SkyMaxxPro 2 - Cloud shadows!

[alexcolka 183]

I'm hoping that they could implement solid thick overcast 3d cloud layers, that would be great.

[jcomm 5,939]

I'm hoping that they could implement solid thick overcast 3d cloud layers, that would be great.

 

Supposedly XP's clouds are volumetric, so, this should be the case, but I guess it has to do with the perimeter around which it depicts the METAR weather, and that one doesn't seem to extend sufficiently in altitude...

[ohsirus 241]

[saed45 38]

 

looks amazing 

[ohsirus 241]

From Redpiper1 (awesome videos)

 

 

"The newest version includes an option for high res clouds, ground and water shadows and a very cool lens flare feature. This is still in beta and cloud shadows are not shown in this video but trust me you'll be blown away by V2. "

[Douglas.Matos 1]

Anxiety 100000!!!!

[deetee 164]

More piccies posted today...!

 

http://forums.x-pilot.com/topic/7039-new-skymaxx-pro-20-screenshots-bandwidth-warning/#entry76732

[captain420 3,099]

Wow!!!!! I am so ready to get this. Looking forward to v2! Best clouds I've ever seen in a flight sim hands down. 

[strider1 575]

They wil probably put REX out of business if they ever offer it for PD3.

[PingPong 60]

That video sealed the deal for me, I will most definitely be buying this add-on.

 

Between this, Oculus Rift support, and G2XPL photosceneries, X-plane will be just perfect.

[alulekk 3]

That video sealed the deal for me, I will most definitely be buying this add-on.

 

Between this, Oculus Rift support, and G2XPL photosceneries, X-plane will be just perfect.

 

We should probably wait on "perfect" until we see if the weather getting rendered is actually representative of the METAR data.

 

The current beta builds of XP 10.3+ are simply a joke in terms of actually representing the clouds correctly (altitudes, coverages, breakout points, etc).  Driving me absolutely insane.

 

XP has always billed itself as a great place to practice instruments, yet a key component of that experience is nailing the weather/clouds/vis representation.

 

They gotta' fix this part - then the excitement over Skymaxx making that represenetaiton look better can get real for me.

[Paraffin 2,197]

We should probably wait on "perfect" until we see if the weather getting rendered is actually representative of the METAR data.

 

The current beta builds of XP 10.3+ are simply a joke in terms of actually representing the clouds correctly (altitudes, coverages, breakout points, etc).  Driving me absolutely insane.

 

XP has always billed itself as a great place to practice instruments, yet a key component of that experience is nailing the weather/clouds/vis representation.

 

They gotta' fix this part - then the excitement over Skymaxx making that represenetaiton look better can get real for me.

 

I agree 100%. Skymaxx pretties up the simulation, but we need a better weather engine that gets closer to the real thing. 

 

I fly mostly VFR with a little IFR here and there, so I'm a little less concerned about how the cloud modeling affects instrument flying, although obviously this should be as accurate as possible with breakouts for decision height, etc. The turbulence model needs to be more randomized, too. 

 

What drives me nuts, personally, is the way X-Plane fails to model a proper Cumulonimbus formation. I want to see a big scary anvil off in the distance, that I have to navigate around. Unfortunately, it may take a complete redesign of the weather system, since Cb's are vertically organized and don't fit X-Plane's horizontally-layered cloud system. Or maybe there's a way to hack the system so it can stack discrete cloud layers that look and act more like a classic Cb. 

 

Anyway, just agreeing here that we need more than prettified versions of the current weather system. We need a better weather system underneath the eye candy.

 

I think it's also important to acknowledge that the weather modeling in X-Plane has improved a great deal from one version to the next, and it's not like it doesn't work at all (trying to forestall comparisons with certain other sims here). There are times when I'm using real-world weather and comparing it to what I see outside my window, and it's darned close. It also models things like in-flight icing -- maybe a little too aggressively at times, but I'm glad it does this. There are just many gaps that need filling.

[alulekk 3]

@Parrafin:

Great post.  Totally with you 110%.

 

If XP is going to be the "ultra realistic training platform" (which is how I think they've always approached things...blade element theory, etc, etc) the WX accuracy and rendering component is basically #1 priority in my book.

 

They seem to want 3rd party's to do aircraft and scenery - so if they could at least handle the WX getting better and better it'd be nice for sure.

[ohsirus 241]

EFASS is currently trying to bridge the gap http://ticket-system.org/efasswiki/index.php/Ultra-WX_Weather_Engine

[Superdelphinus 718]

We need hi fi