Interesting comments from both the previous posters and I am grateful for their contributions. Clearly this cloud thing is very much a subjective matter- more art than science - but the last contributors comment that "IMO the default FS9 clouds are very good in their own right and there is little wrong with them." struck a chord with me because that is my perception as well. I haven't purchased FE but I have installed skyworld and with all the options that offers the default clouds seem more "real" to me. However you only have compare the FS depiction of clouds with real world photographs to realise that there is still a lot of room for improvement. I have an open mind regarding FE but I would be looking for a marked improvement over the already quite good default clouds before purchasing, particularly as I expect to be upgrading to ASV when that is released and that of course will have its own cloud textures as well as all the new weather stuff.Bruceb

Hi Peter:Well, I ain't givin my FE back so, :(, I like the water too much! :-)Now, with that said, I am of the camp that thinks that the default FS9 clouds are tolerable, but given the choice, I'd never want to see them again. Additionally, I am an an admitted "purist", meaning, once I find a cloudscape that I like, I ain't touchin' it no mo'! I don't use the randomizer in FS Skworld so I doubt that the FE randomizer would be any more attractive.What I personally did not find in the FE offering was a highly textured "photorealistic" type of cumulous that gives a striking postcard-type detail from altitude and on comparison between the two cloud products, I did find one in the other offering. So in over 20 hours of flying in day, dusk, night and morning via the transatlantic trips I compared what was offered to my favorite cloudscapes that I already had that DID give me the WOW, OOOOH, AHHHH.I did pick the cloud options from FE that I felt that I would like the most but the randomizer doesn't do much for me because the "smoother blended clouds" are to close to the default FS9 type for me so I did not factor them into the equation. But even so, they didn't take it over the top for me and bang that WOW FACTOR home when I compared the two.I fly almost every day so I will take your advice and use the randomizer and see what fruit it bears, you would know far better than I. Absolutely not to disuade anyone from purchasing your product because it is worth the price of admission and at the end of the day, this is an absolutely subjective add-on that stands on its own merits an ultimately will rely on the vastly differing tasts of the end user community.What I DO think is that more is sometimes, well, more. FS Skyworld gives a bit more cloud type options than FS Environment. Both products compare well on they similar types offered, but then the other product gives more, and in that "more" is where I found the exact cloudscape that I liked so much. Just an observation.That begs the question, is the FE team looking at "cloud pack" addons as a value add? I ask that question in the humblest manner as I don't presume to second guess the talented crew who developed the product.Warm regards,Mike T.

Bruce:We are in total agreement and we are, interestingly enough, in opposite camps regarding the default FS9 clouds. At the end of the day, I'd like to see that WOW factor too as the next step in clouds for FS9. Chris did a superb job of clouds with FS Skyworld judging by the almost 40,000 downloads from Avsim offering something for everyone. Following FS Skyworld's key accomplishment is tough indeed. How does one SURPASS what is already there? Is it even POSSIBLE to surpass what is already there given the bounds of FS9's engine? If not, is it good enough to be just as good as what has been established as the status quo for clouds?While I respectfully cannot agree that FE offers anything new in terms of clouds, I highly recommend getting the package for the new water! Since the LDS 767 release, I have been flying intercontinental flights mostly over water and quite fankly, FE has made this an absolute JOY to behold, with no blocky distant textures just beautiful smooth water clear to the horizon.Best regards,Mike T.

Mike,from reading your posts it seems to me that you havent used FE really. It seems you might have looked at the FE, maybe decided it was too many options and stuck with the water and FSSW?you said once you found a cloud you liked you dont change it, did you even look at the clouds in FE?Also, FE has so many cloud choices that, when used with the randomizer the correct way, will give you an almost endless combination of enviroment. I say correctly because it doesnt seem that you understand the randomizer. You dont have to use the "smoother blended clouds" you can exclude and textures you dont like and run only the sets you really like, and you have to remember, if you fly for 10hrs in one flight, the clouds will be the same texture when you finish the flight as when you started it, so if you dont like them on take off, you wont like them on landing either.Try this;Load up the randomizer, then use the weather theems in FS and take an hour flight, then shut down FS and run the randomizer again for another hour flight, mix it up a bit, run some weather theems and some real weather using FS real weather, then run it with Active sky, and so on.I just think that you have it in your head your going to use FS Sky world and thats it no matter what, thats fine, nothing wrong with that but dont say you've tried FE when it seems ypou really havent.seriously, try it in all modes, give it a real shake down, i dont care for all the clouds either but I've ran FE into the ground and can say what I like and dont....spookFE with sky/water updatehttp://forums.simflight.com/files/1003_123.jpg

That is a beautiful picture and again, this is all about personal taste. Took this picture on a flight yesterday and to me, this is as close you'll get to real water in FS...and this is with the old and free fs9wat water texture found in AVSIM's file library.Happy landings,http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/112841.jpg

I never cared for that water, those spots look rediculas, especially at low level and the corals are too "plastic" looking, like a fishtank scenery. IMO, the FE corals are far supirior to those for realisim. But your right, it is personal taste. Some people want realisim and some want "perseaved" realisim.....BTW, I like that plane too.

