resolved KAVX Catalina - Low resolution bushes

[renault]

I've noticed the following issue at Catalina, which seems to be associated with SU5/WU6 in some way.

 

Several questions:

 

1. Does anyone else see this low resolution  bush in the same way as shown in the following screenshots.

 

2. Is this asset part of the Catalina package or is it from  the MS2020 trees/bushes library

 

All my settings are at Ultra and I have gone through the reset/reload process for both trees and shrubs/bushes
in the MS2020 Graphics settings to no avail. 

 

I do not have any "trees mods" or other packages modifying trees/vegetation.

I have also run verify files without success. 

 

My next step would be to uninstall/reinstall but I thought at this point I should just check to make sure
that it is a package object.

 

Unfortunately this object appears throughout the Catalina scenery  and it appears to be showing as a very low 
resolution object although surrounding vegetation is of a proper resolution. 

 

Thank you
Pete

 

 

 

 

 

[Nick Cooper]

Hello Pete,

they don't look too bad here:

 

[renault]

6 hours ago, Nick Cooper said:

Hello Pete,

they don't look too bad here:

 

 

Thanks NIck

 

I agree with you.  That is exactly what I expected I should be seeing.

 

I have now tried deleting all KAVX Textures and let Orbx Central  reinstall them. Unfortunately, it has made no difference.

 

Any thoughts on what I should try next?

 

Thanks

 

Pete

[Sniper31]

Pete, this may be an obvious thing you have already tried, but have you tried reinstalling the Orbx Libraries? I don't even know if that would make a difference, but trying to think of any options for you to try. 

 

Landon

Edited September 15, 2021 by Sniper31

[renault]

3 hours ago, Sniper31 said:

Pete, this may be an obvious thing you have already tried, but have you tried reinstalling the Orbx Libraries? I don't even know if that would make a difference, but trying to think of any options for you to try. 

 

Landon

Hi Landon

 

That's a great suggestion, and I hadn't considered that, because I didn't think that there were Orbx libraries for MS2020.  I just went through Orbx central and was unable to find any mention of their use in MS2020.  The only other sim I have is XPlane, and indeed there are Orbx libraries for it.

 

Do you have any idea where they might be stored.

 

I've just tried changing tree settings and that makes no difference to the resolution.  It is almost like the tree resolution is disabled on my system.

 

I've just been to the MS2020 official site, and there are some vague references to odd tree behavior in Germany  since Wu6, but nothing related to what I am seeing. Those reports seem to see a bit of an inverse correlation between ground resolution and tree resolution i.e. high ground resolution gives low tree density and low resolution which flips when ground resolution is low.

 

Hopefully one of the Catalina scenery developers may have some thoughts, but at this point I am beginning to wonder if this is a bug in WU6.

 

But as Nick has shown it doesn't seem to be an issue on his system. I have noticed that as you get closer to this object, it "jumps" in its resolution and becomes increasingly poorer .  It's almost as if one is viewing an mip mapped object, and the mip mapping somehow has been reversed for some reason.

 

As you can see from this screenshot, the resolution of the surrounding vegetation, the large boulder etc  and the ground texture itself all seem to be quite good.

 

KAVX is one of my most liked scenery areas, but this is a bit of an immersion "bump" when you see this.  If other folks see it as well then it very well could be a bug .  But if it seems to be only affecting my system, then it would seem to be a corrupted file, or a setting which somehow isn't being applied correctly.

 

That's why I asked the first question if others saw the same type of behavior.  It all and all seems to be a bit of a mystery  

 

 

 

Cheers & thanks!

All the best

Pete

[Sniper31]

This does seem a peculiar one for sure Pete. For what it's worth, after I read your opening post in this thread, I did start a flight at KAVX just to compare, and those exact same bushes look high resolution on my end, just like Nick's do. So, the Orbx Libraries suggestion was me grasping at straws. I didn't even look to see if there were such libraries in MSFS, rather I kind of just assumer there would be. I assume you have no freeware bush/tree addon's? Knowing you, even if you did have something like that, I am sure you would have already worked on that. It's hard to suggest anything to you as you and Nick both are like the Go To gentlemen on here for MSFS related issues. 

