answered HD Trees - is this correct?

[andy1252]

Went on my first flight from Gisborne, and although it's a truly wonderful piece of scenery, I found myself very distracted by the trees. I'm using HD trees (and have done since release) and I know the trees are not all necessarily 3D (although some seem to be approaching that) but the 2D "flat-fold" effect seems particularly marked here. I've been "away" from such scenery for a while, either in XP, AFS2 or when in P3D mostly in So-Cal, so it may be I've just forgotten that these sort of trees look like this. But I went back and looked at some of my old screenshots and don't seem to see this effect quite so markedly there, and the sample screenshots for NZGS on the ORBXDirect site don't seem to show this effect (although there's nothing there quite so close up to the trees). So my question is - does this look the way it should do? I recently upgraded my P3D to 4.3 for both client and content, and then after seeing my trees I re-installed HD trees in case the "content" install had replaced it but it didn't make any difference. These shots are post re-install.

 

 

 

Like I said, perhaps it's just the way this type of tree is done. I got the same effect at Milford Sound -

 

But other tree forms, like these in the Bay Area, seem much more lifelike -

 

Any advice gratefully received, and if it's just a case of "that's the way they are" so be it. All my P3D settings are pretty much maxed out with everything turned on, if that's a factor.

[Scott Harmes]

Hi Andy,

 

There is some info in the following post regarding your query.

 

 

 

Cheers,

[andy1252]

2 hours ago, Scott Harmes said:

There is some info in the following post regarding your query.

 

Thanks for the link, Scott. I've read through that and it all sounds a bit inconclusive (my normal paranoia tends to make me suspect "P3D dun it!") but it seems like a case of "get over it". So I will. Shame though, it takes some of the shine off some of these splendid areas.

[Scott Harmes]

4 minutes ago, andy1252 said:

 

Thanks for the link, Scott. I've read through that and it all sounds a bit inconclusive (my normal paranoia tends to make me suspect "P3D dun it!") but it seems like a case of "get over it". So I will. Shame though, it takes some of the shine off some of these splendid areas.

 

I might suggest disabling the shadowing for trees.  I think it is "cast shadows" you will need to disable, as this tends to exaggerate the 2D plane model of the tree.  I know that's not the best solution, as tree shadows can add greatly to the scenery.  Just have a play around with your shadows to find the best compromise.

 

Apart from creating totally new, completely new, totally 3D models for trees globally, there really isn't much that can be done.  You can enable speed trees in P3D, but personally I do not like the look of them at all.

 

Cheers,

[andy1252]

14 minutes ago, Scott Harmes said:

You can enable speed trees in P3D, but personally I do not like the look of them at all.

I'm with you on that one. I'll play with the shadows and see what it feels like, otherwise I guess I'll just have to fly a bit higher in the affected areas!

[Mikelab6]

18 minutes ago, Scott Harmes said:

 

I might suggest disabling the shadowing for trees.

 

+1

@andy1252 If you look at your screenshots, you will see your last image is without shadows (better looking). Try to disable shadows, and test it...

 

Mike

[andy1252]

1 hour ago, Mikelab6 said:

 

+1

@andy1252 If you look at your screenshots, you will see your last image is without shadows (better looking). Try to disable shadows, and test it...

 

Mike

HI Mike, I never change my settings for such things so that last image would have had all shadows set on, but I guess the angle of the shot excludes any showing up. But I will experiment - I'll try the veg set to cast but not receive shadows and see how that works. Thanks for your input.