Here's a little statement from us to you: In making this route, we are trying to provide players with a challenging, narrow-gauge, twisty route which simulates some of the steepest gradients that exist on standard adhesive (non-cog) railways. As you’ll appreciate, building any simulation of this type requires a compromise between many factors that are hungry for performance. During the development, we knew that some components would have to be simplified to achieve generally acceptable framerates, so we decided to prioritise the driving aspects and close-scenery. The problem with simply adding more trees is that there are obviously hard limitations of how many assets, and the detail level of each, there can be in a route without impacting gameplay and performance, particularly when trying to make something run well across three different platforms with different performance capabilities. We are very conscious that other routes have put more of their performance budget into trees, but every route is different, and we've tried to get the best overall experience for players for this particular route. We did try having more trees in earlier builds of Arosa, but it caused a drop in frame-rate, and we thought people would value a better gameplay experience more. So whilst we'd effectively have to re-do most of Arosa if we wanted to change it now, it's something we'll think hard about for future routes - and if you don't think we got the balance right with Arosa, what's useful is to tell us where you think we've perhaps added *too much* detail that we could trade-off to have more trees, and we can factor that into the plans for future routes.