 

I will marinate on this issue you some more and if I think of anything, I'll post up here.

 

Landon

[Doug Sawatzky]

Hi Pete

 

Are running the sim in Developer mode?

 

Also, have you tried Nick's below process?

 

 

[renault]

1 hour ago, Doug Sawatzky said:

Hi Pete

 

Are running the sim in Developer mode?

 

Also, have you tried Nick's below process?

 

 

Hi Doug

Thanks for the assistance

 

Are running the sim in Developer mode?  - No , I never use it 

 

Also, have you tried Nick's below process? - Yes, it is one of my "go to" checks that I use when I have issues.

 

It is a real oddity at the moment, since other folks (Nick, Landon @Sniper31 and a few fellow members I've PM'd)  don't seem to see what 

I am seeing.  That seems to point to it being a setting somewhere 

 

Isn't MS2020 absolutely fascinating though?.  When it behaves itself , its great, and when it decides to misbehave, its even "greater" in terms of the variety

of individual issues that can manifest themselves.  Keeps us all on our toes 

 

Cheers & thanks

Pete

[renault]

7 hours ago, Sniper31 said:

This does seem a peculiar one for sure Pete. For what it's worth, after I read your opening post in this thread, I did start a flight at KAVX just to compare, and those exact same bushes look high resolution on my end, just like Nick's do. So, the Orbx Libraries suggestion was me grasping at straws. I didn't even look to see if there were such libraries in MSFS, rather I kind of just assumer there would be. I assume you have no freeware bush/tree addon's? Knowing you, even if you did have something like that, I am sure you would have already worked on that. It's hard to suggest anything to you as you and Nick both are like the Go To gentlemen on here for MSFS related issues. 

 

I will marinate on this issue you some more and if I think of anything, I'll post up here.

 

Landon

Thanks Landon 

"same bushes look high resolution on my end, just like Nick's do"

 

This was helpful as it suggests that I have a setting somewhere that is not what it should be.

I will keep plugging away at it 

Cheers

Pete

[Ken Hall]

Tim would know if this bush is one of his , it may be one of the msfs lib objects, I would reinstall msfs, overnight is the way I upgrade mine, uninstall, the base package, rename your community folder and delete the official folder, then go to the store and reinstall, finally rename your community folder back to community. Last resort remove Catalina and reinstall 

[Jon Clarke]

Those blobby bushes look like the  ones you can get with photogrammetry enabled

[renault]

@Nick Cooper, @Sniper31, @Doug Sawatzky, @Ken Hall, @Jon Clarke

 

Gentleman

Apologies for not responding sooner, but unfortunately all of the  suggestions didn't have any effect on what I was observing.

 

However, the good news is that I have  finally found the root cause of the issue.  In that respect , everyone's comments added info and understanding

to help to track down what was going on.

 

I am particularly grateful to fellow member Craig  @craigeaglefire , who was helping me by comparing default scenery rendering.  It was a comment which 

he made to me along the lines of why does your default scenery look different than my default scenery.

That caused me to start thinking a bit "outside of the box" and led to the following.

 

In terms of MS2020 bugs, this one has definitely caused me pause 

 

It is easiest to see with screenshots.

 

I am so very appreciative of all the suggestions and help from everyone. Thank you

Every comment helped me to track down what was going on.

Cheers

Pete

 

I should emphasize that this is something I observed on my system.  But at the present time it is a fresh install of MS2020

 

So I started wondering ,  since the bushes were such low resolution if, the reversed settings issue with Texture resolution for internal cockpit textures that I mentioned

many postings ago was somehow at play again. i.e. A setting of Ultra in graphics options is actually low.

 

SU4

This is a pre SU5 update.  It looks identical to what Nick kindly posted above.

 

SU5/WU6

Now the bush has been replaced by a poorly rendered tree.  Also off the the right, the large bushes are very low resolution.

 

In fact the tree is a default MS2020 asset as can be seen in these two screenshots

 

 

 

SU5/WU6 

So this morning, on a "whim" I changed the tree resolution to low to check out my speculation that possibly the render setting bug , which I did report

to the Zendesk is possibly at play here.

