I have not noticed ANY difference between 32bit/4096x4096 and DXT5/1024x1024 3D clouds. But I do noticed huge difference in performance.

The best things is to test for which lookperformance is good for you, DXT5 is almost half memory consuming compare to 32 bit on all resolution, so with many layers you will see difference on performance.These might be good for all around situation, DXT5 40962048 or 2048 32 bit, but this is really depend on your fsx slidersetupaddonssystem.

That's my general rule now that I've had time to play around with it more.

I have not noticed ANY difference between 32bit/4096x4096 and DXT5/1024x1024 3D clouds. But I do noticed huge difference in performance.

Same here.

If by "doing something wrong" you mean my hardware or taste may differ from yours, why yes, I'm doing something wrong. As a beta tester, I would expect you to keep in mind that visuals and their quality is subjective. I see jaggies with your settings. Apparently you're okay with them, but I am not! Thanks for the tips either way

The only thing that's important is what YOU are happy with. That said - I will concur - IF you are truly seeing jaggies with those settings - your system is NOT properly set up. I'm not saying it's bad or anything like that but with your hardware, on a properly set up system, you should not see jaggies. And that is NOT a subjective viewpoint. I run 32AA on my system and have no fps issues whatsoever but even at 8xS I still have no jaggies. Driver version has an effect also.But as I said - it's YOUR system and if YOU are happy with it, who am I to tell you different! :)As long as you have fun with FSX.Vic

Vic, in retrospect, I see my mistake. Andy suggested 8xS and apparently I wanted to see 8xQ. My mistake. Unfortunately, for some reason anything "xS" is unusable to me. I get stutters and in the NGX, a complete 1 second stutter when in the landing flare. I've been puzzled about this when using this AA method, but apparently a few others are afflicted by this issue as well. I do agree I like the picture IQ in this mode, but edges are a bit blurred.

I have been testing the different configuration of the clouds tonight and have come to the conclusion that 32 Bit/1024 for the best balance between image quality and performance. The 32 BIT/4096 clouds brings my system into single digits during particular heavy weather and IMHO there is a quality difference between the HD clouds and the compressed standard FSX clouds.

1024 + DXT5 + 4x simple antialiasing. Very good quality and excellent FPS over all weather conditions at complex airports. I am running FSX in a 2600K at 4.8 GHZ + ATI HD6970.Sincerely, I don't understand why people struggle their hardware with 4096/32 bit resolution textures and supersampling antialiasing. And they still want FSX to run at 30 FPS with their PMDG in overcast conditions!!!Some people think they have a supercomputer from NASA. Current hardware can't do more with FSX, even the more powerful systems.

I have been testing the different configuration of the clouds tonight and have come to the conclusion that 32 Bit/1024 for the best balance between image quality and performance. The 32 BIT/4096 clouds brings my system into single digits during particular heavy weather and IMHO there is a quality difference between the HD clouds and the compressed standard FSX clouds.

What do you mean compressed standard FSX clouds? Are the DXT5 clouds in AS2012 not from HiFi? I would think that they are and they would look good at the 4096 resolution no?

What do you mean compressed standard FSX clouds? Are the DXT5 clouds in AS2012 not from HiFi? I would think that they are and they would look good at the 4096 resolution no?

All the graphics & cloud sets in AS2012 were completely designed from the ground up by Chris Willis.Vic

What do you mean compressed standard FSX clouds? Are the DXT5 clouds in AS2012 not from HiFi? I would think that they are and they would look good at the 4096 resolution no?

DXT5 are the compressed files from AS2012. I didn't explain myself very well. Thanks ever so much for pointing this out.

I am thinking of this product... is performance better than FSX default cumulous clouds or not?

I still have doubts. What configuration offers more fps? 2048 DXT5 or 1024 32Bit.Jorge HW7 Ultimate 64AMD Phenom (II) X6 1090T 4.3 GhzNvidia 570

Everyone's system is different and the only way to know for sure is to try with both sets on your computer.

Thanks Jim. I find no differences. Maybe 1024 32Bit offers slightly 1 or 2 frame. I'm not entirely sure. Also I see no difference in visual quality between 2048 DXT5 and 1024 32Bit.

For reference, I think my system is low end now days and I'm getting 18-23fps with PMDG J4100 or 737NGX (low textures). Using AS2012 textures at 1024x1024 (DXT5) in DWC mode with 4 cloud levels. Here are my systems specs. Dell Studio XPS 435T, i7CPU 920 @ 2.67GHz, 12GB Ram, ATI Radeon HD5800. For add ons I have running with FSX AS2012,UT2,UTX,GEX,FSUIPC4, RC4. I do use an external frame limiter. And the last flight I had was overcast from CYXL to CYWG. Entered the clouds around 1800 and was totally whiteout until I popped through around 4500. Overcast conditions were solid the entire flight.

I noticed that changing the cloud density in the CFG file can have a dramatic effect on FPS, even on "high hand systems" (core I7 + GTX570 for me), even with minimal cloud resolution. So be aware of that !