No coniferous trees?

[Corrigan]

In the north, pines, spruces and other coniferous trees vastly outnumber deciduous trees. Consider for example the forests around Murmansk 

or Luleå airport

If we look at the screenshots shared, it's a very different picture. I think Orbx should address this quite apparent discrepancy.  

Edited May 2 by Corrigan

[skywalker22]

Agreed. Trees can make a significant mark on a landscape. I think on all the maps there are couple different types of trees very similar to each other. ED (and consequently all the other map creators) should consider implementing some more types. Also the variation in trees height should be good to implement.

Edited May 2 by skywalker22

[pjbunnyru]

Winter will coming… with pines

Edited May 2 by pjbunnyru

[Corrigan]

Got this reply on their discord. 

Edited May 2 by Corrigan

[MBot]

Very good catch. To me the screenshots somehow didn't look quite right but I couldn't put a finger on it. It just didn't look very nordic. I think this is it.

[TheFreshPrince]

Does DCS have standard trees? So these are the same trees as in Caucasus map? If yes, it's very difficult to model northern European forests with them anyway.

[Essah]

2 hours ago, TheFreshPrince said:

Does DCS have standard trees? So these are the same trees as in Caucasus map? If yes, it's very difficult to model northern European forests with them anyway.

Yes its a technology called speed trees that generates trees within an area according to some fixed parameters, which is the only way to create such vast forrests with decent FPS

[skywalker22]

15 minutes ago, Essah said:

Yes its a technology called speed trees that generates trees within an area according to some fixed parameters, which is the only way to create such vast forrests with decent FPS

Its very easy to "plant" objects likes trees or grass blades in 3ds max for example on any area. The point being is the optimization, which one to show to the observer, and which one not.

[TheFreshPrince]

Okay, thanks. Then maybe we should vote for more various "speed tree" models. Would be nice to have more diversified forests. 

[unknown]

11 minutes ago, TheFreshPrince said:

Okay, thanks. Then maybe we should vote for more various "speed tree" models. Would be nice to have more diversified forests. 

The problem is not that there are no conifers in DCS but you would need to stack them close to eachother to get the "dense forest" feel and that would kill the performance, see the quote Corrigan posted:

18 hours ago, Corrigan said:

Got this reply on their discord. 

 

 

[Gunfreak]

3 hours ago, TheFreshPrince said:

Does DCS have standard trees? So these are the same trees as in Caucasus map? If yes, it's very difficult to model northern European forests with them anyway.

Caucasus uses older type of trees I think. They look very different from the trees i se in Normandy or SA.

It's probably all speed tree. But Caucaus uses older versions as it now many years since it got a visual upgrade.

[Schmidtfire]

6 hours ago, unknown said:

The problem is not that there are no conifers in DCS but you would need to stack them close to eachother to get the "dense forest" feel and that would kill the performance, see the quote Corrigan posted:

 

Using the wrong tree types alters the entire look and realism of a northern map.

The solution (in my opinion) is to create conifiers with a size/shape/look that can create a dense forest feel, even if it would mean a slight unrealistic look when viewed as a single tree. 

And then use the more realistic speedtrees for individual tree or small patches of trees around towns, airbases etc.

[cfrag]

9 hours ago, Schmidtfire said:

The solution (in my opinion) is to create conifiers with a size/shape/look that can create a dense forest feel, even if it would mean a slight unrealistic look when viewed as a single tree. 

A possible solution perhaps. I think it was inferred, but not made explicit: "Speed Tree" is a technology/product created by a third party (and a rather big third party). IIRC, ED have licensed some SpeedTree(TM) models for DCS to be used with their own game engine. This can create a problem when/if the area that you want to model your map for is native to a different kind of tree that ED have a) not licensed or b) SpeedTree haven't modelled yet in a way that can be used efficiently with DCS's game engine. In the mean time, we get what we see in Kola today: a tree that's not native to the area (and therefore makes it look strange to those of us who are lucky enough to have visited this beautiful area), yet has enough coverage to obscure the ground with a lower poly count (that the second part of Orbx's comment - conifers, being tapered like a pyramid tend to cover at the base, but not at the top, requiring much more trees to cover the same area). So it's a money and performance thing.

Edited May 4 by cfrag

[stockfisch]

I see the performance issue. But in my opinion the missing conifers are a big immersion killer. Does not feel like beeing up North.

[skywalker22]

34 minutes ago, stockfisch said:

I see the performance issue. But in my opinion the missing conifers are a big immersion killer. Does not feel like beeing up North.

https://kola.orbxdirect.com/posts/57/incorrect-tree-types-almost-everywhere-on-the-map

say it here.

[Holger Sandmann]

Hi all,

good discussion. We'll definitely look into improving tree type, density, and distribution across the map. As mentioned, it's always going to be a compromise between visuals and performance but we'll keep experimenting.

