Do we still have speed-trees in Caucasus?

hi,

as someone already posted in another threead , it is my impression (along with others as well) that speed-trees we've seen last year in tease videos of dcs (which are no longer avaialble on youtube) have be changed with other kind of less "quality" ones.

Also when 2.5 was initially released the trees quality seemed better than what we have now and nevertheless I used to have less stutters when flying above fulll trees areas compared to nowdays 2.5.4 version.

So the question I'd like to ask to devs: are we still having speed-trees in current DCS version or have you guys removed them because of royalties and involved charges from speed-trees technology?

Thanks :thumbup:

My understanding is that Caucasus was updated with speedtrees.

My understanding is that Caucasus was updated with speedtrees.

Speedtrees have been in 2.5 since the begining, my concern/doubts are simple: quality of trees textures seems deteriorated to me compared to initial builts of 2.5 , including variety of trees used.

In current version of 2.5.4 my doubts are : do we still have speed-tree technlogy or was it removed/replaced with "normal" trees? I am asking this for 2 reasons: inferiore trees quality and improved fps stutter when flying above trees-areas.

:smilewink:

I don't have any performance issues personally but I agree the current trees are noticeably inferior to the promotionals. Should be a high/low setting, at least.

I'm still annoyed in every low flying situation that the 2.5 Speedtrees are roughly double-sized compared to what would realistically fit with adjacent objects like buildings and all else.

You can also clearly see it after ejection when standing/walking next to them: every branch, leaf and other vegetation object/texture is oversized by roughly 100% compared to your pilot body.

This makes for far from realistic perception of speed and optically unhomogenic landscape on every low flying situation on the Caucasus map.

I'm still annoyed in every low flying situation that the 2.5 Speedtrees are roughly double-sized compared to what would realistically fit with adjacent objects like buildings and all else.

You can also clearly see it after ejection when standing/walking next to them: every branch, leaf and other vegetation object/texture is oversized by roughly 100% compared to your pilot body.

This makes for far from realistic perception of speed and optically unhomogenic landscape on every low flying situation on the Caucasus map.

The big trees are there for perfomance reasons. One big tree eats less resources than two small ones.

I'm still annoyed in every low flying situation that the 2.5 Speedtrees are roughly double-sized compared to what would realistically fit with adjacent objects like buildings and all else.

You can also clearly see it after ejection when standing/walking next to them: every branch, leaf and other vegetation object/texture is oversized by roughly 100% compared to your pilot body.

This makes for far from realistic perception of speed and optically unhomogenic landscape on every low flying situation on the Caucasus map.

Big trees do indeed exist in the world, or are you unfamiliar with the redwood oaks? They're an extreme example, but there are many across the spectrum. FoV affects your sense of speed more than anytging else does in this context. That is in fact the PRIMARY influence. Get a big screen, increase your FoV to scale, ''sense of speed'' improves. You're playing a video game on a screen, without some tweaking on your end it's never going to 'feel real'.... because it isn't.

Big trees do indeed exist in the world, or are you unfamiliar with the redwood oaks? They're an extreme example, but there are many across the spectrum. FoV affects your sense of speed more than anytging else does in this context. That is in fact the PRIMARY influence. Get a big screen, increase your FoV to scale, ''sense of speed'' improves. You're playing a video game on a screen, without some tweaking on your end it's never going to 'feel real'.... because it isn't.

Smarty, FoV is not my problem, I play either in a Rift or less than 50cm nosetip-distance from a 30“ Dell monitor when in 2D and I know exactly what those restricting angles do to my perception of speed.

I‘m talking about what double-sized flora does to our perception of speed when looking ahead and overflying it low-level.

Take any chopper and go low level flying on the Caucasus map so you got time to take it all in.

I‘m talking about having to stay at 90ft AGL when treetop cruising over a forest with trees that should average a height of 30-50ft by their looks, size of foliage and resolution.

And I‘m talking about average trees in towns that should not reach to the 6th floor of high buildings.

Speedtrees being oversized hugely deteriorates my impression of 2.5 environmental graphics quality from day one.

When 2.5 was first released, I and several of my friends encountered a texture error that caused old janky looking trees after updating.

running dcs repair fixed it then. unsure if this is what OP is running into, but I'm pretty sure I ran into it even after a fresh install during some troubleshooting back then. Memory's a little vague tho.

When 2.5 was first released, I and several of my friends encountered a texture error that caused old janky looking trees after updating.

 

running dcs repair fixed it then. unsure if this is what OP is running into, but I'm pretty sure I ran into it even after a fresh install during some troubleshooting back then. Memory's a little vague tho.

