If your machine can handle it, up that foliage, trust me.. it's nice!

[Broccoli Clock]

When I am talking about the foliage, I am meaning the Forestation & Shrubs configuration. You can find this when you create your world by clicking the [Customise] button (next to the [Create World]), and it takes the form of a drop down (interestingly cut off at the bottom, should report that as a bug!)..

 

There are pros/cons to doing this:

Con:

• Framerate. No matter how you slice it, the more stuff on the screen the more intense your CPU/GPU will work in rendering it. I can only really test on my machine, and I have a very mid range PC (Ryzen 5/32Gb Mem/3050 8Gb) and I haven't noticed the game being overly sluggish even at the max foliage. Obviously your mileage may differ, although I found that the performance hit was less than I expected, and before I was easily getting 80+ frame solid - even in the rain and surrounded by forest.
   
• Elk. Do you seriously think you are getting an elk through thick forest? Well if you do, then I admire your optimism. That said, elk are pretty niche and only really part of the late game.

Pro:

• Sticks. Oh, my dear lord, the sticks. We all suffer a little in the early (and even mid game, unless you lean into a mod for that .. ) for sticks. Even pro players are not immune to jumping to the  nearest bush and smacking it enough times to allow your pit kiln to work.
   
• It looks lovely. It really does. Not only that it heightens the feeling of exploration, ruins are no longer obvious and tend to be buried in a copse of trees and bushes, and it certainly slows down your movement as those death pits (natural caves that are nothing but deep vertical shafts) are still there just more hidden.
   
• Wolves and Bears become "dangerous AF". We all know the situation, we've heard the growl/howl and we are hotfooting it in the other direction. It's fine, you've got a line of sight and the path is clear for you. Now imagine you can't see them at all, and that your path has become a hedge maze rather than a direct route.

 

I have created, 7 different worlds, each with identical settings except the Forestation & Shrubs option, in order to show the difference in the amount that renders. 

 

[Broccoli Clock]

[Broccoli Clock]

[Broccoli Clock]

[Broccoli Clock]

In my current world, I am running it at +50% and I have to say it's performing well (given the caveat of my machine). It's definitely "more challenging" to navigate but exploration genuinely feels like exploration. Those sky shots don't tell the full story once you are at ground level. I'd have included those screenshots too but after 25% most of the images were of trees literally in front of me.

[MKMoose]

21 minutes ago, Broccoli Clock said:

It looks lovely. It really does.

I have to disagree. It can look good in some places, but a lot of the time it results in a more busy yet uniform look that I'm not a fan of. I think there are two main things I would love to see improved about the current foliage, that would let me more properly enjoy high-foliage worlds:

• higher trees in forests - at ~20-30 m total, with branches/leaves starting at ~5-15 m (free-standing trees can be shorter but wider) they would look arguably much better and give more space to the shrub layer,
• greater shrub variety, and better design - blocks of tree leaves are just weird; I know they're supposed to represent smaller trees but it ain't very good, and there's plenty of bushes, shrubs and dwarf tree species that I think would benefit the game's visuals greatly.

The biggest offender for me is the temperate or cold gravel deserts or whatever that is, because nothing even close to that abomination exists in the real world as far as I know. The everpresent birch leaves in those biomes seem like they represent dwarf birch, but they typically don't grow beyond 1 m. The almost complete lack of mosses, grasses, bushes and sedges honestly baffles me. And last thing, why are there trees on gravel? Where to they get their nutrients from?

 

56 minutes ago, Broccoli Clock said:

Elk. Do you seriously think you are getting an elk through thick forest? Well if you do, then I admire your optimism. That said, elk are pretty niche and only really part of the late game.

Trees are already an issue here very frequently, because when trying to ride through a forest you'll have your head in the leaves half the time. The above points have the potential to address issues with travelling through forests, and additionally I think most shrubs should slow down the player and not stop them entirely. I'm not saying movement should be fully smooth and convenient, but I think it should be less annoying, and there's a lot of fine-tuning that can be done depending on the indended level of movement obstruction.

 

My apologies if I'm kinda just complaining, but given how fundamental to the game world generation is, I think VS could use some improvements in that regard.

[Krago]

I really have too much clutter in shrubs and forests ATM, and while the game runs fine, I can't see a damn thing for all the overgrowth!  I'll drop it down, in my next world, so thanks for the info.  I wish I could adjust my current world, so chunks I haven't visited yet would be less densely overgrown, but the option is greyed out.  

