Tree quality does not affect it. Altitude is some 500 feet ? I see no difference between the images and a clear boundary, but the tree boundary seems farther away than my Sweden images and also the Amazon I posted here. Where did you take the picture ? I wonder if it is altitude, or other settings than terrain LOD and tree quality affect this…
There is absolutely no question at all something is really wrong in the Nordics.
I’ve never once set foot there in-game but yesterday, having flown over LA and SOCAL which looked good, I had a very quick go at one of the Bush Trips starting in Stockholm. Even running down the runway the grass was rendering in squares along the side. As soon as I got airborne you could see the scenery popping in, the tree draw was virtually non-existent and the distant scenery looked distinctly 2 or 3 generations old. The difference between that and the US was night and day.
Something is fundamentally awry here. Tree LOD issues aside, it looks significantly worse than the UK and US where I do most of my sim flying and for people who wish to regularly fly around this beautiful part of the world, that must be immensely frustrating!
Well, this tile popping you can now see on every coast and watermask if flying really low, even many vids on YT show them. Seems they have broken something again in the last WU and not being aware of it… Just adds to my question if Asobo does really understand their own engine, sorry to say…
The dark green trees you see are from photogrammetry. Light green are the auto-gen trees drawn on top. I was measuring the impact of FPS from drawing more auto-gen trees with the same tree distance (terran detail constant, hence same tree boundary, or in this case PG data boundary)
Measuring the inefficiency of drawing tons of tiny separate trees while the PG tree mesh is already covering the area. Tree density does affect frame rate, just ‘proving’ that distance trees are not optimized and rendered individually instead of as a mesh.
Yes @SvenZ, I think you’re right… There are two dark green boundaries. I zoomed it in, see below. The orange one delimits the actual trees, and the blue one delimits a region with a dark green texture and some lakes. So maybe my conclusion was premature and the first boundary is the same I found in Norway and in South America. Difference: textures on the horizon are light green there, not dark green… that’s making the issue worse… bottom line is… why does moving from LOD-50 to LOD-100 to LOD-200 not change this distance. It can still be a simple bug, that could be solved with a hotfix.
That is very strange indeed as it does where I have been flying. I visited Norway last year on my tour, this is what it looked liked back then at Terrain detail 200 Trees on High (September 7th 2020)
I can try to recreate some of the scenes when I find some extra time. It does look shorter already. At least all pics there are with standard zoom as I was not comfortable with the drone cam yet
In that topic there’s a nice image…
It shows here was a tree distance 19th of may too… you solved the tree distance on most images using clouds but I think we have a reference now… this is not Norway, but this was the distance then … if you enlarge it, you see the trees sticking out… this is clearly further away than it is now.
I did a comparison with Stockholm on Nov 20. It was merged into another thread but found the post again
That would be the one to compare again today, clearly visible lod ranges. If only I had written down the coordinates
There was a bug back then that trees at closer ranged thinned / disappeared when increasing LOD, you can see it on the island when you click through the pictures. That should be fixed now.
yes, broken clouds solve a lot of issues. Tree draw distance being one of them
Just confirmed in the dev Q&A, the tree LOD bug in Norway/Sweden is fixed in Sim Update 5.
The fix is for global not only norway\sweeden, it was the latitude bug issue, they readed the post on this, now trees are came back like December according to them.
Finally, but I only believe it when it is actually there, it was reported being fixed already several times with no avail…
I will only believe it when I see it.
Anyone feel like the Nordic trees shimmer more than any other trees in the game?? The thin pointy ones
They might put the tree draw distance to what it used to be, but frankly that was also poor. It relied on a 3rd party mod to be able to have trees far in the distance, which is required to a) look realistic, and b) cover up the blurry textures in the distance, which, again, even on ULTRA is not very far.
These performance upgrades are great and all, but a lot of people, myself included, don’t want performance upgrades, the performance is fine, what we want are graphical upgrades, a start would be putting the graphical quality to what it was on release.
I am petrified that with these promised, quite substantial, performance gains in SU5, the graphical quality will be even further downgraded. Whether these downgrades are so the sim can be released Xbox or they are to address the issue of people complaining about performance, who are quite possibly running inappropriate settings for their hardware, is another question.
One thing doesn’t exclude the other. Better performance means more room for graphical improvements for those who have invested in heavier machines
In principle I completely agree. However, if the performance increase comes from graphical downgrades, then it is just a pointless merry-go-round, and all that will happen until the graphical improvements are made is those who don’t have performance issues will have a worse looking sim.
I see no evidence either that they will make graphical improvements, all we have had so far have been performance improvements and graphical downgrades.
It really isn’t.
And there’s no evidence to a graphic downgrade. The performance comes from better memory and CPU usage. Today’s Q&A stream went over it.
They showed footage in the Q&A.
It really is. I’ve never been below 35 fps with everything at ULTRA.