 

And this is what I got. Now the low resolution default tree , is now replaced by a properly rendered bush  kand tghe bushes off to the right now

render properly

 

And changing back to Ultra  (which is actually Low) should give me a very poor quality low resolution bush

 

But it reverts back to a poorly rendered tree . The odd part is that the bushes to the right, don't revert back to low resolution.

 

As I said, it is what I am seeing on my system, but with this changed setting i.e. Tree resolution to Low, my default scenery now renders identically to 

the check screenshots that Craig assisted me with.

 

So thank you everyone again for all your assistance.  In the developing saga of bugs and fixes in MS2020 , this one is definitely one of the stranger ones

I have encountered.

 

Cheers & thanks!

Pete

 

@Nick Cooper Nick would you mind changing the status on this to resolved please. Thank you

 

 

[Smudger]

Good news Pete, well done, Sherlock would be proud of you

[Sniper31]

Very interesting find Pete, very interesting indeed. Thank you for sharing your findings with us here.

 

Landon

[renault]

2 hours ago, Smudger said:

Good news Pete, well done, Sherlock would be proud of you

 

1 hour ago, Sniper31 said:

Very interesting find Pete, very interesting indeed. Thank you for sharing your findings with us here.

 

Landon

 

It definitely was a challenge 

Cheers & thanks

Pete

[Nick Cooper]

Hello Pete,

I find that the Ultra and Low settings work as expected, on the trees.

The tree models are not particularly sharp and it looks like there are only three of what the simulator defines as "trees" in the picture.

 

Ultra

 

Low

 

In the Usercfg.opt file, setting trees to Low, shrugs and bushes at high, produces these entries.

 

Quote

}
    {VegetationLarge
        Enabled 1
        Quality 0
    }
    {VegetationSmall
        Enabled 1
        Quality 3
    }

 

which would suggest that the settings are working as they should be expected to.

It is the case that the Ultra setting for "Texture Resolution" produces this:

 

Quote

{Texture
        MaxAnisotropy 16
        Quality 0
    }

 

but it is the Usercfg.opt entry that is different, 0 instead of 3, not the in game setting, which does indeed produce Ultra textures.

[renault]

1 hour ago, Nick Cooper said:

Hello Pete,

I find that the Ultra and Low settings work as expected, on the trees.

The tree models are not particularly sharp and it looks like there are only three of what the simulator defines as "trees" in the picture.

 

Ultra

 

Low

 

In the Usercfg.opt file, setting trees to Low, shrugs and bushes at high, produces these entries.

 

 

which would suggest that the settings are working as they should be expected to.

It is the case that the Ultra setting for "Texture Resolution" produces this:

 

 

but it is the Usercfg.opt entry that is different, 0 instead of 3, not the in game setting, which does indeed produce Ultra textures.

 

Thanks Nick.  I see that  and late this afternoon, my MS2020 did a small update (about 10 MB) and my behaviour appears to be as yours now.  I'm thinking that it must have detected a missing file(s) possibly. The odd thing in all of this is once I had run the sim with everything set to 0 is Usercfg.opt , the two original very poorly rendered bushes that caused me to report the issue originally,  have consistently been properly rendered and have remained so. 

 

The other thing I found in researching possible issues is a description of how pg objects such as trees are created.   The photogrammetric trees are 2D objects and through shadowing and parallax , they will view as 3D objects from above.  The "from above" comment is important in that the design takes into account that the resolution of the tree objects is much higher when viewed from above than when viewed sideways ( a comment was that most users will only see them when flying over them, so making objects with differing resolution saves on processing  time).

 

This has always been this way since the sim was first released as to model trees conventionally would bring it to its knees.  The actual control for tree placement is apparently tied to Bing maps in that the Ai algorithm detects large green areas in the map photoscenery and using that along with other rule based criteria determines that for example it is a "treed area" and then populates it with objects accordingly.  From that I would speculate (I'm not a scenery designer) that if you were using customized vegetation objects  with exclusion polygons to mask out the underlying data, there is a possibility that a Bing map update would allow underlying pg object data to "pop through"  because the exclusion mask no longer covers the proper area.  The other aspect of pg trees is that the placement and density is completely controlled by the algorithm and the settings in the graphics menu for trees do not appear to have any affect .

