No, FEX.

LOL Okay, so FEX can look weird too! :(

These are the default clouds. I think the defaults have the right color, "puffiness", and they have the best realistic, and most varied shapes than payware add-ons. The only thing is the clouds aren't super HD like 4096 x 4096, but I don't need that anyway.Default FSX Clouds:http://gadgetmaniac.mail2web.com/uploads/2308/97356.jpghttp://www.fsplanet.com/images5/fsplanet_com_fsx_06.jpgREX and FEX clouds are great, but they lack the 3D feel you get with the default clouds. Some addons may have a texture set that looks more 3D though, and some add-ons clouds look better than others by looking @ screenshots. It seems like XGraphics has the best 3D look, where it actually looks like the cloud is there and it has mass and takes up space, but I'll have to look for more shots.

I have a review for Ultimate Weather FX by Zinertek. It makes a number of changes to the clouds in FSX. On my system, it also gave me a good frame rate boost. Is it good enough that there are changes? Which clouds are the most realistic? Do realistic clouds have the most visual appeal? In my experience, change for the sake of change can get tiresome, and appeal and realism are not always measured the same way. You'll have to read the review when it comes out soon for a more detailed article that tries to explain this.I feel that cloud aesthetics largely rely on the experience and tastes of the individual. There are a lot of factors - cloud colour, composition, shape, density, detail and silhouette, altitude, and the apparent reflection and refraction of ambient light in day, night, dawn, and dusk situations that will affect how clouds look. Resolution and three-dimensionality are also factors, athough I don't consider them as much as the others. Motion does have an effect, as FSX moves clouds around, and so screenshots will look different from video. If you can tell us why you think FSX clouds "don't look too good" along these factors, then we can get closer to finding clouds that do. Until then, you can hunt around for screenshots of stuff you think you would like. Jeff ShylukSenior Staff ReviewerAVSIM

I have a review for Ultimate Weather FX by Zinertek. It makes a number of changes to the clouds in FSX. On my system, it also gave me a good frame rate boost. Is it good enough that there are changes? Which clouds are the most realistic? Do realistic clouds have the most visual appeal? In my experience, change for the sake of change can get tiresome, and appeal and realism are not always measured the same way. You'll have to read the review when it comes out soon for a more detailed article that tries to explain this.I feel that cloud aesthetics largely rely on the experience and tastes of the individual. There are a lot of factors - cloud colour, composition, shape, density, detail and silhouette, altitude, and the apparent reflection and refraction of ambient light in day, night, dawn, and dusk situations that will affect how clouds look. Resolution and three-dimensionality are also factors, athough I don't consider them as much as the others. Motion does have an effect, as FSX moves clouds around, and so screenshots will look different from video. If you can tell us why you think FSX clouds "don't look too good" along these factors, then we can get closer to finding clouds that do. Until then, you can hunt around for screenshots of stuff you think you would like. Jeff ShylukSenior Staff ReviewerAVSIM

...and to think 10 years ago they looked liked giant ice cubes!!!

You can't get this with the default clouds:This is REX with the 1024 textures, btw.

The clouds in X Graphics look pretty good:

Is it just me or I can't see many (if any) clouds in that video? ;)Thanks,Dirk.

It's Real Environment Xtreme (that's the link) and price is: 39,96USDI have it, and love it. Tough, i don't use 4096, becouse it slows my FSX pretty much. Still, HD clouds are with 1024 (sim default ultra high general texture guality) very fabulous.

You can't get this with the default clouds:http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y124/Alve...10May250003.jpghttp://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y124/Alve...12May250005.jpghttp://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y124/Alve...13May250006.jpgThis is REX with the 1024 textures, btw.

Again, I can't see enough clouds in those screenshot, is it best they have/ can? Thanks,Dirk.

