Hey Carlos, I could, and I must admit I never run at 150% clouds, normally 67% for me.

 

The point is, and I stated it earlier, I don't want to have to turn down settings just to run clouds (more the weather - cloud visuals) at a level that gives me a better frame rate. I run at 67% and although they look nice (ok) I don't like the overall look or the weather prepresentation in XPX, not even close to what I have in FSX. (granted it's an addon)

 

A while ago the decision was made to only give us this little mushroom of cloud around the aircraft to help save on performance, while beneath the cloud base. Wow, what a mistake as far as I'm concerned. I think it looks really bad. As you can see in the screen shots, I don't have to sacrafice anything in FSX to get the visuals I'm more than happy with (only my wallet). I also have great addon airports, airports and sky full of ai traffic, traffic on the roads, clouds in the sky that extend to the horizon, the list goes on. The point is, in FSX I don't have to sacrafice to fly in weather I like and looks real.

 

In XPX some of the sacraficies were made for me by the developer. Leave the clouds the way they were when I first bought XPX 13 months ago, extending to the horizon, and if my system can't handle it, give me an option to rectify the situation through a menu setting or something. Don't just decide what is best for me and offer no alternatives. It's no different that the decision that was made to only extend the "clear" ground texture view out I think it is 25 miles. Beyond that it looks horrendous, a blurry mess. I have followed some others lead here and purchased Xorit which helps a fair bit, but again it's something that could have been left alone and let the user choose what level of viewing was suitable for their system. Instead it cost me a bit more money. I don't mind spending a bit more for worthy addons that make sense, something like that doesn't make any sense, we are left with no choice.

 

Glen

 

Edit: This extends a bit beyond this post but I'll say it.

 

I'm at the point where I wish Austin and the gang would quit developing or trying to provide functionality that so far has not really worked. Keep working on the base sim and leave the other stuff to 3rd party developers. Let other people provide a great weather system, ai traffic, atc, and possibly some others. Get the code to a certain level and lock it down for a few years. They are trying to do too much with too few, and with this other stuff on his plate, perhaps it's time. I don't think the majority of users that are really into this hobby will mind spending a few dollars for some worthy addons. That model worked very well, and continues to work well with FSX, could be the same here. Just a thought.

I normally run clouds at 60% and my out-the-window view looks pretty good to me. Perhaps not as thick as 100%, but I don't see the gaping holes like you would with 20% or lower. Of course, YMMV. I only turned it up to 100% for the video because I was concerned that YouTube's video compression would remove some of the finer details and wanted to compensate.

 

And to clarify, when I said "superior", I meant the way they're rendered, irrespective of frame rates. With FSX, no matter how thick the clouds are and how smooth the frames are, you're going to have that Z-order issue, and it's even more pronounced the more clouds there are. That and the spinning billboard effect are major sticking points for me.

 

Just as people tended to give FSX a pass on waiting for hardware to catch up with the software's capabilities, so am I with XPX.

Sorry but does no-one else see the XPX dark clouds that look like burnt cotton-candy with Clouds HD v2?

 

I usually run my clouds at 75% puffs, and I tried Clouds HD v2 and even turning up puffs to 100% and 150% (bad framerate impact at 150%) and it never seems like I can get rid of those unrealistic looking burnt cloud skies.

 

Am I missing some way to make the clouds just be all white? I don't use HDR due to framerate and aliasing issues, but those dark unrealistic clouds are one of the things that break immersion for me compared to FSX and I'd like to make them better if possible.

 

I still see them to some degree in the screenshots above.

Sorry but does no-one else see the XPX dark clouds that look like burnt cotton-candy with Clouds HD v2?

 

I usually run my clouds at 75% puffs, and I tried Clouds HD v2 and even turning up puffs to 100% and 150% (bad framerate impact at 150%) and it never seems like I can get rid of those unrealistic looking burnt cloud skies.

 

Am I missing some way to make the clouds just be all white? I don't use HDR due to framerate and aliasing issues, but those dark unrealistic clouds are one of the things that break immersion for me compared to FSX and I'd like to make them better if possible.

 

I still see them to some degree in the screenshots above.

 

kludger, yes, the only reason I used them was because their 1024, 2048 and I wasn't going to go any lower in FEX in FSX. I believe the stock clouds in XPX are 256, 512, (very low by todays standards, performance reasons again, with no choice but replacement, that's fine) I would have to look again. Your description is accurate in my eyes.

 

Jon, no problem, just here to give a different viewpoint. I think it's the rendering that most of us have an issue with, not so much the "look" of the clouds.