I run DCS repair and remove metashaders and fxo on a regular basis at every open beta patch, nevertheless sometimes trees appears to be old janky quality trees/cartoons style, it seems in conjuction with sun reflections....I dont know how to describe it, but I remember from old 2.5 teaser videos the trees quality was superior.

;)

Trees are a bit mental in 2.5.4.

I took this screenshot with trees set to 100% in the Huey "Rebel Base" mission:

https://imgur.com/PqELCRG

There are both flat trees and normal trees at various distances.

In addition, as of 2.5.4 if you zoom in your view, the trees in the distance will appear to "grow" as you zoom in. It looks worse than <2.5.4.

Yes, Speedtrees is still used on the map, Speedtrees offers many options for level of detail.

Has the dev team decided to downgrade the level of detail since the Speedtree introduction in DCS then ?

Has the dev team decided to downgrade the level of detail since the Speedtree introduction in DCS then ?

this is what I think was done, just my opinion...maybe royalties/fees for high-quality tree speed has a different cost than low-quality speed-trees.

Just my 2 cents.

:smilewink:

I've definitely noticed a downgrade in tree quality in Caucasus map in VR. Maybe it helped with the performance optimization they're working on. I've always been afraid of the thought of them having to lower graphics to increase performance, but I guess they do go hand in hand.

yeah probably they had to decrease the quality in order to achieve a better all performance.

With all of these trees in the caucaus map it's not simple to have decent performance, but I'd rather like to have the otion to choose what kind of details/quality of trees I want to see via in-game option.

This is same as for the shadows in cockpit which can be improved via .lua editing but it doesnt pass IC online.

either way, trees in some situation looks very degradeted in terms of "quality".

I hope will be one day fixed by getting back same quality we've seen at the begining of 2.5 tease videos :)

I had no performance problems but now I have an eye problem with having to look at these uggo trees!

Strange, I don't use Caucasus much unless I am flying the Huey and I noticed those self same trees yesterday.

They are very reminiscent of the trees used in Normandy now. Looking down from the top, they look star shaped. Did they used to call these "sprite trees" or something?

It certainly made me aware that something did not seem quite right with the trees, although because I do not use Caucasus much, I put it down to failing memory.

Smarty, FoV is not my problem, I play either in a Rift or less than 50cm nosetip-distance from a 30“ Dell monitor when in 2D and I know exactly what those restricting angles do to my perception of speed.

I‘m talking about what double-sized flora does to our perception of speed when looking ahead and overflying it low-level.

Take any chopper and go low level flying on the Caucasus map so you got time to take it all in.

I‘m talking about having to stay at 90ft AGL when treetop cruising over a forest with trees that should average a height of 30-50ft by their looks, size of foliage and resolution.

And I‘m talking about average trees in towns that should not reach to the 6th floor of high buildings.

Speedtrees being oversized hugely deteriorates my impression of 2.5 environmental graphics quality from day one.

100% true for me as well!

It kills my impression of speed when flying the Viggen in VR at low heights.

I always think I am too slow, something is wrong with my aircraft configuration ....

Most of the trees are to big, that's fact.

I understand the performance win when using less trees, but it kills something else I personally don't want to have killed.

The funny part is that some leaf trees standing alone somewhere are too big as well, thus the performance argument doesn't count here.

I am currently not happy with the implementation of trees and I would love to have an option to configure my system to my needs.

Question:

Is there any config file that defines the size of trees?

It would be great to have the chance to reduce the size, no matter if by hand or by any future update.

100% true for me as well!

 

It kills my impression of speed when flying the Viggen in VR at low heights.

I always think I am too slow, something is wrong with my aircraft configuration ....

 

Most of the trees are to big, that's fact.

I understand the performance win when using less trees, but it kills something else I personally don't want to have killed.

 

The funny part is that some leaf trees standing alone somewhere are too big as well, thus the performance argument doesn't count here.

 

 

I am currently not happy with the implementation of trees and I would love to have an option to configure my system to my needs.

+1, something's wrong, either the trees, my eyes, my setup or all together but this is a #1 immersion spoiler for speed freaks in LLF like me.

I like current trees - visually good enough with good performance :thumbup:

It's not about performance, it's all about scaling.

Performance is great, no complaints :D

It's not about performance, it's all about scaling.

Performance is great, no complaints :D

both statements are true for me as well

i would also like to see a small decrease in tree size, or a user option (however that would have to be server locked in mp, because of LOS differences between clients - not ideal!).

i think it's still a good idea to have the tree sizes exagerated a little bit (for obvious reasons), however i think right now, it is just overdone and therefore very obvious immediately.