GetScreenQuadPositions( quad, width*0.5, height*0.5 )

 

I Dropped the first 0.5 and got the overcast back.

GetScreenQuadPositions( quad, width*0.5, height*0.5 )

 

I Dropped the first 0.5 and got the overcast back.

Any performance hit?

 

 

Any performance hit?

 

mathmatically I only get 50% of the performance benefit of the original tweak.  Practically the perf difference is not drastically with or without the tweak on my machine. 

Of course this increases fps but it decreases clouds so it's not really a fix from my perspective...  If from 2.2 to 2.3 they screwed up and added too large of clouds and then they give this fix ok then it's a fix....

Wouldnt this fix be the same as reducing cloud coverage or cloud detail?

Of course this increases fps but it decreases clouds so it's not really a fix from my perspective...  If from 2.2 to 2.3 they screwed up and added too large of clouds and then they give this fix ok then it's a fix....

I think that is exactly what they did.  I found before the fix I enjoyed great looking solid overcasts with the cloud density slider set to medium, but a noticeable performance drop in clouds.  With the fix, I now have to set the cloud density slider all the way to the right to get a good solid overcast, but this time there is negligible performance drop, even in heavy overcast conditions and of course the cloud bases are back to where they should be.  Having said that I still preferred the overall look of the cloud coverage before the fix, but with the fix and cloud density set to max it still looks good without the performance issues.  Before the fix I was using a REX cloud texture, but after the fix I returned to the default cloud texture as  IMO it just looks more realistic since applying the fix.

On my end I did a direct compare with OPUS running and the cloud layer was less dense post "fix" at max cloud density. But you're right, the cloud bases seem better... I'll end up keeping the edit because the 9 fps I was getting in heavy clouds was terrible.

Wouldnt this fix be the same as reducing cloud coverage or cloud detail?

I don't think so...in general that is...for this fix was to address the cloud base as rendered. I have edited this, as shown, but...er...I dunno... I kinda liked the really intense and LUSH look of the clouds, ....so I might tonight remove those two lines, and go back to the pre-tweak. Yesterday, I was in Vermont (shots in the Screen Shot Forum), and found no instances where there was no actual deck of between ground level, to 3,500 AGL, that I could not fly in, since updating from v2.2 If this was a mistake, hmmm....but...at least the user now has an option to move to, if so choosing. I am SO WAITING for whatever Tim of REX STUDIOS has going on, with WATER 'n WAVES....man...I can't wait.....

This fix has not helped me at all - might be worse as I am getting stutters that were not there before - oh well have to look into some cloud texture changes I guess

It only seems to help during multiple layers of thick overcast... IE when using OPUS or ASN

It only seems to help during multiple layers of thick overcast... IE when using OPUS or ASN

 

Thanks Ryan - take care

 

 

but with the fix and cloud density set to max it still looks good without the performance issues.

 

This is what I found also ... specifically when flying into or very close my FPS no longer drop 50-60%.

 

Cheers, Rob.

I don't look at FPS that much anymore but I would say with some pretty good clouds I pick up maybe 5 or 6 FPS but I did notice much smooove    even while on the ground. I think its a keeper for me.

Of course this increases fps but it decreases clouds so it's not really a fix from my perspective...  If from 2.2 to 2.3 they screwed up and added too large of clouds and then they give this fix ok then it's a fix....

Well, Beau said that they made a math error in v.2.3, which caused the size of the clouds to be doubled ... so they messed up, and the fix corrects the math error and restores the clouds to the correct size. Of course the 'correct size' is just an approximation of real weather (assuming that you're using a weather engine add-on, like ASN), and the size of clouds and the amount of coverage depends on what weather settings you are using.

 

If you miss the 'double-size clouds,' after using the fix, just crank up the cloud density in P3D. The screenshot below was a few miles NW of G. V. Montgomery Airport, in Mississippi, this afternoon.  I was using ASN, with live weather (5 maximum cloud layers), with PD3 cloud density set at maximum (I had restored the #define VOLUMIZE code). I was just approaching a large thunderstorm, at an altitude of ~3500 feet. Even with maximum cloud density and with cloud shadow cast distance set to 80,000m, I was getting ~30 FPS. Before the fix, I would have been lucky to get 15 FPS in these conditions, and that would have been with cloud density set at medium, cloud shadows off, and ASN set to 3 cloud layers. These clouds were VERY thick, as I tried flying up through them and gave up at 13,000 feet (it was a bumpy ride)

 

An interesting thing that I discovered, that the higher (or perhaps longer) that I flew through the clouds, the more my FPS dropped (I bottomed out at about 7 FPS), and as I descended, my FPS slowly went back up again. I've notice this before, but not to this degree; perhaps because I had cloud density set so high for this flight (or it might have been that I had left cloud shadows on). This seems like something that could be (and should be) fixed. When I was in the clouds, I could only see at most 1000 feet in any direction (it was often less than 25 feet).  Below the clouds I could see for like five miles. Why is performance so low when you are in the clouds and looking at nothing but white (like the inside of a ping pong ball)? One would think that miles of scenery would be the greater FPS hit, but the opposite is true.

 

Edited: if you're using ASN, make sure that you have "P3D low cloud offset" set to 0, as this doesn't work correctly with the 2.3 fix (according to HiFi) . . . enabling this will cause the (now correct, with the fix) bottoms of the clouds to be cut off, resulting in less cloud coverage.

Edited: if you're using ASN, make sure that you have "P3D low cloud offset" set to 0, as this doesn't work correctly with the 2.3 fix (according to HiFi) . . . enabling this will cause the (now correct, with the fix) bottoms of the clouds to be cut off, resulting in less cloud coverage.

 

------------------------------------------------

 

Thanks Arwen, I didn't know that...and it had been set to other than '0'.  It's now set to 0.......

 

Post Edit: Arwen, I have a moment ago adjusted my P3D Cloud Density from Medium (my normal default setting) from that--->to High---->to Maximum, with no change whatsoever in my normal FPS range when having it at only Medium.  I'm pretty shocked over this....geez.....  This came into effect ONLY because I halved my line settings to the suggested fix of 0.5?!?!?   You have GOT to love the forums...just got to love 'em....!!!!!!!!!

 

I was running under the deck of rain clouds, heading east from Detroit, to Toronto...at 3,500 AGL...with all of the above.

 

http://fsfiles.org/flightsimshotsv2/t5T

 

Comparison shot with ASN set to Force Broken to 7/8:

 

http://fsfiles.org/flightsimshotsv2/t50

 

http://fsfiles.org/flightsimshotsv2/t5F

 

Mitch