 

I'll disagree with Goran about the whiteout effect, I don't find it realistic at all. There's climbing through a cloud layer and then there's total whiteout. You can tell you've hit the solid white wall (box) because your framerates jump through the roof. I would much prefer to climb through "cloud" where although my vision may be obscured, I feel like I'm in cloud. The way it's represented in XPX, you fell like your inside a white box. Again, I imagine it was done for system performance reasons, another choice made for me, rather than an option.

 

Also, as has been stated by woweezowee, the clouds are static, they don't move with the wind / weather patterns. The mushroom effect is horrendous and not realistic at all. Overcast skies should be viewed to the horizon, not a circle over your head. The list could go on, but like you said you were talking about the rendering. Today I don't think it should be too hard to render a nice looking cloud (but what do I know), it's what you do with it and how you present those clouds that's important. That's where XPX is not doing a very good job at the moment, for me.

 

Glen

 

Edit: A quick check around some other forums you'll find discussion(s) about the "poor" quality of clouds and weather in XPX. It's not an "unknown" problem, for lack of a better word.

Jon, no problem, just here to give a different viewpoint. I think it's the rendering that most of us have an issue with, not so much the "look" of the clouds.

 

No problem there, Glen, and I for one appreciate differing points of view, as long as they're articulated in a civil tone without the useless "my sim is better than your's, so n'yah!" that tends to dominate FSX vs. X-Plane arguments. You're one of the more balanced and reasoned voices that are willing to point out flaws without getting petty, which is something else I sincerely appreciate.

 

A lot of the arguments for or against are based on subjective criteria, and I'll be the first to admit that something I place importance on may be insignificant to another. I guess at the end of the day, it all boils down to what we as individuals define as enjoyable and continue to be happy with whatever platform gives us the most enjoyment and value.

FSX with REX + weather engine is 1000x times better than x plane in my opinion, X plane can't render big beautiful white cumulus's like in FSX

FSX with REX + weather engine is 1000x times better than x plane in my opinion, X plane can't render big beautiful white cumulus's like in FSX

 

1000x better? That much? Just for big, beautiful, white cumulus's?

They must be some juicy cumulus's to make FSX+ 3rd party payware 1000x better than X-Plane!

:yahoo:

not necessarily payware, they are good freeware texture to, like HDE

Maybe your choice of flight sim would be FSX, then?

I mean, if FSX clouds are 1000x better, with big, beautiful cumulus's, then it's really a no brainer.

no offense, I don't understand how some people are blind to xplane10's beauty on the ground and up in the skies with default vanilla settings. 3rd Party goodies will arrive. This was posted by fsx hardcore users in other threads: "The freeway traffic is drop-dead gorgeous, the rendition of the roadways and vehicles blows FSX off the map. A TON of road traffic, far in excess of anything I've ever seen in FSX - and performance to die for. The key is 64-bits, uses all of your ram, if you have 16 GB or more and 64-bit Operating System"................"The way it looks during night flight alone just knocked my socks off. The freeways and vehicles are SUPER-DENSE, we're talking LA Freeway type traffic jams with the red taillights reaching to the horizon crawling at a snail's pace... so much better and more realistic than FSX on even it's very best day. The blocky square terrain in FSX, the artifacts... the shimmers... you can have ALL of that."..............."Holy smoke guys... I did a quick lap at night with HDR enabled and I WAS BLOWN AWAY!!!! Just wow! I'm sorry, but especially when it comes to night flying, FSX cannot hold a handle to XP 10. No way. The more I try XP, the more I am digging it."............................................With my pc, i'm getting better performance and better visuals on xp10. Like I said many times, I have fs9 and fsx installed on same pc but when I start a flight in those I quickly get pulled back to xp's world and end up quitting my fs9/fsx routes in mid-flight....I really can't stand those msfs ground textures anymore....I need my city traffic and HDR lighting :drinks:

I have to add something in favour of XP10 ... It's METAR translation algorithm into weather (wind, shear, turbulence and precipitation, visibility too even if we have the fog / haze bug/limitation, etc...) is, now, better than what FSX even with the better add-on weather injectors does, IMHO. While it started really bad in as far as variable wind get's translated into the sim, the fixes introduced by 10.10 were good enough, even if I read that the latest beta introduced yet another turbulence fix (?). I once posted that I'll wait until 10.30 to really express my final opinion regarding XP10, and I believe that was a good guess... time will say ...Also, although plain ISA, XP10's atmosphere extends to the outer limits of Earth's atmosphere showing very plausible temperature and pressure field values, thus allowing for a better/more realistic experience for airships capable of reaching those limits...

