I like the synergistic ways the various aspects work together. For instance, the clouds themselves may not be remarkable, but group them with their cast shadows on phototextured terrain, and you get... well... this:

 

 

nice pic!

Just made a request to Austin to have clouds moving with the wind, but from his answer looks like it won't happen.

Just made a request to Austin to have clouds moving with the wind, but from his answer looks like it won't happen.

what was the answer?

what was the answer?

 

Not 100% clear actually:

"well, in version 10, the weather varies with location

turbulence, wind, rain, storms... everything

none of that varies with location in v9

so, moving wearher in v9 and v10 are actually completely different"

what was the answer?

 

He's too busy making snow ground textures to work on moving clouds.

He's too busy making snow ground textures to work on moving clouds.

:lol: yah right! I guess it's up to REX to save the day! oh well, they still look good for now, especially with the HD addon from the .org

He's too busy making snow ground textures to work on moving clouds.

 

Art assets department is responsible for snow ground textures, while Ben Supnik (I assume) should be the one mainly responsible for changes to the weather system, so they're completely unrelated.

Clouds moving aren't, from a technical PoV, really that important. Well, if thermals were properly associated with corresponding convective clouds (and this could be made dependable on T/Td, etc...), like in Silent-Wings or Condor, or even to some level in FSX + CumulusX!, then it would be great to have moving clouds, but thermal generation in XP is allways vertical :-( no matter what wind components you have... very unrealistic when trying to center under a good wind component....

 

OTOH I would really appreciate FOG and HAZE, as well as towering cumulus (Tcu), Cumulonimbus, etc...

 

I would love to see things like T and Td being also taken into account even for the calculation of various engine performance parameters, ice formation, etc...

 

Regarding turbulence and shear, I am satisfied with it right now. Updrafts and Downdrafts are still too faint.

 

For me probably the best weather depiction/wind effects/turbulence etc I have found so far was in MS FLIGHT - oh my dear MS FLIGHT, which might well have been the best simulation platform of all times again.... Well....

For me probably the best weather depiction/wind effects/turbulence etc I have found so far was in MS FLIGHT - oh my dear MS FLIGHT, which might well have been the best simulation platform of all times again.... Well....

 

Flight should have been FS11... Imagine how that version of FS would have been? smh What a shame ACES was shutdown.

OTOH I would really appreciate FOG and HAZE, as well as towering cumulus (Tcu), Cumulonimbus, etc...

 

Some sorts of vertically developed clouds can be seen, if you use the "Set random and only semi-controlled weather patterns" option (see page 2 of the other thread on clouds). Maybe not the classic CB with the anvil extending to the tropopause, but some nice cloud formations extending up high.

 

What is the problem with fog and haze? I think X-Plane does a decent job.

You mean like in the XP10 how KSEA is depicted realistically and then you go to KDLH, my home airport (greater than 10,000 ft long Ry), and it's a barren wasteland with no buildings?

 

Well that saves me asking then. I thought it was asking a bit much for the whole world to be in similar detail.

 

For me probably the best weather depiction/wind effects/turbulence etc I have found so far was in MS FLIGHT - oh my dear MS FLIGHT, which might well have been the best simulation platform of all times again.... Well....

 

Oh Mr Comm, I don't go on about it quite as much as you but I feel exactly the same. The night lighting in Xplane is a joy to behold, but frankly 5 mins in MS Flight after playing the Xplane demo and the day lighting, clouds, weather modeling etc. etc. made me fall in love with it all over again, leading to it inevitably being broken when I remembered it would never be developed.

 

Back on topic, can't agree. The overcast effect in Xplane is quite good, but the cumulus clouds are awful and another reason I'll be holding off investing in it for the time being.

What is the problem with fog and haze? I think X-Plane does a decent job.

 

Hmmm, XP does not model fog.

 

There are basically 2 problems with it:

 

1) The "curtain" effect, where if if choose a marginal visibility situation to reproduce the effects of FOG, you get a curtain in front of you defining the limit of the visibility (not very nice to see...)

2) You can't set a fog layer (at least I couldn't). All you can get is a dense nimbostratus type layer extending way up into the 7000'+ A mant / bank of FOG as in RL, and even in FSX, is not possible in XP10 as far as I konw....

There are basically 2 problems with it:

 

1) The "curtain" effect, where if if choose a marginal visibility situation to reproduce the effects of FOG, you get a curtain in front of you defining the limit of the visibility (not very nice to see...)

2) You can't set a fog layer (at least I couldn't). All you can get is a dense nimbostratus type layer extending way up into the 7000'+ A mant / bank of FOG as in RL, and even in FSX, is not possible in XP10 as far as I konw....

 

Yeah, with regard to this aspect, the comparison with FSX is merciless.

FSX:

 

 

 

 

 

X-Plane 10:

 

 

 

 

 

The strange thing is, X-Plane 9 was much better than 10 in depicting fog:

 

 

 

 

 

Marco

"x-planes-superior-cloud-rendering"

 

x-plane's what?

 

this is what I'd call "superior-cloud-rendering", running smoothly at 60Hz:

 

http://www.simul.co.uk/truesky

 

Took you two threads to post that. Okay. Um. Congratulations?