Xplane 10 is still my no.1 Sim

[Nuno Pinto 1,395]

Use strictly 3D clouds in FSX and you won't see any of those 2D things. When you inject textures from an addon like REX, there's simply nothing up to FSX's level yet.

 

X-Plane clouds are highly unrealistic and boring, so being 3D isn't doing much for them, really.

[FIVE-BY-FIVE 453]

Use strictly 3D clouds in FSX and you won't see any of those 2D things. When you inject textures from an addon like REX, there's simply nothing up to FSX's level yet.

 

X-Plane clouds are highly unrealistic and boring, so being 3D isn't doing much for them, really.

i'm on P3D with AS2012 and have cloud settings maxed out.....it's still a white puffy boring 32bit wall :lol: 

[Murmur 3,941]

X-Plane clouds are highly unrealistic and boring, so being 3D isn't doing much for them, really.

 

Yeah sure... :lol:

 

http://forum.avsim.net/topic/413267-sabach-cloud-environment/

 

http://forum.avsim.net/topic/412504-x-planes-ugly-cloudscapes/

[jcomm 5,919]

I understand Nuno's opinion, but I have had better experiences with clouds in X-Plane 10 after playing around with the settings.

 

It's also better when they're set through the weather interface manually, or by "painting the skies" then when they result from METAR downloads.

 

Using the new plugin that fills the upper levels with other cloud, wind, temperature and turbulence layers also results in better clouds...

 

Then, finally, there is another difference between FSX and XPX clouds, not visual but rather "physical" in that the effects ( icing, turbulence and shear depending on the type of cloud and other settings ) are much more realistic in XPX than in FSX, using any weather injector I have used so far, up to FSGRW ( the one I tested yesterday with P3D ), and including different versions of AS...

[HarryCYUL 45]

Yeah sure... :lol:

 

 

http://forum.avsim.net/topic/412504-x-planes-ugly-cloudscapes/

this set of pics is awesome! 

[jcomm 5,919]

A couple more just taken with the "new" Seneca :-) and freeware DR400 (XPFR)

[Murmur 3,941]

"Highly unrealistic":

 

 

 

 

 

 

[tf51d 284]

2D like this ??

 

 

I don't see clouds like that on my system. They look like what you would see with the simplified cloud option in FSK. This is what see from the outside.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[strider1 575]

I don't see clouds like that on my system. They look like what you would see with the simplified cloud option in FSK. This is what see from the outside.

 

fsx 2013-08-01 18-02-55-80.jpg

 

fsx 2013-08-01 18-03-11-79.jpg

 

fsx 2013-08-01 18-03-21-78.jpg

 

fsx 2013-08-01 18-04-27-69.jpg

 

fsx 2013-08-01 18-04-53-39.jpg

 

fsx 2013-08-01 18-05-12-33.jpg

 

It was PD3 with REX clouds enabled.

 

Are you beta testing a PD3 2.0 or is that new ADDON with 3d volumetric clouds?Clouds in FSX/PD3 are made using 2D sprites, not 3D volumetric objects.  If you pick nice cumulus cloud and fly through you will notice the 2d billboard slowly fade and if you change camera angle you will notice the the 2D cloud texture spin. Sometimes its smooth, most of the time it isn't, it depends on the cloud combination.

 

P.S.

I was looking at your clouds photos again and it looks like they are in the distance ? Are you actually flying through them ?

[scotchegg 4,186]

I don't see clouds like that on my system. They look like what you would see with the simplified cloud option in FSK. This is what see from the outside.

 

fsx 2013-08-01 18-02-55-80.jpg

 

fsx 2013-08-01 18-03-11-79.jpg

 

fsx 2013-08-01 18-03-21-78.jpg

 

fsx 2013-08-01 18-04-27-69.jpg

 

fsx 2013-08-01 18-04-53-39.jpg

 

fsx 2013-08-01 18-05-12-33.jpg

 

Those clouds do look pretty, but they're 2D plates layered one on top of another. If you fly through them you'll see the layers in action.

[tf51d 284]

Those clouds do look pretty, but they're 2D plates layered one on top of another. If you fly through them you'll see the layers in action.

Ok I ran some tests from the outside, and I do detect what you are saying, but it doesn't look as bad as the shot posted by strider1. I usually fly exclusively from the cockpit, and as you can see from the video I posted, the effect is quite good. From my experience with XP10 while the effect from the outside is quite good. From the cockpit it appears it just whites out when you enter a cloud bank, and pops back when you are out. no transition at all, your either in or out, and there is no feeling of depth. I no longer have XP10 installed (Although I plan to install it again - Needed space for something else). but here's a sample video I've found that shows what I mean.

 

www.youtube.com/watch?v=yT_CJA5mozk

[jcomm 5,919]

Tom,

 

yes, X-Plane 10's clouds do have that problem: I believe it can be fixed, but I can accept them just as they are now, and they also do not move with the wnds...

 

But!  they are special in the effects they're programmed to cause on aircraft crossing them, and on the weather radars those aircraft use. They have different types and degrees of precipitation and those are actually detectable, and even more, they're able to cause damage to your aircraft if you don't avoid them.

 

If the less appealing graphics variety, and the pop-in/out effect are what I have to pay for those realistic weather effects, not available in any way in FSX / P3D, even using the best weather injectors ( and believe me, I know what I am saying... ), then... I don't mind having it this way, and I can at least hope that it get's a revamp somewhere along in the 10 series :-)

[pryoski 84]

 

 

X-Plane clouds are highly unrealistic and boring, so being 3D isn't doing much for them, really.

 

We must be from a different planet you and I or maybe our hemispheres generate different clouds .. because I often marvel at how real the clouds look .. and I run XP clouds @ 10% .. go figure :blink:

[Murmur 3,941]

From my experience with XP10 while the effect from the outside is quite good. From the cockpit it appears it just whites out when you enter a cloud bank, and pops back when you are out. no transition at all, your either in or out, and there is no feeling of depth.

 

You're absolutely right. I think the only reason for that is increasing frame rates when practicing IFR in overcast conditions, but that does not make sense to me. They should simply remove that "pop in/out" effect and the end results would be much better and more realistic IMHO.

 

Unfortunately, I think the effect cannot be excluded even using external plugins, so let's hope Laminar decides to revisit it.

[pryoski 84]

I agree that the effect is very sudden ... but I think that it does the white-out effect to a lesser degree than it used to. I never used to get the whispy raggedy effect when going through cloud and now I do.