Edited December 3, 2025 by Krago

[Loosebearings]

55 minutes ago, Krago said:

I really have too much clutter in shrubs and forests ATM, and while the game runs fine, I can't see a damn thing for all the overgrowth!  I'll drop it down, in my next world, so thanks for the info.  I wish I could adjust my current world, so chunks I haven't visited yet would be less densely overgrown, but the option is greyed out.  

I'm pretty sure you can still use the chat commands to change the world generation settings.

It can cause issues like a disconnect or visable line on ungenerated chunks but since you're only changing the density of leaves it shouldn't be too big of an issue.

[Broccoli Clock]

1 hour ago, MKMoose said:

I have to disagree. It can look good in some places, but a lot of the time it results in a more busy yet uniform look that I'm not a fan of. 

All personal opinion of course, you pays your money and you take your choice. For me, the added foliage is a welcome addition to a game I've already got 1000+ hours in. I think for other people unsure, seeing the comparison images might temp them. Ultimately you are changing quite a fundamental feel of the game by increasing foliage. It's an option, and one that I enjoy although it's not for everyone.

1 hour ago, MKMoose said:

My apologies if I'm kinda just complaining, but given how fundamental to the game world generation is, I think VS could use some improvements in that regard.

I don't disagree with some of your comments, the problem is that world gen is unlikely to change during minor point upgrades. That's just a guess but I wouldn't expect to see that sort of major change until 1.22 or beyond, while we've probably got a few months of updates to the 1.21 branch. 

1 hour ago, Krago said:

I wish I could adjust my current world, so chunks I haven't visited yet would be less densely overgrown, but the option is greyed out.  

You can redraw map chunks, I had to do this when a translocator sent me to a new piece of land, and when I finally got there on foot the map didn't "line up properly", as if it had rendered the initial preview area incorrectly.

The command is wgen, with the wiki details here [List of Server Commands], and my thread asking about regen'ing terrain here ["any way to regen a chunk"] which contains a video link showing it in action. .

The thing that I don't know is whether you can change that forestation level once the world has been generated, if you go to a save file and customise it only certain features can be changed, the forestation level isn't one of them, it's greyed out and at the level you selected from the start.

[Maelstrom]

39 minutes ago, Broccoli Clock said:

we've probably got a few months of updates to the 1.21 branch. 

Not in my experience.  I expect at most one last stable release in 1.21 then sometime late this month or early Jan. the first 1.22 will drop for modders to update their mods. We'll get a list of all the new shinies to drool over then rant and rave about them during the 6ish week wait for the first unstable RC to drop. After that first RC drops we'll then see regular updates every few weeks for a couple of months.

[Broccoli Clock]

16 minutes ago, Maelstrom said:

We'll get a list of all the new shinies to drool over then rant and rave about them during the 6ish week wait for the first unstable RC to drop. After that first RC drops we'll then see regular updates every few weeks for a couple of months.

I was talking the stable branch, rather than the release clients, 1.21.6 RC is out now, with versions 1.21.2-5 being a good month or so in the RC state.

Maybe it's just me, but as a dev I wouldn't be keen to introduce large changes to world gen (that's if we are to get large changes to world gen) until 1.22, that's both operational and OCD (ooh, round figure, new point branch). 

This is all utter conjecture of course and it doesn't matter how diligent you are with your gantt chart, offering a specific date for any software release is folly. I say that as a dev who has been burned numerous times doing so!  

Edited December 3, 2025 by Broccoli Clock

[Maelstrom]

13 minutes ago, Broccoli Clock said:

offering a specific date for any software release is folly. I say that as a dev who has been burned numerous times doing so!  

My entire post was based on my experience, as my first sentence stated.   So all of the info in my post should be considered extremely unnofficial and unreliable.

[Zane Mordien]

3 hours ago, Krago said:

I really have too much clutter in shrubs and forests ATM, and while the game runs fine, I can't see a damn thing for all the overgrowth!  I'll drop it down, in my next world, so thanks for the info.  I wish I could adjust my current world, so chunks I haven't visited yet would be less densely overgrown, but the option is greyed out.  

I know others have said it may be possible bit i can confirm You can 100% change this setting via commands. It only affects new chunk generation unless you regen the old chunks which will completely reset them. I can look up the command when Im in front of my computer if you need help.

[Zane Mordien]

@Broccoli Clock

No thanks.IMO the forest on default settings are enough to be annoying already. Thankfully they scaled back forests recently so you can ride the elk a little better.

[LadyWYT]

4 hours ago, MKMoose said:

The biggest offender for me is the temperate or cold gravel deserts or whatever that is, because nothing even close to that abomination exists in the real world as far as I know. The everpresent birch leaves in those biomes seem like they represent dwarf birch, but they typically don't grow beyond 1 m. The almost complete lack of mosses, grasses, bushes and sedges honestly baffles me. And last thing, why are there trees on gravel? Where to they get their nutrients from?

