- 1,562

- United States
When the treefx is improved, then maybe I will take the time to learn how to do it. Until then, 2D trees for me. I think treefx has potential, but it lacks in quite a few areas that bother me.I did run yesterday a couple of races using the treeFX tracks and I think you as a good modder should seriously consider the use of TreeFX, because its a much better view and maybe not at a flat monitor but sure its leveling up the immersion factor in VR. And yes like all beautiful aspects in life, it do cost you in this case a seriously loss in performance. But think that can be reduced by adding lesser FX trees near the tarmac and only use the ugly 2D trees at the distance.
1.) Performance. A entire track of 3D trees is taxing. If you do a mix of 2D\3D, what's the point in even doing it then. The two types of trees don't mix well together so the track actually looks worse. That's why I removed all the 3d trees from the stock tracks. They didn't fit in with the 2D ones.
2.) Render issues. While I think the Monza track looks great, it looks really odd driving down the front stretch and having trees magically appear out of nowhere because the game or my GPU can't render far enough ahead. I can't even imagine how dumb Nords will look on the long final straight as trees come out of nowhere.
3.) The need for LODS. That whole lack of tree detail transforming into a full detailed tree as you get closer to it completely takes away from the immersion factor.
I've got a couple of other problems with the 3D trees, but these are the biggest ones. So i'm sorry to say, it will be 2D trees for me until the above issues can be resolved.