For me it's much more important which clouds set can create more credible and visually restrictive multi-layered condition and/or overcast, of course. All other aesthetics are peripheral to the simulation. So I'm curious if FEX or REX can really do better in that part, than the default clouds or XGFX? The above screenshots, don't really show much to me in the jpg state, compared to the other clouds available for FSX.Thanks,Dirk.

I feel that cloud aesthetics largely rely on the experience and tastes of the individual.

I think Jeff sums it up pretty well right there. It all depends on what each individual likes. I happen to use X Graphics (for other reasons) but the clouds do seem to be very nice. At least good enough so I never bothered to look anywhere else. I would imagine that all the payware clouds are pretty darn good. Even the default clouds are quite nice. All depends on what your personal preferences are.

You can't get this with the default clouds:This is REX with the 1024 textures, btw.

The clouds are good, but the thing is there is way too much detail in them to make it look like a cloud in real life. First of all FSX is based on a limited set of 2D "billboards" that are combined to make clouds look 3D, so this already limits the variety of clouds you see. For example, in those screenshots, there is a little puff at the top of the cloud, and you see the same puff many times, because there is too much detail, and this makes all the clouds look the same. There is to much shadow in the clouds and transparency which takes away the 3D effect, and makes it look 2D and like its photoshopped out of a camera. Don't get me wrong, these look like great packages, but the clouds are the problem and these "SHD" look too 2D for me. X Graphics looks like it has found the sweetspot between keeping the clouds detailed while preserving the 3D look, and making it hard to tell the difference between two cloud textures. For example look at the original FSX screenshots that I posted. Isn't it very hard to figure out if the clouds are using the same texture? Plus FSX default and XGraphics clouds look very 3D because the clouds have the right opacity, and they have the right amount of lighting and shadow. They look like particles (which is what a cloud actually is as we all know) instead of a 2D picture taking from a camera.Check these images out:http://www.myaviation.net/search/photo_sea...php?id=01595196http://www.myaviation.net/search/photo_sea...&size=largehttp://www.myaviation.net/search/photo_sea...&size=largehttp://www.myaviation.net/search/photo_sea...&size=largehttp://www.myaviation.net/search/photo_sea...&size=largeDo you see what I mean now? FSX and XGraphics look closer to real life clouds that fill space and are a bunch of densely packed water particles, and REX and other HD/SHD packages do not do much justice of representing this in some areas, by using too much lighting in the clouds, too much shadowing etc. But again like Jeff said, it comes down to your preference :(Default FSX clouds:http://mygamesfile.com/flightsimulatorgame/img/3l.jpghttp://www.fsplanet.com/images5/fsplanet_com_fsx_06.jpghttp://rizkykertanegara.files.wordpress.co...ss_grab_007.jpghttp://static1.filefront.com/images/tiwfrrjvaa.jpg

Sorry, gman, by i have to disagree. Those FSX default clouds have nothing to do with the clouds i see when flying or when looking at the sky on my window. They completely take away that reality feeling i have with the REX or FEX clouds.But, as you say, it all comes down to one's preference. :( Best regards.

Sorry, gman, by i have to disagree. Those FSX default clouds have nothing to do with the clouds i see when flying or when looking at the sky on my window. They completely take away that reality feeling i have with the REX or FEX clouds.But, as you say, it all comes down to one's preference. :( Best regards.

:(--------------------------------------------------Just wanted to show some examples of X Graphics to everyone. These are screenshots from their website, they are very good in my opinion and have are very nice 3D effect.http://www2.hifisim.com/sites/default/file...s/large/042.jpghttp://www2.hifisim.com/sites/default/file...s/large/004.jpghttp://www2.hifisim.com/sites/default/file...s/large/005.jpghttp://www2.hifisim.com/sites/default/file...s/large/007.jpghttp://www2.hifisim.com/sites/default/file...s/large/018.jpghttp://www2.hifisim.com/sites/default/file...s/large/030.jpghttp://www2.hifisim.com/sites/default/file...s/large/033.jpghttp://www2.hifisim.com/sites/default/file...s/large/044.jpg