of calling out heights and distances for the two warm meat autopilots sitting in the front, as from their perspective some tactical sequences can be tricky for them without eyes in the back. As part of my job, when entering confined areas I have to call out heights above the trees as well as above ground once we are clear to move down to land.

One thing I noticed right away about flying helicopters on the Caucasus map is that the trees were very tall for a region at this latitude. I operate on a daily basis in similar latitudes to the Caucasus and can say that the trees are propably 30 to 50 feet too tall. A few techniques we use to call heights in the back is to gauge off the radalt for an initial reading, then use the trees around us and mentally break them down in order to give skid heights as we are usually preoccupied with the clearances around the tail and the sides.

Average deciduous trees are 60 feet in height, while the average evergreen will go between 70-80. Lone pine trees often break the 100ft mark, and can usually be found going up to 120 feet or so. Taller trees, often found in open areas, will sometimes be 10-20 taller than their average counterparts.

The 3 or so types of trees we seem to have on the Caucasus map are very tall. You can easily check your skid height against them and cross check your radalt. The short leafy trees are 110 feet, the Fir evergreen ones 130 and the taller lankier pines are about 150-160.

Reducing their height by 30-50 feet would definitely feel more realistic than how they are in their current state.

 

Agree with everything while I guess there a reasons for ED doing it this way. We can hope though.