I have noticed this particular during the last time (subjective feeling). I use the DX10 tweaks and I have REX in which I have chosen 512*512 textures and DXT5 optimized (lowest possible). My experience with clear sky I often get stable 30 fps in ORBX PNW with addon plane Katana 4X. As soon as there are some clouds in the sky fps drops to low 20. And that is with FSX own weather. It seem to have a greater impact on fps than autogen traffic and other scenery sliders.

since last week I have also dx10 and the same problem.

I could gain some from 20 to 24 by bufferpools=0

furthermore I use for clouds the very nice program FEX which is better for fps then REX and according what others say much more nicer clouds.

In fsx weather I put all sliders of weather to the left , only density minimum

Because clouds I think are made up of a lot of different textures placed together, and each has to be rendered and filtered with your settings for aliasing and anisotropic filtering.

My observation is that with DX10, clouds are subject to AA processing which really stresses the GPU when there are lots of them and causes low FPS. The only solutions I've found for this are all work-arounds: avoid cloudy weather, lower the cloud density and radius setting, use weaker or disable AA (ugh!), or get a better GPU. I recently got a better GPU mainly because of this problem.

My observation is that with DX10 clouds are subject to AA processing which really stresses the GPU when there are lots of them and causes low FPS. The only solutions I've found for this are all work-arounds: avoid cloudy weather, lower the cloud density and radius setting, use weaker or disable AA (ugh!), or get a better GPU. I recently got a better GPU mainly because of this problem.

 

So it is because of DX10. I need my current AA to prevent graphical glitches. From what I have been told there are no point in getting a more powerful GPU for me since my CPU can't feed it fast enough.

My fps might drop but that doesn't mean that it doesn't fell smooth. So my best option seem to be to accept lower fps.

You could measure the memory usage on your gpu while flying in cloudy weather, see if it reaches the 2 gigz on your board. But, probably, as you say, the CPU is getting too busy...

Its the AA thats killing your FPS I bet, I cant use anything about 2X SSGS on my GTX 680 or a get veryvery low FPS.

So it is because of DX10. I need my current AA to prevent graphical glitches. From what I have been told there are no point in getting a more powerful GPU for me since my CPU can't feed it fast enough.

My fps might drop but that doesn't mean that it doesn't fell smooth. So my best option seem to be to accept lower fps.

If your GPU is continuously maxed out at 100%, a better GPU can make a significant difference. Last evening I was flying around Wrangle, AK with a very dense cloud cover which would have been a 15-18 fps stuttering mess with my old 560 ti; my new 660 ti was handling it with 27-30 fps (my fps is capped at 30).

If your GPU is continuously maxed out at 100%, a better GPU can make a significant difference. Last evening I was flying around Wrangle, AK with a very dense cloud cover which would have been a 15-18 fps stuttering mess with my old 560 ti; my new 660 ti was handling it with 27-30 fps (my fps is capped at 30).

 

I went from a GTX 480 to a GTX 680 with the same Nvidia setting and it made ZERO difference in terms of smoothness or FPS. If you are going to buy a new GPU don't do it unless you play other games like COD or BF3, it is a waste of money just for FSX

I went from a GTX 480 to a GTX 680 with the same Nvidia setting and it made ZERO difference in terms of smoothness or FPS.

+1

Exactly the same here.

According to my experience, SuperSampling and clouds together is a killer combo. So either MultiSamplig+clouds or SuperSampling+2D clouds. I chose multisampling (8X) as clouds are a must in flying...

I went from a GTX 480 to a GTX 680 with the same Nvidia setting and it made ZERO difference in terms of smoothness or FPS.

 

On the other hand I went from a GTX 280 to a GTX 660 Ti and the difference was night and day. I went from being able to run minimum "3D" clouds to the notch below max (with Opus FSX weather). I'm still on an old Q9550 but with the new graphics card I don't feel the need to upgrade yet.

I use for clouds the very nice program FEX which is better for fps then REX

Don't try and BS folks, this is hogwash.

y observation is that with DX10, clouds are subject to AA processing which really stresses

 

Yes, this is true of D9 as well. I'm no expert (but I did fly an Maddog Last Night), but ATI users get hammered even more than NVIDIA users do with high AA such as highly detailed clouds as you have with REX. So, if you think NVIDIA is bad (usually has many more processor streams than ATI), you should see what us ATI Multi-Monitor guys deal with! lol.

 

There are work arounds, but the best I've found is to either use AS2012 with SP2 and the new SP2 Graphics for weather (with the latest Beta), or if you're going to use REX textures and it's overcast or a lot of thunderstorms then turn your clouds down to 60nm while on the ground or during departure and once you get above around 25,000ft set your clouds back to 90nm+ (I turn them up maximum).

 

Now you don't have to do the above, you can tweak your system in for something middle of the road. But for me, I've found running high graphics and adjusting cloud range twice a flight is well worth the quality I'm seeing.

 

The more graphics addons you run, the more I think you'll turn to the above. It's so easy, and you can't tell the clouds range is lowered when on the ground or during departure anyway.

 

Dave

Bojote's shader 3.0 mod is said to be more performant for ATI cards in clouds, so isn't it possible to tweak the corresponding cloud shader files that they are not or less antialised for both Nvidia and ATI?