Hello people.
I was looking at my old computer and it still had 2.6 on it. I was looking at some trees and MAN they looked crazy!
I just like the old soft occlusion shaders better! 
The new ones just look to pixelated.
On a side note here is a scene I created in 2.6 
The image you provided looks a lot like a park near where I live 
No kidding hehe!
I see you changed your avatar! cool!
I just ran into this problem and posted some before/after pics in this thread:
http://forum.unity3d.com/threads/75735-Disappointing-grass…-unhappy…
I like that little scene 3dDude
Thanks!
Yeah, Its not just the grass, but also the trees. The scotts pine looked SO much better in 2.6!
I know that the soft vegetation looks better, but because of the way the rendering pipeline has to be for Unity 3’s increased performance I do not miss it that much. If I must choose soft vegetation over large performance gains to add more to the scene, I will take performance hands down.
There is an easy way to get 2.6 rendering back: use 2.6
Its not like UT disabled the old versions.
But U3 rendering won’t work with it anymore, but there are other possible paths to approach to achieve even better results, but they won’t come at low costs (like they weren’t at low costs in U2 either)
Also you shouldn’t forget the major gains in U3 over this one lose like the terrain lightmapping and realtime shadow support is much better than it was in U2.
The pixel edges now just look nasty. Performance gain or not.
Thats why unity is great: unlike other engines you have the shader sources and you can create new ones that do exactly what you need them to do, no matter how deadly it is for performance.
I’m still wondering why people are talking about the soft occlusion shaders … they are kind of legacy, the new tree editor output doesn’t use them and from the input the soft occ shaders take its clear that they will end on the legacy list more sooner than later as they didn’t get an upgrade to U3 capabilities. More precisely, they were not working at all for large parts of the beta, I guess they just do what they still do cause someone had mercy, not cause they are really meant to be there
On the other hand, I’m also failing a bit to see the problem cause our trees in U3 with soft occlusion look basically like those trees there when it comes to leave borders etc. but perhaps I’m missing something
I’ve got a picture from the bootcamp demo on the left, and from a Unity2.6 tree on the right with soft occlusion.
The soft edges just look a lot nicer to me.
Well yes one has alpha feathering, the other one is 3 times as fast.
But the pixalation is something you only get with extremely small textures or whatever else you need to do wrong. We don’t have such issues, not even if I sit onto the screen to get pixels jumping into my face (27" at 1920x1200 res)
By that assumption blocky 8x8 bitmap fonts must be the Future rather than aliased TTF because of the performance gain! 
I understand why it was done, but doesn’t mean I have to like it.
LOL, I agree. Even if it does run fast I mean, CMON it is 2011! It is next gen!
Nobody said you have to like it.
But it doesn’t either grant to the right to blame someone else for your lazyness of doing your job of writting shaders for your project that fullfill the needs of your projects. Nothing forces you to use the example implementations UT provides you with if you don’t like them.
Also yes its 2011, none the less Fixed Function Pipeline Support and OSX support as far as I recall are still desired by many, although both are a shitload behind any reasonable form of current (2002 and 2005 respectively gpu support wise), holding back the windows side from finally getting DX10 / DX11 cause Apple has been working on OGL 3 support since 10.5 and yet will not get it in with 10.6 at all as it seems, although Windows is on OGL 4 already!
Also people tend to forget that if graphics is all you care about, this here isn’t the place to be if your background in shader writting and 3D math already causes you problems on doing a proper vector at surface reflection out of head.
Its really tiring if people invest so much time in being bitches, when they could research on shader writting and come up with their own shader that does the job they want it to do much better. After all, all the current shaders used in there are available to look at and modify.
If all had this attitude, SM2, EZGUI or UniSky wouldn’t exist nor would Unity 3 or even Unity 2.6 which brought 200k of the 2x0k users here thanks to the $0 price tag
I think Dreamora is a bit grumpy today.
“I don’t have to like it” - it being the visual look of the edges.
I agree,
Also, I did take note that you voted for the 2.6 vegetation back?