 

It does seem to me , as you note that the tree models are not particularly sharp. In fact it seemed that with SU5 this became more noticeable.  It did (does) make me wonder that in preparation for XBox if this was an area where they were able to save on both memory requirements and processing. I.e. the side resolution was reduced even further , while keeping the resolution in the other axis the same.  I certainly don't see this as bad programming, as for 99% of the user base who are flying over scenery and viewing the tree tops from a few thousand feet they would not notice any change.  In many respects there is nothing magical about code optimization and this would fall into the category of an efficient use of resources without visually downgrading  the image rendering for the majority of users.

 

However for folks like myself who enjoy not only low and slow  flying, but also investigating the wonderful scenery that the Orbx designers create with their custom high resolution objects, it does become quite noticeable and to be fair for myself is a real immersion breaker.  But I recognize  that I am in a very small minority (maybe a group of one - ha, ha!) and I accept it for what it is... Doesn't mean I like it, but one has to look at the sim overall from a balanced perspective.

 

Thank you for taking the time to respond and especially with some additional screenshots.  It is very much appreciated.

Cheers

Pete

 

PS - I really like the aircraft 

Edited September 20, 2021 by renault

[Sniper31]

8 hours ago, renault said:

However for folks like myself who enjoy not only low and slow  flying, but also investigating the wonderful scenery that the Orbx designers create with their custom high resolution objects, it does become quite noticeable and to be fair for myself is a real immersion breaker.  But I recognize  that I am in a very small minority (maybe a group of one - ha, ha!) and I accept it for what it is

Pete, I can promise, you are not alone...maybe we are in a group of two, but not by yourself  Something I have been mentally processing regarding MSFS as of late is that considering how, in general, default MSFS scenery overall looks really good in most places. Add to that an addon scenery like Orbx or others, and it gets better. So much better, that in fact, for me, when I see things like the melted looking trees or buildings that look like they were in a war zone and partially rubbled or crumbling (this in Photogrammetry mode), or as an example, around Portland Oregon all the bridges and ramps leading up to the bridges look like giant walls. When flying through such good looking scenery, then making a turn in my aircraft to be confronted with views like that, it kills the immersion for me fast. This is for me, I think the juxtaposition of having such good looking scenery generally, which causes anomalies that pop up to be that much more jarring. This in turn causes me to turn off Photogrammetry mode only to then think, "wow, all the buildings look kind of bland now". So, it's put me in a position where I am not happy either way, and why I say I am mentally looking at things with MSFS in a different light at present. It further bothers me because I have really been enjoying digging into flying the excellent study level DC-6, from another developer, but these scenery 'things' I described above are sticking me in the side.

 

The Photogrammetry tech is very interesting, I just would be very excited to see it improved so that I don't have to see scenery that looks like it was bombed or came out of the movie Inception. One can hope.

 

Anyhow, I digress....in summation, you are not alone (I sound like an X-Files poster....lol)  

 

Cheers!

Landon

[renault]

5 hours ago, Sniper31 said:

Pete, I can promise, you are not alone...maybe we are in a group of two, but not by yourself  Something I have been mentally processing regarding MSFS as of late is that considering how, in general, default MSFS scenery overall looks really good in most places. Add to that an addon scenery like Orbx or others, and it gets better. So much better, that in fact, for me, when I see things like the melted looking trees or buildings that look like they were in a war zone and partially rubbled or crumbling (this in Photogrammetry mode), or as an example, around Portland Oregon all the bridges and ramps leading up to the bridges look like giant walls. When flying through such good looking scenery, then making a turn in my aircraft to be confronted with views like that, it kills the immersion for me fast. This is for me, I think the juxtaposition of having such good looking scenery generally, which causes anomalies that pop up to be that much more jarring. This in turn causes me to turn off Photogrammetry mode only to then think, "wow, all the buildings look kind of bland now". So, it's put me in a position where I am not happy either way, and why I say I am mentally looking at things with MSFS in a different light at present. It further bothers me because I have really been enjoying digging into flying the excellent study level DC-6, from another developer, but these scenery 'things' I described above are sticking me in the side.

 

The Photogrammetry tech is very interesting, I just would be very excited to see it improved so that I don't have to see scenery that looks like it was bombed or came out of the movie Inception. One can hope.

