What will you trade first for the clouds?

[turner112 52]

If you have to trade other "big" performance-affecting aspects of FS2k4, what will they be?For me, visibility - I usually don't go more than 20 miles anyway, and 10 at most in our humid summertime conditions. That's low and VFR, of course.Next goes mesh density.If the ATC/Traffic works well, I want to keep it heavy...Just wondering -Andrew

[michal 44]

I noticed that cutting visibility in FS2002 does not buy you a whole lot of preformance. Quite opposite to FLY!.Michael J.

[Guest]

Personally, if the clouds are the complete fps killers some press release owners are suggesting they are, I'll be sacrificing them first.Much as I appreciate the improvement over FS2002's flat versions, I'm afraid there are a hundred and one things going on in FS that are of far more visual interest to me than clouds, especially if they're going to cripple the sim.

[michal 44]

>Personally, if the clouds are the complete fps killers some>press release owners are suggesting they are, I'll be>sacrificing them first.As much as I love volumetric clouds I may be doing the same thing (again, depends on results). I love to fly at nights when clouds are not that important anyway. Then I can adjust visibility if I want to have IFR weather. Also when flying at night I can crank down the mesh scenery. There are big advantages flying at night and you are not sacrifycing any realism ;-)Michael J.

[turner112 52]

Good points.>Personally, if the clouds are the complete fps killers some>press release owners are suggesting they are, I'll be>sacrificing them first.>>Much as I appreciate the improvement over FS2002's flat>versions, I'm afraid there are a hundred and one things going>on in FS that are of far more visual interest to me than>clouds, especially if they're going to cripple the sim.>>

[turner112 52]

I think I remember seeing that the first commercial simulators with visuals were night-only...>>Personally, if the clouds are the complete fps killers some>>press release owners are suggesting they are, I'll be>>sacrificing them first.>>As much as I love volumetric clouds I may be doing the same>thing (again, depends on results). I love to fly at nights>when clouds are not that important anyway. Then I can adjust>visibility if I want to have IFR weather. Also when flying at>night I can crank down the mesh scenery. There are big>advantages flying at night and you are not sacrifycing any>realism ;-)>>Michael J.>>

[michal 44]

>I think I remember seeing that the first commercial>simulators with visuals were night-only...That is correct. I saw such simulator myself and it was based on a PDP-11 DEC computer (the year was 1979). I have to say visuals were very impressive but it was night-only flying. It was obviously not the first commercial simulator (Mr. Link I believe made the first one over 50 years ago) but it was the first of the "modern" era.Michael J.

[Guest LonelyplanetXO]

I have a question. If the main feature of FSCOF is clouds/Wx and they wont run on a users machine, why bother buying COF at all? Why not just stick with 2k2. With regard to what this new sim can & cant do - I'm not interested in guessing, nor in being a guinea pig (Ive been the early adopter on the last three versions, to my detriment). Im going to sit back & see what the forums say. When I am prepared to upgrade my hardware, I'll consider buying FSCOF. Until that moment, Im very happy with 2k2 thank you very much.LonelyplanetXO

[Guest JonP01]

I've already resolved that the clouds themselves will go before anything else. As far as FS2002 is concerned, I could really care for them, because I can't stand the "paper thin" problem. I also can't stand the way the clouds sometimes look when they envelope mountainous areas. And I couldn't be bothered continuously pausing the sim and re-arranging them via the weather menu to fix this. So it's not as if FS2004 will be a backward step, because I already don't bother with clouds much as it is. I know I would be missing out on a great new feature, but I won't miss what I never had.As far as mesh is concerned, this is where I will absolutely not compromise under any circumstances whatsoever. All the AI will have to disappear before I move the mesh slider so much as one percentage point below 100. As a VFR flyer (and by that I mean having a real map on my lap and looking out for geographical landmarks) the mesh is the most essential thing for me.

[Guest]

"Personally, if the clouds are the complete fps killers some press release owners are suggesting they are, I'll be sacrificing them first."Where did you find information concerning the suggestions that the clouds in FS04 are framerate killers? I am just curious. Flight One Software's FSClouds for FS2000 were great if you guys remember. They were large, puffy and generally very realistic. The best thing about them is the the framerates actually went up when they were used. I suspect that what is happening is that the extra lines in the program used to generate general weather conditions, including the clouds, is what would be behind the extra loss of framerates in FS04.Robb

[B777ER 2,487]

Gentlemen, if you want realism, your gonna have to stick to keeping the clouds in. Go outside and look up and what do you see? Clouds! Flying at altitude, you only interact with 2 things, clouds and weather. Why make them the first to go? Who cares if that mountain that your passing over at FL390 is extremely detailed!! Me, I am throwing my arms up and doing the every 2 year upgrade again! I want everything to run at maz detail/sliders so yes, I am going to have to pony upwards of 3 grand to do it (3 grand figure due to wanting that 21" Dell UltraSharp flat panel LCD monitor). But oh well, if it is your only hobby, might as well make it enjoyable.

[Guest Tim13]

For me it will be the autogen. I will reduce the amount of autogen, and world detail. A flight simulator is just that: flight. Very little time is spent in the departure and arrival phase, so the lowering of ground detail for me will have a minimal impact. Since the majority of the time is spent in the atmosphere amongst the clouds, they will stay in all of thier glory.Tim13

[Guest Pabra]

This sim shines in all categories; on the ground we see buildings and trees (autogen) decorating the horizon instead of a flat one; in the air fabulous clouds in all shapes and sizes now extending towards the horizon; 100% mesh for those all important vfr; 100% ai for filling up the empty gates and now being pushed back with lights during daytime. Who wants to sacrifice any of these goodies? If I can't run the sim at the max (and I know I can't) I'll have to do the obvious; a new rig. just a thought..

[Guest]

I am with you on that one Greg!Robb

[LAdamson 240]

>For me it will be the autogen. I will reduce the amount of>autogen, and world detail. A flight simulator is just that:>flight. Very little time is spent in the departure and>arrival phase, so the lowering of ground detail for me will>have a minimal impact. Since the majority of the time is>spent in the atmosphere amongst the clouds, they will stay in>all of thier glory.>Living in the Rocky Mountain region as I do, my real life flying revolves around mountainous peaks, valleys, and "autogen"!! :)I'm hooked on low-level back country flying, and would love a real life Aviat Huskey (STOL aircraft) for just that. But non-the-less, I hear that FS2004 will perform well even on a machine such as mine ----- Athlon 1900XP/GeforceTi500/512DDRram ...... clouds and all!L.Adamson