No coniferous trees?

[addman]

They don't have to be low-res, I'm talking about low-poly trees, less drawcalls etc. They can be 8k trees for all I care, that mostly affects VRAM usage. Amount of polygons affects performance and to be honest, how geometrically advanced does a tree need to be?

[rob10]

While I'd like nice looking conifers too, Orbix did say in a post or interview somewhere that they tried a number of things to make conifers work and couldn't come up with a solution that didn't kill framerates.  Hopefully between ED and them they will keep looking for other options that will work.

[Ebphoto]

On 5/2/2024 at 3:35 PM, Corrigan said:

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.  

 

I must be missing something here because I don’t see a problem with the trees. I think they look fine. They look like pine trees to me and other trees fill the forest up pretty well. Maybe because I live in Florida and we have different trees down here. You know the kind that have coconuts and big leaves way up at the top and nothing in between! Seriously I don’t understand what the problem is. The only time I really look at trees is when I’m flying helicopters and even then I’m just looking to make sure I don’t hit one. I’m not looking at what type of conifer tree it is! Even when I’m up high I’m not concerned about the type of conifer tree in the forest some 20,000 feet beneath me! I’d rather have good frame rates in VR than the proper trees in a forest. Now if it was Palm Trees in the forest and not a bunch of Christmas trees I’d agree with you because that wouldn’t look right but these forest in the Kola map look like conifers to me. The pictures shared in a later post in this thread show these trees look pretty good and the forest look like forest. Just my opinion…

[TheFreshPrince]

With that logic, you can play on Syria map and pretend it's Afghanistan, right? No need for a new map...

It's still supposed to be a sim, so either you get the stuff right or it's kind of pointless to call the map "Kola peninsula". Because Norway, Sweden and Finnland just don't look like this.

[Rudel_chw]

8 minutes ago, TheFreshPrince said:

either you get the stuff right or it's kind of pointless to call the map "Kola peninsula". Because Norway, Sweden and Finnland just don't look like this.

had no idea that trees were the defining characteristic of a Map … so, having the towns and cities with the correct names, the roads where they should be, accurate shoreline, etc, means nothing to you without perfect trees?

the developer already said that the decision to use these trees was heavily motivated by performance issues, and that explanation is good enough for me … on your case, ask for a refund and fly on some other better map.

[Ebphoto]

3 hours ago, TheFreshPrince said:

With that logic, you can play on Syria map and pretend it's Afghanistan, right? No need for a new map...

It's still supposed to be a sim, so either you get the stuff right or it's kind of pointless to call the map "Kola peninsula". Because Norway, Sweden and Finnland just don't look like this.

I was about to say the exact same thing as Rudel_chw said in his reply. I am only referring to the trees not the shoreline etc… Also I took a flight over Bodo and compared them to actual pictures of the real Bodo and it looks pretty good to me. This is also Early Access so thing will improve!  It looks darn good in my opinion and it’s only going to improve!

Edited May 20 by Ebphoto

[TheFreshPrince]

We are talking about specific regions of the map, where the trees don't fit. That's why this thread was created. Of course, in some regions the trees will fit. There have been posted many Screenshots in different threads, where they don't even look remotely close to reality. Posting Screenshots of areas where it already fits and praising the map is pointless as this does not help improving the map!

Also the developers have already acknowledged the problem and promised to work on this topic, which shows that it's a) important and b) not trivial. And that's fine by me, as long as they keep their promise. If you have never been to Scandinavia or don't care, then please don't post in this thread, as it's purpose is to improve the map. 

Edited May 20 by TheFreshPrince

[TheFreshPrince]

vor 9 Stunden schrieb Rudel_chw:

had no idea that trees were the defining characteristic of a Map … so, having the towns and cities with the correct names, the roads where they should be, accurate shoreline, etc, means nothing to you without perfect trees?

the developer already said that the decision to use these trees was heavily motivated by performance issues, and that explanation is good enough for me … on your case, ask for a refund and fly on some other better map.

Have you ever been to northeastern Scandinavia? It's at least 95% forest or steppe. So, yes the trees are important. Imagine having New York skyline in Dubai on Persian Gulf map. Same type, but not the same style. I have also never said that I don't like the rest of the map. But apparently, according to your post, it's forbidden to ask for improvements and point out inaccuracies? And just accept everything as it is? What kind of attitude is this?

 

The community is putting in a lot of work to find out the problems, create solutions (like mods) and helping the devs improve everything. Your post is like stabbing them in the face by saying "ask for refund or fly other map". No! Always keep improving the products and ask for more. This is how DCS grows. 

Edited May 20 by TheFreshPrince

[Northstar98]

9 hours ago, Rudel_chw said:

had no idea that trees were the defining characteristic of a Map …

I'm sure you didn't, because this wasn't actually said anywhere.

Why do you persist in making straw men instead of just addressing what was actually said?

9 hours ago, Rudel_chw said:

so, having the towns and cities with the correct names, the roads where they should be, accurate shoreline, etc, means nothing to you without perfect trees?

