Looking at the first few pages, it’s the same toxic bunch that has dwelled there for years. Not saying that the claims aren’t valid, but if there’s something to complain about, real or not real, those are the typical ones who post first.
8 Likes
why didn’t they just make all draw distance settings configurable? it would be the best for them and for us.
2 Likes
Avsim has always been a rather toxic group, they complained heavily about FSX, XP, P3D, and now MSFS. They’re not a “trusted” source in my book. I mean, neither is this place too much but it’s a bit better than avsim.
9 Likes
Very much agree.
Beta testers on Avsim confirmed that the tree LOD was fixed while they were testing it last week. Now they are saying that Asobo might have forgotten to include those changes in this update.
3 Likes
Are you being serious?
It’s been logged and logged and logged and forumed and forumed and zen’d and zen’d for almost a year on a repetitive basis!
1 Like
You mean people broke the NDA? Well, that’s certainly the way to go forward.
Best approach to no longer have beta tests in the future.
Avsim is a really special place sometimes… Not in a good way.
4 Likes
In a single word: no.
It’s a game. I am entertained. That’s all that counts (for me).
3 Likes
Is it hard to take a screenshot of the same region, from the same point of view? I can’t even tell whether those pictures have been taken in the same country or not…
2 Likes
Some people are never happy with anything and love to nitpick like if they could do better,…in their dreams
4 Likes
I really don’t understand this “tree” thing. I never noticed it as a problem in my flying, and viewing many of the examples of the 'horrible" paucity of trees…I think, that looks fine to me, what are they talking about?. But then, I’m not really into forestry and I came to fly, so I may not be as sensitive as the arborists out there.
10 Likes
On this my dear fellow we are entirely in agreement. I look.upon these comparison screenshots and all I can muster is a shrug. I just don’t see it.
4 Likes
The NDA doesn’t only apply during the test, same was for the alpha.
You’re not allowed to disclose any information, even after release, about anything from the test.
And like every NDA, it’s a binding (and not timely limited) contract between the tester and MS which might even have legal implications. Or at least it might give MS the signal that the testers are not trustworthy so they stop doing betas again.
But anyhow, it’s pretty obvious that the tree draw distance was in fact improved compared to previous release, it just seems like it’s not enough for some users.
It’s a fair point, but this thread title here and the heated discussion in the other forum is just silly.
Also if you read the discussion in the Q&A, people throw false accusations against MS/Asobo for not having fixed anything and at some point I lose hope into parts of this community.
7 Likes
Thanks, Copper. You always make a lot of sens. (Sorry, had to to that).
1 Like
Pun intended? In that case: 
You’re drawing wrong conclusions. There’s always a reason for NDAs since testers might get information not meant for the public. The NDA doesn’t mean there will be such a thing, it just avoids any discussions afterwards if information is leaked. Plain and simple and a common practice.
Note that the NDA doesn’t change the outcome of the beta in any way (if anything, it allows more open communication during the beta), not sure why it’s so important what went on in the test.
Just compare the previous and the current release as I did and you get your results.
It’s pretty clear that the release notes state a fix for an issue and one can clearly see an effect. If it’s not matching your expectations is basically your issue since that’s not what the release notes promise to do.
Please stop with the conspiracy stuff.
With a public beta, the amount of received feedback will simply be too much to digest. With a smaller group, it’s way more manageable.
7 Likes
@wilco3563
I guess there could be several reasons for why you “don’t understand this “tree” thing” and don’t know what they are talking about.
-you simply do another type of flying and don’t encounter this
-you haven’t actually been affected by it, so you don’t see it
-you don’t see because you’re not looking into it and don’t follow the various threads existing
-you don’t want to see it
-It’s not important to you…
-etc etc etc…
Taking a screenshot from this thread here, I can show you. To fair, it’s not the best screenshot resolution wise, so you have to zoom a bit in, but it’s definitely noticeable. The user wrote his settings are set to ultra. I assume that’s true until proven otherwise. I painted the line after which trees do stop rendering to make it easier to see (as a thousand other’s have done it before me):
What is your guesstimate how far out this line is from the aircraft? My guess it’s below 5nm.
It bothers me, because for me it’s so rampantly striking, that there simply are no trees (maybe even no buildings, not sure) after this point, leaving you with nothing to see except the increasingly blurry ground ortho photos after that point.
I don’t like the look of a flat ground texture, so it’s a problem. Not only for me, but a lot of others.
If you still have problems seeing this or seeing this as a problem, refer to the list of reasons above.
7 Likes
I can understand why this issue may be underwhelming for some. However, to me (and others) it is especially frustrating because:
- The game was touted for its graphics, and the graphics looked much better at launch.
- When the graphics went south, one of the biggest issues was the tree draw distance, and this was fixed with a number of “tree mods” without any impact on performance
- The mod stopped working after the previous update, without one peep from Asobo as to why.
- They supposedly fixed it, but that really didn’t happen
Is it a conspiracy, or just incompetence?
9 Likes
