18 replies to this topic

[Reynhardt_p2]

As far as I know PP is using Speedtree for Unity in designing their courses. Is this the best option there is? I'm just not loving the look of the trees at the moment. I know this is a small thing but together with the water that's not great, it's killing the realism.

[clubcaptain]

Whenever I've come across Speedtree trees I've never been impressed.

[Kablammo11]

No choice. Unity5 bet the house on Speedtree, this project must abide.

 

They are pretty much market leaders in the the computer tree market. Market leaders do not become leaders because of a superior product, but through superior sales strategy and business acumen. They are the Microsoft Word™ among computer trees: Bulky, complicated to work with, highly overrated and borderline useless.

 

But they are here to stay. 

[Jimbobh]

I am building my courses without SpeedTree. I am using the nature pack simply because they look more realistic. There are no colliders added to them so a ball will not react to them when hit and They show the "Ghost branches" with dynamic sky turned on. But I will keep using them until these couple of things are sorted out. Works and looks fine with dynamic sky turned off, Even if the ball sails thru the trees. (They are 90% air so I'm told. lol)

[Mike Jones]

You can add colliders to any kind of tree and they will work with PG. Capsule for trunk with wood physics property and sperical for foliage without physics property. PG takes care of the rest

[Mike Jones]

Personally I think speedtrees look way better than any other tree solution for unity. They are customisable to infinity and you can even create your own if you want.

[Jimmy]

I must admit at times i prefer the original pg trees before unity5. The driving range looked far superior and crystal pines. And then sometimes speedtrees look great. I first noticed how much i was fond of the original trees when a preview shot of a new course came out showing the unity 4 version. Just my opinion ofcourse but i can see where some of you are coming from. They did in many ways look more realistic and natural compared to speedtree. If only we could go back to the original trees with all the benefits that the speedtrees offer like wind interaction and collision physics.

[Jimmy]

Maybe a good idea, if pp still have the old course files is have the original courses available. Obviously im not sure if this is possible but they could be an optional download.

[Reynhardt_p2]

Well I'm a 3D artist IRL and work at and architectural firm and deal with 3d trees on a daily basis. The other options out there are Onyx and xfrog ( and one or 2 others but most of them are quite resource heavy) I think the reason that Unity went for speedtree is that they make their trees quite "light" whilst still looking good. Was just wondering if there is something better that's all.....speedtree is not a deal breaker but with this game being so great in most other aspects, realistic looking trees and water would make it spectacular.

[Jimbobh]

Maybe a good idea, if pp still have the old course files is have the original courses available. Obviously im not sure if this is possible but they could be an optional download.

I'm doing one of my courses in 2 versions. One with the old trees and one with the speed trees just to see the difference.

The lighting is a little different between the two, and I am getting a little better FPS with the older trees.

[shimonko]

The option used in gaming for the highest quality trees is doing them manually, eliminating the fakeness such tree generators introduce, justifying every polygon or removing it, optimizing face normals. You'll see such trees in games noted for great vegetation like Ethan Carter or Ryse. However other games also praised for the vegetation like Far Cry 4 and Witcher 3 just use SpeedTree.

 

Speedtree is new to both Unity and PG - it takes time to make the most of things. But regardless, trees having to render in real time simply can't come anywhere near competing with the far higher polycounts and raytracing archviz allows.

[Joe Habiger]

You're all using the limited amount of speedtree trees as well within CF, I can't wait for courses with new speedtree objects that users buy or use the older ones. I love speedtree but I really liked the look of the old ones. You get a course with better speedtree objects on it and have some different varieties/shapes of the same trees and fuller trees it will look much better and break up the sameness on a course.

[Keith]

Sorry..having trouble posting a pic...  OK.  Have it now.  Can anyone tell me what is up with the blotchy, lifeless, poorly animated tree to the right in this pic? Most trees look excellent, but I get these occasionally since the move to Speedtree.  Other trees look great.  Tree Settings are High and 3.0.  Am I missing something?

 

[NoPutt]

Speedtrees have a LOD (level of detail) adjustment, I'm sure that

one will be fertilized now that you've spotted it and brought it 

to attention.

[Dazmaniac]

With same High and 3.0 settings, I'm seeing:-

 

[NoPutt]

Well that's interesting, maybe time for a reboot Keith..lol.

[xooze]

Would lack of shadows cause that.

[Mike Jones]

The tree has switched to the lowest lod so your detail settings are the culprit. All trees lod differently based on their performance.

[Keith]

Thanks for the input everyone.  Mike, you are correct.  Have all trees looking detailed now.  Took a frame rate hit, but thanks to Pause Render it is no biggie.