Again, nowhere did TheFreshPrince state that only the trees matter and nothing else does. You're pulling this straw man nonsense from nowhere.

It shouldn't be surprising that a thread discussing the trees primarily has responses that concern the trees and doesn't have many responses that are irrelevant to trees (such as the names of places or where the roads should be)...

9 hours ago, Rudel_chw said:

on your case, ask for a refund and fly on some other better map.

Oh of course. Sorry, I forgot that nobody should ever advocate for improvements. 

6 hours ago, Ebphoto said:

I was about to say the exact same thing as Rudel_chw said in his reply. I am only referring to the trees not the shoreline etc… Also I took a flight over Bodo and compared them to actual pictures of the real Bodo and it looks pretty good to me. This is also Early Access so thing will improve!  It looks darn good in my opinion and it’s only going to improve!

This is subjective, but I don't agree whatsoever, I don't see much resemblence in specifically the trees in these 2 images. The former looks like something I'd expect to see closer to the equator, like the Caucasus map.

Edited May 20 by Northstar98

[Ebphoto]

17 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

I'm sure you didn't, because this wasn't actually said anywhere.

Why do you persist in making straw men instead of just addressing what was actually said?

Again, nowhere did TheFreshPrince state that only the trees matter and nothing else does. You're pulling this straw man nonsense from nowhere.

It shouldn't be surprising that a thread discussing the trees primarily has responses that concern the trees and doesn't have many responses that are irrelevant to trees (such as the names of places or where the roads should be)...

Oh of course. Sorry, I forgot that nobody should ever advocate for improvements. 

This is subjective, but I don't agree whatsoever, I don't see much resemblence in specifically the trees in these 2 images. The former looks like something I'd expect to see closer to the equator, like the Caucasus map.

 

Wow! Really? You don’t see it looking remotely the same? That pretty unreal to me! So, I am sure the developer will get this map worked out.. Like I said it is Early Access and this is what happens during the development process. They’ve already stated things about the trees so I’, sure they either get a fix, a compromise or if it can’t be done they’ll do the best they can. Yes, I have been all over Europe however when I got the chance to go to Norway and Sweden it was during a huge installation our company was doing and I had to spend 80% of my time working and then was usually too tired to do much so ordered room service slept and repeat! I never got a chance to do any site seeing at all. Funny how people always think working internationally is so exotic and cooll. While it sounds pretty neat, you don’t get much time to see  the place you’re going. Some places I did or it would be for the Big electronic show they hold in Munic Germany and for the life of me I can’t think of it’s name ( I think it’s Cibit or something similar) and all I can think of is the Munchin Hall where you drink HUGE beers and get completely skokered!! I did get to see a lot of the Middle East and some of Europe whith Italy being my longest and most enjoyable trip. So anyway I understand the tree thing, it’s just not on my list of things to worry about but like they say, to each their own!! Hopefully this will all get worked out for you Thanks…

Edited May 21 by Ebphoto

[Northstar98]

14 hours ago, Ebphoto said:

Wow! Really? You don’t see it looking remotely the same?

I'm not sure I'd go as far as not even remotely, but I don't see see much resemblence in specifically the trees in these 2 images. The density isn't there (though that can be explained by performance) and they appear to be the wrong type.

I've also seen screenshots of trees that appear to have oranges growing on them on the Kola map, fruits that are best grown in far more moderate climates and are sensitive to frost.

14 hours ago, Ebphoto said:

They’ve already stated things about the trees so I’, sure they either get a fix, a compromise or if it can’t be done they’ll do the best they can.

I guess we'll have to wait and see - they may be limited more by DCS terrain technology so it might be too hasty to pin this entirely on Orbx.

14 hours ago, Ebphoto said:

So anyway I understand the tree thing, it’s just not on my list of things to worry about but like they say, to each their own!! Hopefully this will all get worked out for you Thanks…

Well, speaking purely from a personal perspective, the things at the top of my list are:

1. Getting the remainder of the aerdromes present and getting them all as close to 1:1 as possible. Right now they're rather sparse, we are due to get several more in the June update, but there's plenty still that aren't explicitly mentioned as coming.
2. Getting military POIs, in particular SAM and EWR sites (i.e. at least clear areas where the terrain mesh is usable for placing units, going better would be to make some revetments and/or raised positions for launchers and radars that are appropriate for the SA-2, SA-3, SA-5 and SA-10, make a generic SA-2, SA-3, etc site out of said revetments and copy and paste those where appropriate across the map (so, somewhat like what Ugra did with Syria, though they only really did the SA-2 and they didn't do a particularly spectacular job of it) and ideally, they'd try to recreate how the real sites (or at least how they would've looked), as close to 1:1 as possible - this is more like what OneReTech did with the Sinai map and this is a near perfect example of what I'm talking about here. If we can get that and have it done for each SAM site across the map, that would be absolutely incredible.
3. Improving the coastline, by a lot. At the moment, from what I've seen, it suffers from exactly the same problem as the South Atlantic map, where it looks like someone cut out concrete with a cookie cutter and then stuck the land on top of it - it looks quite unnatural when low and slow (such as in a helicopter). All maps do it, at least in some areas, but the water is either raised up or its otherwise hidden a lot better.

