Why is MS still using 2D Clouds?

[mgh 89]

I suspect the answer to the original question is that the vast majority (99%?) of buyers are satisfied with the clouds as they are. Those that aren't can buy add-ons. Why should Microaoft divert its development efforts to this when it could apply them to enhancments with wider appeal?

[bsmfinegan 12]

Now you know why I hope Flight = FSX SP 4, 5, 6... @ 30 FPS solid with all sliders to the right over KLAX. That's good enough for me!Cheers,- jahman.

Sounds good, but flying in what?Bryan.

[HughesMDflyer4 470]

Sounds good, but flying in what?Bryan.

An aircraft. :(

[MatthewS 761]

Aerosoft considered the Outera engine for their proposed new flight sim but rejected it as not suitable.

Yes a year ago Outerra was a lot less progressed than it is now. You only need to look at any of the videos (the C172/Apache) to see that Outerra could easily be used in a flight sim. I think they use JBSIM for the flight modelling in those videos.In anycase Aerosoft seem to have rejected every 3D engine they looked at. IMHO AFS-2012 is 'vaporware', there have not been any real progress updates in over a year. It was announced before Flight and once Flight was announced they seemed to have lost interest in making their own Flight sim, and fair enough because I don't think the market is big enough to support FSX + Flight + XP9/10 + another GA sim like AFS-2012.

[Fsau 0]

I would like my clouds to look like the FSX preview movies,way back when. I don't want rotating clouds,and I want a sense of speed when I go thru them.I hope the New ATC will be revamped,No crazy vectors,speed changes,SIDS and STARS,Etc.But when has MS ever developed A sim for us core fanatics? I anticipate just more useless eye candy to satisfy the masses,for max sales.

I would say that clouds fall into the "eye candy" category. Also I would say that MFS has always been a game developed for the core fanatics of the genre and really it still is one of the best (the best imo) FS on the market. So whatever one may think of its shortcomings, you could say at least they are developing the genre. Because the alternative (IMO) is a lot worse.Even if they tweak the engine to be able to easily implement more complex clouds and shadows and leave the rest to 3PD would be great. I suspect that MS putting most of its focus on the engine itself at this time, which is why we aren't seeing incredible leaps visually yet, at the end of the day if they can make it so it's not a pig at its core I don't care how they dress it up. Third party developers have and will take it the rest of the way with that solid foundation.

[alainneedle1 97]

Aerosoft is looking for cash $$$, it's a lot of money to put a sim ( a good one) together, they need big game investors something they don't have right now.

[Guest ShinyJetSyndrome]

If I can expand the context of the OP to the weather engine in general, I think there's a few areas for improvement for weather depiction.

• Cumulonimbus clouds that look like a cumulus cloud rotated to the vertical.
• Visibility layers and overcast layer depiction.
  • You have the field in sight at 5 miles under VFR then you get below the top of the FS visibility layer and all of a sudden it's Low IFR conditions.
  • I had an experience a few weeks of doing an ILS in VFR then at 200 feet above TDZE I lose the runway in a really low haze.

  [*]Winds aloft data tends to not interpolate very well.

  • Ever try flying at 3000 when at 2999 its 340 at 15 while at 3001 its 160 at 25?

[Guest jahman]

Forget 2D clouds, I want an interface to a smoke machine in my simcave for that "True IFR Experience"! :( Cheers,- jahman.

[anthony31 63]

I would say that clouds fall into the "eye candy" category.

Interesting. I would say that clouds, accurate moving air masses and runway surfaces fall into the critical-must-have-right category for a flight simulator as this is the main parts of the environment you are interacting with in a flight simulator.I guess different people have different expectations for what they expect from a flight simulator.

[Guest ShinyJetSyndrome]

Interesting. I would say that clouds, accurate moving air masses and runway surfaces fall into the critical-must-have-right category for a flight simulator as this is the main parts of the environment you are interacting with in a flight simulator.I guess different people have different expectations for what they expect from a flight simulator.

You'd be surprised how some industry-leading simulator manufacturers can't get it right. Once in a CRJ-200 Level 6 FTD it took me and my buddy in the right seat 5 minutes to figure out the mysterious brown haze in front of us on the screen was supposed to be a line of thunderstorms. Whoops!

[Gibbage 199]

One simple question. Has anyone ever seen "3d" clouds in a game engine? I have worked in many game engines like FSX, IL2, Unreal, Quake, Half-Life and so on, and I have NEVER ONCE seen 3D clouds. Even the famed Outera doesent even have a single cloud in it! Right now, 3D clouds in a video game is simply a myth.I have used 3D clouds (volumetric) clouds in pre-rendered scenes and let me tell you, they take a MASSIVE time to render. The scene would go from 5 minutes per frame too 45 minutes just by adding the volumetrics. There is simply no solution in a game engine. People ask a lot, but some things simply are not possible with todays technology. I know a lot of people are asking for cloud shadows, but thats something totally differant then 3D clouds. At least know a little about something before you demand it.

[Fsau 0]

Interesting. I would say that clouds, accurate moving air masses and runway surfaces fall into the critical-must-have-right category for a flight simulator as this is the main parts of the environment you are interacting with in a flight simulator.I guess different people have different expectations for what they expect from a flight simulator.

I didn't mention the entire weather system, let alone the effect of differing conditions on runway surfaces, I am simply talking about how the clouds themselves are modeled. Coupled with an improved visibility and aerosol simulation, you could certainly achieve a very good result with the current 2D spinning clouds. So you don't NEED ultra-realistic clouds to have an accurately modeled weather system, you just need an adequate representation. What that representation is will be entirely dependent on hardware, software, time and budgets and as these factors increase, the line between realistic simulation and eye candy becomes very blurred.You could say that those wanting more eye candy and those wanting more simulated realism are wanting the same thing. No matter how great the best systems modeling might be, it would be incredibly lacking if it was based in an 8 bit environment and vice versa.

[Avantime 81]

One simple question. Has anyone ever seen "3d" clouds in a game engine? I have worked in many game engines like FSX, IL2, Unreal, Quake, Half-Life and so on, and I have NEVER ONCE seen 3D clouds. Even the famed Outera doesent even have a single cloud in it! Right now, 3D clouds in a video game is simply a myth.

If you're talking about true 3D clouds where each cloud has half a million polygons then no, there isn't one. But other sims have created 3D cloud effects using multiple bitmaps 'stitched' together to create a 3D illusion. As I mentioned in the first post Jane's WW2 Fighters from 1998 is one of the first to have this.Skip to 02:00 or later

I have no doubt it can be achieved with current technology but unfortunately it seems that everyone are too busy improving console graphics for their next Call of Duty clone. There's just no money out there for flight sim development and realistic looking clouds doesn't matter in a FPS game.

I have used 3D clouds (volumetric) clouds in pre-rendered scenes and let me tell you, they take a MASSIVE time to render. The scene would go from 5 minutes per frame too 45 minutes just by adding the volumetrics. There is simply no solution in a game engine. People ask a lot, but some things simply are not possible with todays technology.

Tessellation along with procedural generation can solve this. No one needs 3D clouds everywhere and the distant clouds can just be rendered in 2D, and they will only transform into 3D when you're about to fly into them. The point is creating an illusion of 3D without having to render every cloud within a 150nm radius in 3D.A couple of years ago people would say that it will not be impossible to render every strand of hair in real time, yet with tessellation you can now create an illusion of this. Sure Flight might need a new engine, but remember the current engine originally came from FS2000 10 years ago and the graphics have improved significantly over the years with each new game in the series. Surely something could be done.