 

Anyhow, I digress....in summation, you are not alone (I sound like an X-Files poster....lol)  

 

Cheers!

Landon

Hey Landon

Now that we are two , we can start our own "club" 

 

I think you expressed it really well. Orbx by and large does an excellent job creating quality, high resolution scenery that works really well in MS2020.

It is such a downer when the pg isn't up to par. 

 

For me the scenery streaming and the overall quality of the pg result is the Achilles heel of MS2020.  It is a great concept - to have the

world at your finger tips without having a massive investment in disk storage and scenery, but it really requires a streaming service that

is world class in all respects.

 

To me it is somewhat like what would happen if you signed up for a 4K UHD movie streaming service and then find out that 95% of the time

they can only give you 1080p.

 

Unfortunately, there is no substitute for pixel density . All the upscaling technology in the world won't bring the immersion back.

 

I don't know if you have played around with Nvidia DLSS but from my experience with it  I would say  it does work and can give you a

decent enough image at 4K while your system is rendering at 1080p. 

 

But there is a critical component to all these technologies that is not immediately obvious. 

 

It is this . It is actually really simple to upscale a low resolution image to create an artificial higher resolution one. 

But what is darned difficult, (I would argue almost impossible) is to actually transfer the color information present in native 4K . 

When you look at all these techniques with a critical eye, you quickly realize that this is what is missing. 

 

1080p has 1/4 the number of pixels that 4K has and it is the range of the color gamut that exists at native 4K resolution because of

the number of individual pixels that gets lost. Coupled with this is that 1080p is usually at 8 bit color , whereas 4K is at 10 bit or in

some cases 12 bit color. 

 

So not only do you have a great many more pixels but the range of color information per pixel can be  1034 or 4096 shades of colour

per sub pixel at 4K compared to a color range at 1080p 8 bit which is 255 shades of colour  for each red, green and blue subpixel. 

 

Can we see such a wide color gamut.  Truthfully no, but what all of us can see is the fidelity  and richness of the hue variation  at the

higher resolution. When you view it at 1080p this is where "color banding" comes from which you don't see at higher pixel density and bit depth.

 

Its understandable too , as how would an algorithm (even an AI based one) have any idea how to determine the unique hue combination

that should exist at a much higher resolution. 

 

So by and large what you end up with is 4K with a 1080p color gamut.

 

I see this even if I take a 1440p png and convert it to a 1440p jpg for screenshot purposes.  By and large when you do this,  you have about

1/2 the number of individual hues and this is without changing resolution. When you look closely you can see that the variation and

richness/fidelity of the color gamut just isn't there. So if you think some of my screenshots have decent color fidelity, you should see

them when rendered at full native resolution. In many cases, it is a night and day difference.

 

And for me, Orbx is the 4K color gamut and pg is the 1080p cousin.  It just doesn't work well at times.

 

You especially see this in the "greens" in streamed pg scenery. Our eyes are actually more sensitive to green than we are to blue/red. 

So when you see a vast forest in MS2020 , because the pg trees canopy are low resolution, they actually have few pixels to contain different

green hues. As a result you end up with a forest cover that doesn't have the variation and richness in color that the real world does - instead

you get a monochromatic green everywhere.

 

This is what I mean when I say that it is the pixel density and the ability to contain the color gamut  that matters. 

 

But to be fair to Asobo, they are rendering millions of the things, so it is a real challenge to provide something which l

looks "reasonable" without bringing a supercomputer to its knees.

 

And Orbx puts in really good quality tree assets, so when they are besides pg assets , especially as you say that get all "melted",  

I find it really hard to stay positive.

 

But to keep all this in perspective, what Asobo has accomplished this past year is nothing less than a miracle imho. 

 

For me, and I've said this before, I have MS2020 not for what it is today (as painful as it is at times) but for what the technology can

become in the future. And I truly believe that they will get there.

 

I sincerely hope that this note doesn't come across as a negative bashing exercise. it is the furthest intent from my mind and I hope

that this little note, give some insight into my expectations of what I hope that MS2020 can become.

 

Cheers

Pete

 

When is our first club meeting by the way? 

Edited September 20, 2021 by renault