There's a few other things like general quality (I think this and this look particularly bad, especially for a map of its price tag), as well as things like getting the bathymetry more accurate (which is particularly important for a map with more of a naval focus). 

Edited May 21 by Northstar98
spelling

[Ebphoto]

14 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

I'm not sure I'd go as far as not even remotely, but I don't see see much resemblence in specifically the trees in these 2 images. The density isn't there (though that can be explained by performance) and they appear to be the wrong type.

I've also seen screenshots of trees that appear to have oranges growing on them on the Kola map, fruits that are best grown in far more moderate climates and are sensitive to frost.

I guess we'll have to wait and see - they may be limited more by DCS terrain technology so it might be too hasty to pin this entirely on Orbx.

Well, speaking purely from a personal perspective, the things at the top of my list are:

1. Getting the remainder of the aerdromes present and getting them all as close to 1:1 as possible. Right now they're rather sparse, we are due to get several more in the June update, but there's plenty still that aren't explicitly mentioned as coming.
2. Getting military POIs, in particular SAM and EWR sites (i.e. at least clear areas where the terrain mesh is usable for placing units, going better would be to make some revetments and/or raised positions for launchers and radars that are appropriate for the SA-2, SA-3, SA-5 and SA-10, make a generic SA-2, SA-3, etc site out of said revetments and copy and paste those where appropriate across the map (so, somewhat like what Ugra did with Syria, though they only really did the SA-2 and they didn't do a particularly spectacular job of it) and ideally, they'd try to recreate how the real sites (or at least how they would've looked), as close to 1:1 as possible - this is more like what OneReTech did with the Sinai map and this is a near perfect example of what I'm talking about here. If we can get that and have it done for each SAM site across the map, that would be absolutely incredible.
3. Improving the coastline, by a lot. At the moment, from what I've seen, it suffers from exactly the same problem as the South Atlantic map, where it looks like someone cut out concrete with a cookie cutter and then stuck the land on top of it - it looks quite unnatural when low and slow (such as in a helicopter). All maps do it, at least in some areas, but the water is either raised up or its otherwise hidden a lot better.

There's a few other things like general quality (I think this and this look particularly bad, especially for a map of its price tag), as well as things like getting the bathymetry more accurate (which is particularly important for a map with more of a naval focus). 

 

I can agree with your list. Sounds pretty fair as long as they can do what you’re asking in regards to those trees. I did see the orange trees and a few others and I would bet they were placed there as temp markers until they can go back and clean it up. It is early access and those kind of things are pretty common. The South Atlantic map had some of the same type issues and now they’ve had time to go back and clean them up. OnReTech has done a fantastic job on their Sinai map. It’s one of my favorite maps to fly on. I’ve seen some screenshots of some of the building they are adding for a future patch and they look amazing. Jerusalem looks like they will be adding some important details as well as some really cool ancient cities like SHaRA (I think thats what it’s called). I was presently surprised when I saw the entrance to it as one of the buildings they are working on. I love small little details like that. I fly in helicopters a lot in DCS so things like this are really great to see. Also I agree with the coastlines looking like the sides of a swimming pool!so those definitely need to go. I think the Marianas map is a great example of what they can do to improve them. Sometimes it’s hard to remember that these maps are in beta stages right now. I think when people pay for things they forget this fact and are too critical in what they actually have or what they bought. People should not purchase these maps in early access if they can’t deal with things not looking very cohesive or pleasing. What I try to do is just remember when I started in flight sims and what it looked like back then. Falcon the first one, the first F117 Microprose software and even earlier software I flew on a 8 bit PC with DOS as the operating system and Windows wasn’t even invented yet. We flew those sims over 300bps modems together! I have a friend who was a F15/ F16 instructor and we flew dogfight all the time over those modems! I look back on the graphics and laugh that we thought they were good. We dreamed of having what we have today. So when I think back while looking at an early access terrain or even an aircraft it helps me put things in perspective! I mean what we can do today is mind blowing. I can put on a VR headset and feel like I’m actually sitting in the cockpit of a F-16C Viper or a AH-64D Apache then fly with a friend as a wingman or in the front seat of my Apache with 50 other players or just together the two of us. It’s just amazing! Anyway I’m rambling now so I’ll get off my soapbox now! I think you catch my drift of what I am saying. Let’s hope ORBX gets this right. I think they will based on their track record with MSFS. We will have to wait and see. BTW if you ever want to fly together just send me a DM either here or on X or my YouTube channel and we can. I’m always open to flying with new people or people I don’t know. This community has some wonderful folks in it. Thanks…

Edited May 21 by Ebphoto

[YoYo]

After Todays patch:

[Qcumber]

24 minutes ago, YoYo said:

After Todays patch:

They look a bit more coniferous although mixed tree types. Any better performance?

[YoYo]

13 minutes ago, Qcumber said:

Any better performance?

Correct (there seems to be a bit less of them, but it looks good), however I was flying only 5 minutes.