Disagree. It was a bit wonky at the beginning when I didn’t understand how the parts work together, but today, yes, it’s series of steps but otherwise once instantiated, I’ve not had an issue with it except to need to rebuild the underlying RVT.
Collision was never intended. The heightmesh is simply the display layer, endlessly tessellating/subdividing, but to get that ability, we get z-only deformation (which can be ameliorated by increased RVT resolution) and we give up collision. The landscape can be used for collision since it’s effectively a lower-resolution vs the heightmesh (good tradoff).
As far as texel density, I’m not sure we have to worry? Granted I am self-taught, and more of a noodler, but for my tastes, since this is all texture driven, I can crank stuff up well past a point where I functionally care. Yes, I get there IS a limit, but is it really inside practicality, or outside what we can really care about? (Genuine question).
Now, I have other things like a blobby/slime material. It uses mesh-distance fields to help it stick to close-surfaces. This DOES use the hell out of tessellation and no, landscapes won’t suffice. So I don’t want to suggest heightmesh is the end all be all, just for (my needs) landscapes.