To all FS2k4 Beta testers...

[Dillon 2,197]

Just wondering how you guys missed the overcast problem in FS2k4??? There were so many key developers in the FS community that were on the beta test team. I can't understand how something like this was missed. Below 12,000ft the sim is just awesome maybe that took up most of your time...

[Guest]

>Just wondering how you guys missed the overcast problem in>FS2k4??? There were so many key developers in the FS>community that were on the beta test team. I can't understand>how something like this was missed. Below 12,000ft the sim is>just awesome maybe that took up most of your time...Have you read the information in the learning center? Here is a direct quote:"Rendering solid overcast conditions in Flight Simulator requires a lot of video processing power. If your computer does not have sufficient power, Flight Simulator will automatically create less-than-solid overcast layers."So, rather than penning a misdirected stab at beta testers, you might want to review the information in the knowledge center and make adjustments to your settings in FS2004 and your external video card settings.As I have posted MANY times in response to all of this stuff about overcast, I can see solid overcast at any altitude (assuming it is appropriate to the current weather). The frame rate from 19,000 is no different than looking at the overcast layer from the ground. I have 100% cloud coverage and 30-50% 3d clouds (haven't decided on a setting for that yet). I ahve spent a great deal of time tweaking the settings to find a good compromise (rather than just coming here and complaining). Things like Anti-aliasing and anisotropic filtering make MUCH more of a difference than they used to, because these now apply to the 3d clouds.You just need to optimize your settings to accomodate the clouds, if they are the most important feature for you.

[John_Cillis 2,406]

Is it going to start now? "How did you testers miss this?" "How did you let that happen?" It better stop now.It's pretty presumptuous of anyone to assume we "missed" these things, and in any case, we can't discuss what went on as part of the testing process. What I can tell you is we received the same gold you did. Whatever issues are/were present in gold, we've had to accept. Once that momentum gets rolling, nothing but a "show-stopper" is going to stop it. And a show stopper to you or I isn't the same as one to those receiving the revenue.There's so many different facets of this sim. You've run into issues I haven't run into--I've had no problem saving default flights. If anything for me, flying over a deck of clouds at altitude is smoother than having the same deck in view while I'm on final. For me, flying in the flight levels is glorious, and I can control the clarity of the skies by simply choosing a different date. But I am sure, through no fault of you or me, that we fly with different settings and preferences. I don't fly with Autogen, as an example. Most of my flying is done with Big Iron, and Autogen doesn't do much for me. I fly at a low resolution--800x600x32. Not because that's all my card can support, but because I find navigating through the menus easier on my eyes in that resolution, in part because I stare at a CRT 12-14 hours a day in my office. I don't use real weather or dynamic weather. These things always choked my system in FS2002....with a more complex weather engine, they are guaranteed to do the same in FS2004.My pitiful system still cranks out 25 fps with almost all other settings maxed--15 fps if I really layer on the clouds. I don't have any "secrets" other than what I just told you. I even let FS2004 set the AA.Anyway, my point is there will be no beta testers for FS2006 if these posts start happening. Then you'll get a product where NO consumer input was involved. Count your lucky stars that Microsoft has involved community members. And understand that as testers, we don't get to make the final business decisions. In a nutshell, that may mean "pretty clouds" comes at the expense of reflective glass, or a few fps.

[Chris Willis 8]

Hi Dillol, ""Just wondering how you guys missed the overcast problem in FS2k4??? ""No, but I have tell you this before, also you could easly know this by some logical performance issus from your own."Below 12,000ft the sim is just awesome"Below 30 000 is the same thing like fs2002, I think you only use the same date with a saved flight, and have the thin cirrus enabled from FSUIPC which make difference.Do not reports things that's appears 100x worser than it should.If you are looking down, you will see some hole because of the amount of clouds which require double of this actual amount to cover the screen, but if you are looking strait in your cockpit or external view and not looking down, you will not see those hole.clouds draw distant and clouds % to full right.Considering only this issue, returning to fs2k2 weather, is a huge step back and not acceptable for weather. 3rd party weather generator will be able to fix this by inserting some visibility/layer to covers this." I can't understand how something like this was missed"Nothing have been missed, there is deliberate and others issue on performance etc.http://forums.avsim.com/user_files/26429.jpgWhat's Next, I want particle inside the clouds?ThanksChris Willis[link:fsw.simflight.com/FSWMenuFsSim.html]Clouds And Addons For MsFs

[Guest]

First of all- nothing against the beta testers. Everyone did a great job on this sim. But... I was also trying to get solid overcast also. My machine is not state-of-the art, but it does OK. I am happy with the way FS 2K4 runs. I did an "overcast" search on this forum and found this:"Hi,Since the overcast clouds are in full 3d and fs2002 was using flat sheet, You have to add two layers overcast, Anyways I will fix this with fs sky world 2004.ThanksChris WillisFSW GROUPClouds And Addons For MsFs"Maybe Chris would care to add some detail. Just curious. Thanks.

[Guest]

Doh! I was typing my post when Chris was typing his. Sorry about that! Thanks for some clarification Chris.

[Guest RangerJack]

Hey, I am not in any way going to complain. I love the sim. But here is an issue maybe Chris can address because it might be an issue with 3rd party weather generators. This is what I did...I started a flight at SEATAC in the Learjet with the Strong Thunderstorm theme. I set the weather sliders all to max in the graphics tab. I then flew and climbed to 18000 feet. It was great, I came out of the clouds at about 120 and it stayed overcast all the way, never had that vanishing cloud thing (which effects more then just right beneath you, when it happens it is like clouds disappear for 40 miles around) Then I hit Alt and switched the theme to fair conditions. I flew for a bit, then went in and switched back to the original thunderstorm theme. Sure enough, the clouds appear for a second and then vanish for 40 miles all around. The overcast was gone. So that begs a couple of questions:1. If it is just the software scaling for my hardware, why didn't it scale on my original climb out? Frame rates stayed in the double digits all the way out and there were no holes accept natural ones here and there. Why did it do the vanishing thing after switching themes? This does seem like a bug anyway you look at it. Try it yourselves.2. Chris, obviuosly I can fly from SEATAC using the same theme and keep the overcast if I don't switch anything. Now, I use ActiveSky and I have not had time to try this out but as the weather changes from say...ummm...SEATAC to SFO..will it implement the new weather properly? Or will it have the same effect as when I went in and changed the weather situation? That is , will it be able to model a thunderstorm with Overcast rolling in.Thanks all.RangerJackAthlon 3200+, 1GB Dual Channel DDR, RADEON 9700 Pro: 3.6 Catalyst