Cheers, Holger

[Bigskill]

Il 7/5/2024 at 22:44, Holger Sandmann ha scritto:

Hi all,

good discussion. We'll definitely look into improving tree type, density, and distribution across the map. As mentioned, it's always going to be a compromise between visuals and performance but we'll keep experimenting.

Cheers, Holger

I think is the best choice considering, the tree in DCS are unique and invincible and always created issue with performance.

 

[addman]

Yeah, I’m from Sweden and it totally ruins the map. I’m not buying until they figured out a way to implement fps-friendly conifers. They’ve done it in their other work for P3D and MSFS. I’d be fine with low-poly trees, you don’t notice even when you’re low. Speedtrees are actually worse fps wise because they are overdetailed AND animated so I don’t quite get the excuse.

Edited Wednesday at 08:04 AM by addman

[Moxica]

Not irrelevant:

 

taiga

noun [ S or U ]

   GEOGRAPHY, ENVIRONMENT   specialized

 

UK 

 

 /ˈtaɪ.ɡə/ US 

 

 /ˈtaɪ.ɡə/

 

(also boreal forest)

 

 

the very large area of wet land in the far northern parts of the world that is covered with conifer trees:

"a village in the heart of the Siberian taiga"

[addman]

I even prefer Orbx own almost 10 year old products for FSX/P3D over the current Kola map. Screenshots below are all Orbx, northern Sweden. It's Orbx "plausible" ground textures which I think looks better and sharper than any photoreal and doesn't take up a lot of storage space. Combined with custom landclass, HD trees and vector data. ALL Orbx products. Great fps, minimal storage space and looks more authentic than the current smeared out photoreal textures amd totally innacurate flora.

 

[bandit648]

The forests on Kola are the exact same trees as the Channel map and South Atlantic and look terribly out of place. The tree model files are exactly the same in all three maps. I hope Orbx comes up with a solution for this. Maybe use the correct tree models but just make the forests thinner. Combined with a good forest floor texture maybe that would produce good results.

 

[addman]

9 hours ago, bandit648 said:

The forests on Kola are the exact same trees as the Channel map and South Atlantic and look terribly out of place. The tree model files are exactly the same in all three maps. I hope Orbx comes up with a solution for this. Maybe use the correct tree models but just make the forests thinner. Combined with a good forest floor texture maybe that would produce good results.

 

I agree, just make some new low-poly tree models that don't necessarily have to sway in the breeze, most conifers don't sway that much anyway unless very hard wind. I guess removing the photoreal textures isn't an option at this point but if they want to save storage space, custom made ground textures will do that because you can use the same tiles over and over again. Like if they really want to improve the map then priorities should be trees, towns and air bases. Those are FUNDAMENTAL things and should've been better from the start to be honest. I'm not bashing, just giving constructive criticism here, it's obvious someone pushed the release button way too early in this case. I really looked forward to this map, being a nordic native and all, but when I see the videos and screenshots of this map I just can't bear myself to buy it.

 

I also don't appreciate that statements from some people "if you don't buy it they can't fix it", that's BS and really unconstructive. It's not the consumers fault that they release a sub-par map. Here's how it works in capitalism, you make something that's good and THEN there will be demand.

[Duck21]

On 5/15/2024 at 7:20 AM, addman said:

Yeah, I’m from Sweden and it totally ruins the map. I’m not buying until they figured out a way to implement fps-friendly conifers. They’ve done it in their other work for P3D and MSFS. I’d be fine with low-poly trees, you don’t notice even when you’re low. Speedtrees are actually worse fps wise because they are overdetailed AND animated so I don’t quite get the excuse.

They could still use detailed trees around airfields, because who wants to land next to low-res blurbs of something. But the vast forests away from airfields can be static low-poly conifers as you are suggesting. I never liked Speedtrees to be honest, hope they come up with something better for detailed vegetation surrounding airfields, road strips and helipads.

I think so far ED has gotten away with not providing decent trees since all the "sand maps" never had to show dense forests, and WW2 maps are less popular, so the outcry was never really big enough until now. I hope ED and ORBX team up and come up with a good solution that works well into the future. 

[Gunfreak]

I definitely don't want low quality trees anywhere on the map. 

It's sucks enough to see them when flying a helicopter (like on Caucasus) but it sucks even more trying to make ground attack vidoes, with low quality terrain  

Edited 8 hours ago by Gunfreak

[skywalker22]

1 hour ago, Gunfreak said:

I definitely don't want low quality trees anywhere on the map. 

It's sucks enough to see them when flying a helicopter (like on Caucasus) but it sucks even more trying to make ground attack vidoes, with low quality terrain  

 

Agreed. At today's hardware, this should not be a problem I suppose, specially with a help of using some tricks.