Well I mean...that's a desert for you. That being said, I think the disappointing thing here isn't that there's foliage...it's the kind of foliage found. Currently, there's not many options when it comes to desert plants. The pine trees do make sense, after a fashion, but I would rather see the stubby, twisty variants, or even better--new tree types entirely. Pair that with some sage, mesquite, cacti, etc. and it starts feeling more like a desert than just a gravelly expanse.

 

2 hours ago, Broccoli Clock said:

The thing that I don't know is whether you can change that forestation level once the world has been generated, if you go to a save file and customise it only certain features can be changed, the forestation level isn't one of them, it's greyed out and at the level you selected from the start.

I believe you can, but if so the changes will only affect newly generated chunks, which is likely to look pretty jarring.

As for the main topic of the post--I do like the comparison shots, and I do think turning up the foliage like that is pretty, but as for actually playing the world...I wouldn't do that unless I wanted a LOT of forest and brush. The vanilla settings feel pretty solid to me, although I feel like there could stand to be a bit more pure grassland(like Kansas-style prairie). 

4 hours ago, MKMoose said:

Trees are already an issue here very frequently, because when trying to ride through a forest you'll have your head in the leaves half the time.

I just ride face-first through the trees most of the time, and use the minimap as a navigational aid.

[Broccoli Clock]

Jinkies, I'm glad I didn't put this up for a vote!

Seems like most people prefer open spaces, which I get. If I was to counter, I think it's forging those new open spaces which gives you a sense of progression, but time is a resource and if you don't have enough of it or you simply don't enjoy the clutter then I'd hate that to be forced upon people. At least we've got some (fairly basic, admittedly) reference images for the density.

I wonder would people's change in regard to this sort of forestation in a Homo Sapiens run? It's not a game mode I play, I quite like having the lore and the ruins dotted about, but in terms of sheer untouched wilderness, more dense forestation would sit with the vibe.

Edited December 3, 2025 by Broccoli Clock

[LadyWYT]

38 minutes ago, Broccoli Clock said:

I wonder would people's change in regard to this sort of forestation in a Homo Sapiens run? It's not a game mode I play, I quite like having the lore and the ruins dotted about, but in terms of sheer untouched wilderness, more dense forestation would sit with the vibe.

I think it depends heavily on what sort of wilderness one wants to be dropped into the middle of. Dense forest is fine, but if the player is hoping for more "African savannah" or "Australian outback" or "Mongolia", it's going to be a pretty disappointing experience if there's just nothing but trees.

[MKMoose]

3 minutes ago, Broccoli Clock said:

Seems like most people prefer open spaces, which I get. If I was to counter, I think it's forging those new open spaces which gives you a sense of progression, but time is a resource and if you don't have enough of it or you simply don't enjoy the clutter then I'd hate that to be forced upon people.

Honestly, I think it's less that people really prefer open spaces, and more that they specifically dislike the current implementation of shrubs. I'm no stranger to getting frustrated when I have to constantly jump over bushes, break leaf blocks or move around obstructions, and I think that's a shared sentiment for many people.

The bottom line is arguably that branchy leaf blocks shouldn't be solid, and instead they should just reduce movement speed. We even have a working implementation for the required functionality in cobwebs. It's kind of odd to have to walk over bushes or to bonk the head on a branch when jumping up a step.

There's this cool thing that I think I've first heard mentioned in one of Factorio's dev blogs. People tend to like thick foliage, but it is predictably really annoying to move through, and it results in a lot of frustration when there is no way to go around it or to move through it more efficiently. What you do, then, is allow people to solve the problem. Give them a bit of agency and engagement, instead of just making them put up with an inconvenience. One might say that it's possible to solve the problem by running around the whole forest, but that isn't really fun, and neither is cutting down a whole bunch of trees and shrubbery to make a path.

So what you do is create animal paths through the forests, making it more engaging to move through by following a more open trail, and easier to open it up for a road or something of the sort. Just random narrow paths (~3-8 blocks wide) that block trees and other larger vegetation from generating would look great and I think they could work wonders for traversal. The same can apply to nearly any biome that has a fair amount of anything beyond grasses and sedges, but its importance increases drastically for more lush areas like forests.

And once you have a good way to reduce player frustration and split out annoying areas into more manageable subsections, then by all means, go ham with filling out the whole lower foliage layer with all the plants you can find, and you'll have my full support.