no offense, I don't understand how some people are blind to xplane10's beauty on the ground and up in the skies with default vanilla settings. 3rd Party goodies will arrive. This was posted by fsx hardcore users in other threads: "The freeway traffic is drop-dead gorgeous, the rendition of the roadways and vehicles blows FSX off the map. A TON of road traffic, far in excess of anything I've ever seen in FSX - and performance to die for. The key is 64-bits, uses all of your ram, if you have 16 GB or more and 64-bit Operating System"................"The way it looks during night flight alone just knocked my socks off. The freeways and vehicles are SUPER-DENSE, we're talking LA Freeway type traffic jams with the red taillights reaching to the horizon crawling at a snail's pace... so much better and more realistic than FSX on even it's very best day. The blocky square terrain in FSX, the artifacts... the shimmers... you can have ALL of that."..............."Holy smoke guys... I did a quick lap at night with HDR enabled and I WAS BLOWN AWAY!!!! Just wow! I'm sorry, but especially when it comes to night flying, FSX cannot hold a handle to XP 10. No way. The more I try XP, the more I am digging it."............................................With my pc, i'm getting better performance and better visuals on xp10. Like I said many times, I have fs9 and fsx installed on same pc but when I start a flight in those I quickly get pulled back to xp's world and end up quitting my fs9/fsx routes in mid-flight....I really can't stand those msfs ground textures anymore....I need my city traffic and HDR lighting :drinks:

 

Okay...............so the night flight with lighting looks good. Is FSX really full of blocky terrain, artifacts & shimmers............of course not. Will I be blown away by XP's snowless terrain & thousands of barren airports? Not hardly.

 

And that's the problem with this mini review, which I see through immediately. It finds the best of X-Plane, leaves out all the worst, and goes for the poorest examples of FSX that it can locate.

Okay...............so the night flight with lighting looks good. Is FSX really full of blocky terrain, artifacts & shimmers............of course not. Will I be blown away by XP's snowless terrain & thousands of barren airports? Not hardly.

 

And that's the problem with this mini review, which I see through immediately. It finds the best of X-Plane, leaves out all the worst, and goes for the poorest examples of FSX that it can locate.

 

Some people seem to have to take this route Larry, I wasn't going to say anything more than "it made me chuckle". Are we blind, no, we seem to be the only ones with our eyes open. B) Ooops, must be the sunglasses getting in my way.

 

jcomm, have you bought OpusFSX yet (I have), probably not per your statements? Sure it's a FSX addon, but the weather depiction is the best I've seen yet and I have a few of them. Can XPX hold a candle too it, not even close. The weather depiction / clouds in XPX are plain poor. Again, do they look nice, sure, but it's all wrong in the depiction. Anyone can make a nice looking cloud, now make it look and reflect the real weather metar over a couple hour span at ALL altitudes. Hasn't happened to any level of satisfaction in XPX yet. I'm just one of many voicing the same opinion, and some of them are dedicated Xplane sites where these discussions are happening. Not trying to bash or belittle here, just stating obvious visual facts. Many things in Xplane look great, the way the clouds and weather are depicted are not one of it's strong points. Could it be, sure, but to say it is now is just kidding yourselves, as far as I'm concerned.

jcomm, have you bought OpusFSX

I was about to try that one when I gave up using FSX (and XP10) to fully embrace DCS World, but yes I have been reading the best about it. Regarding the cloud and wind at various levels, of course using a METAR as the base for weather generation can't give you the best vertical depiction of either... But that's a limitation of the METAR itself... You can have an overcast layer of high stratocumulus and if above 5000' or MSA you can see a CAVOK in your metar code :-)

Sorry but does no-one else see the XPX dark clouds that look like burnt cotton-candy with Clouds HD v2?

...

Am I missing some way to make the clouds just be all white? I don't use HDR due to framerate and aliasing issues, but those dark unrealistic clouds are one of the things that break immersion for me compared to FSX and I'd like to make them better if possible.

]

kludger, yes, the only reason I used them was because their 1024, 2048 and I wasn't going to go any lower in FEX in FSX. I believe the stock clouds in XPX are 256, 512, (very low by todays standards, performance reasons again, with no choice but replacement, that's fine) I would have to look again. Your description is accurate in my eyes.

 

Thanks for confirming that Muskoka,

 

I fly both FSX and XPX (depends on the mood) but I must admit these burnt clouds in XPX are one of my personal annoyances with XPX because they look so unrealistic, and everytime I see a thread on AVSIM talking about great XPX clouds, first I get my hopes up that there's a fix, and then when I install it but still see the burnt clouds, so I start to think I somehow installed it wrong, so I end up double or triple checking or reinstalling, and when that still doesn't fix it, I then start to wonder if I'm not crazy and seeing stuff that others actually think looks terrific.

 

So thanks for confirming I'm not crazy. Here's hoping the clouds at some point actually look white during the middle of the day and not like they are in a virtual sunset burnt cloud mode, for now I will continue to fly with clear skies to keep immersion.