Spook:You are WAY off base. - I went through EVERY single cloud offering in FE. I know what I DO like and what I don't like. It is not hard to narrow down the choices. I DON'T like blurry "smooth" clouds in either FS Skyworld OR in FE so I can discount those. I DO like hard edged, highly textured photoreal clouds so I can include those. So I did. As I said, I didn't get the effect I was looking for (for ME) either randomized OR statically.- Both products offer a "randomizer" as I said before, I am NOT INTERESTED in a randomizer. When I find a set of SPECIFIC clouds that I like, I stick with them. With Activesky weather, I get a skyscene which differs on every flight anyway. Besides, since I discount the clouds that I DON'T LIKE, the assortment is limited either on Skyworld OR FE.- There is not much to understand about a randomizer. It randomizes right? OR am I off base here and the randomizer does something else besides randomize your included cloudscapes and offer different mixed variations? Does it change something and do more than its name implies? Peter, himself said that one one occasion the randomizer produced results that were average and on the next occasion it was spectacular...what I want is spectacular on every occasion.- Your screenshot is of a sky with no clouds.... With the exception of the water when I already know I like, what else is different about your screenshot???? Sky colours like the one you posted are pretty but not a divergence from what everyone has with various sky addons, please point out the TRULY differing factor.Best Regards,Mike T.

Mike, your right, that pic wasnt a cloud pic, it was a pic showing one of the new skys...I didnt mean for it to be related to the cloud topic so it was missplaced I guess.this is a cloud pichttp://forums.simflight.com/files/4_838.jpgandhttp://forums.simflight.com/files/1_184.jpgI have yet to see any fssw clouds that look as good as most of the FE sets...

Okay lets see...http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/112844.jpgandhttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/112847.jpgNow, I am a user and not a developer but it is STILL very unclear to me what the difference is. The skyscapes in your screenies are reflective of ones that everyone gets with a 3rd party weather addon that gives more diverse cloud formations. The above were taken with Activesky and FS Skyworld.But at the end of the day, its a moot point. Peter indicated that there will be future cloud packs to expand the offering, which is why FE is staying where it is, on my HD, because at the end of the day, I am NOT unhappy with the product to be clear.Best regards,Mike T.

I agree hard to tell the difference. By the way what skyworld cloudset do you prefer? I must admit I prefer the softer look that characterises the default clouds (and to a degree, some skyworld sets), but obviously I am in the minority in this debate/discussion.Bruceb

Nice screenines guys.I guess it will alwyas come back to beauty is in the eye of the beholder when it comes to the style of cloud people like.However MikeT did raise the issue of the poor rendition of night you get in FE.As he said it is dark out there when the sun is gone and at the moment FE does not portray this in any kind of accurate manner except for full and half moon conditions.I have been flying at night when i cant see the wingtip of the aeroplane i am flying it gets that dark.When we say dark we mean "black" like sticking your head inside a bottle of black ink.As we say in the game "black as the inside as a cows guts"!I hope the guys at FE offer some kind of update to correct the lack of black night and the strange glow MS provide us coming from clouds when there is no moon present.At the moment from where i sit it is "the" major letdown of a product which is claiming to be the most "accurate" portrayal of the real world environment.I am hoping it gets fixed or adjusted as a real sorld pilot it the only major innacuracy in FE.The clouds look great and the water is amazing.Please fix the night skies!!Darren Howie

Bruce:I prefer the E1 cumulus and cirrus set 4 which was used in the pic :-)Best regards,Mike T.

Hello, "You only have to look on screen shot forums and see that most people are still using the default clouds not freeware clouds.:-lol sorry, this is the most odd logic I have seen. There is many addons with, 25 000,30 000 or 50 0000 download hit, and I rarely seen screenshots from the addons. I will NEVER said, they are using default aircraft or default scenery! I don't saw them in the screenshots forum :-lolI have seen TONS of fsw screenshots before, MANY don't post screenshots but fly! Many don't care about clouds at all.I hate developer with a "gang" overload various forum with constant defending post and thinking they are the best. BestEric

Who thinks they are the best??? :-hmmm Surely your not talking about Peter Wilding....

>I agree hard to tell the difference. By the way what>skyworld cloudset do you prefer? I must admit I prefer the>softer look that characterises the default clouds (and to a>degree, some skyworld sets), but obviously I am in the>minority in this debate/discussion.>>BrucebI always thought that the default clouds were about as unrealistic as you could get in FS9. Was glad to replace them, which I did almost immediately.