 

As a side note, another thing that could be nice would be a machete to clear out shrubs near-instantaneously, and generally as a tool for cutting down plants, especially bamboo. If necessary, it could come at the tradeoff of reduced or completely removed drops from some plants.

And the machete could go really well with a bunch of bushes and shrubbery (especially tropical ones) that regrow after getting cut down (likely similar in implementation to cattails) which could be cut down near-instantaneously with a machete, but would take much longer to remove roots (and might only drop them for replanting if dug with a shovel).

[Scorpixel]

Forests often have the issue of being mixed with shrubland and with head-level trees, canopies would benefit greatly from being at least 2-3 blocks higher with rather sparse forest floor, with ferns and such taking residency here rather than plains. My surrounding forests are much more beautiful and pleasant to cross after getting rid of any leaves/trees of 3 height or less.

[Krago]

7 hours ago, Zane Mordien said:

I know others have said it may be possible bit i can confirm You can 100% change this setting via commands. It only affects new chunk generation unless you regen the old chunks which will completely reset them. I can look up the command when Im in front of my computer if you need help.

That would be great, thank you very much.  It spoils the fun when I can never get LoS on anything because of tree/foliage density.  It got so annoying that I put my stuff in a chest at my base, copied my entire base (it's just a glorified shack, really) and imported it into a new map that has -25% growth, instead of the +50% that my map was generated with.  It's made a big difference!

The regen command sounds interesting, as I'd still like to use the overgrown map, if I can regen it and get less overgrowth.

Edited December 3, 2025 by Krago

[Zane Mordien]

1 hour ago, Krago said:

That would be great, thank you very much.  It spoils the fun when I can never get LoS on anything because of tree/foliage density.  It got so annoying that I put my stuff in a chest at my base, copied my entire base (it's just a glorified shack, really) and imported it into a new map that has -25% growth, instead of the +50% that my map was generated with.  It's made a big difference!

The regen command sounds interesting, as I'd still like to use the overgrown map, if I can regen it and get less overgrowth.

ACHTUNG! Go into a test world and practice with the command before changing it in your favorite world. Save a backup copy of your world.

After you change the setting, exit the game and hover your mouse cursor over the world and see if it lists the setting the way you wanted it. It should say the same thing from the world creation menu with all the text. If it is only a number without the "blah blah forest (x%)"  then you did it wrong. If it does then go at it in your main world..after you back it up and change the setting.

/worldconfig globalforestation <X>

<X> = 0 default, the range is 1 to -1

-0.25 (somewhat less forested -25%) 

-0.50 (Significantly less forested -50%

And so on: -0.75, -0.90, -1

To regenerate the terrain you use the /wgen regen command. BUT this completely resets the chunks. It will delete anything you built and restore it to the new world config settings. It will also remove and reset traders. So if you reset a chunk with a trader it will delete that trader. It will spawn a new trader around the same area but not in the exact same spot so be careful if you have a trader you want to keep.

 

/wgen regen <radius>

<radius> = number of chunks around you to be reset. I highly advise you do no more than 5. It gets very laggy and you loose control of what you are reseting. 

 

Good luck!

Edited December 4, 2025 by Zane Mordien

[Krago]

Thanks for that, Zane.    Worked like a charm, and I used World Edit to paste the glorified shack I had back into the game, complete with the stuff I'd put into chests for safekeeping.  I can actually SEE mobs to attack them and follow the blood trails they leave behind when I injure them (a very neat mod)!  

Edited December 4, 2025 by Krago

[Loosebearings]

Not being able to walk through branchy leaf blocks while somewhat realistic is a bit annoying. If you walk through the bush in real life then you'll see lots of animal trails going between bushes you can follow, while in game you don't have anything like that.

[Broccoli Clock]

I totally understand that people dislike the way you can't traverse through blocks that you probably should be able to: for example, leafy/branchy blocks. After all you can walk through berry bushes, and as mentioned there is a mechanism for cobwebs.

However, maybe this is just me, and perhaps it's my playstyle, but I don't find myself being blocked in more in a 50% foliage increase than I do in standard vanilla. Do I get stuck? Sure, not suggesting otherwise. Would I like to see some changes to the way the undergrowth and lower hanging (non branchy) blocks interact with the player? Yeah, I think that would be nice, as the points raised by @MKMoose seem fair.

However, I'm not some expert player that somehow has this one trick that nobody knows about, but for whatever reason this isn't really an issue for me more than it is in default settings.

Edited December 5, 2025 by Broccoli Clock
..spelling

[labtop 215]

Try playing that world with "Fire from lightning" turned on.