For me, the whole purpose in having clouds available in FS is so I can fly through, around, and over them. IE to enjoy them. But I just can't seem to do that. Clouds bring my system to its knees. I can cruise along at 40+ fps even with clouds, but if I get close to them, it's down to 18fps! It really annoys me that I can't enjoy flying through the weather. So the question is, "Is it just me that this happens to, or does everybody just cope with it?" :-) Here's my rig's specs: Dell 4550 3.06ghz, GeForce 5600FX Ultra (128), 1 gig RAM, FSAutostart, Chris Willis'"lite" clouds, FS 9.1, autogen workaround.I know I don't have a great video card, but I don't think it should be this bad. I would appreciate it if some of you would share your experiences with clouds. If what I'm getting is the same for everyone, then there's no reason to be annoyed. But I would like to know if there's anything else to make this work better? Any suggestions would be great.:>

What you get with clouds depends so much on how you generate them. This link:http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...&mesg_id=199744shows some recent shots of mine. My performance with clouds depends on several factors--one, I don't let real weather generate them, since real weather will generate several layers and the more cloud layers, the worse the performance. Second, my draw distance is a the minimum of 30 miles. Although my cloud density is 100 percent and my 3-d clouds are 100 percent, the biggest factor in performance is keeping the draw distance down. Even going from a draw distance of 30 to 40 miles nearly doubles the amount of clouds FS9 has to render. The last factor which helps me is I've reduced the cloud texture size as Chris Willis taught us to do. You've already done that, so you already have taken this step. Last item--if you are maxing autogen as well as clouds, you may be reducing performance a bit more. If your flight is going to be at or above 2000 ft. AGL, you may want to disable autogen for that flight.In my shots in the link, I had two cloud decks--one cumulus at 3/8ths and 3500 ft. thick, and one deck of cirrus (which still uses 2-d clouds).Hope this is helpful.-John

With all my AI traffic mostly using DXT3 textures, I have found running 32bit clouds seems to affect my system less. Maybe it's just my imagination, but try different cloud sets. Yes clouds definately slow down the game, especially in overcast conditions... and I hear geforce cards' Anti-aliasing really struggles with clouds.

No, it is normal. It is the way MS chose to deal with clouds. Each one is an object to which the CPU must keep track and project. The more clouds the more the resources being used. Eventually the whole system starts to slow down. FS2004 does the best it can with what it have available (your hardware). Get FSAutoStart, it helps a lot but it will not go beyond your hardware capabilities of course. Dual 64-bits CPU's are on their way to the rescue (AMD had already place one in the market since 2003, no dual though yet). Coming soon to a retailer near you (play safe, 2-3 years from now). We must wait for MS-Windows and all the rest to catch up including Intel. Until then, slide down traffic and clouds to a level you can live with it. When I am flying though heavy clouds I keep my nose inside the cockpit looking at just the forward window and then it is not so bad. Hardware is lacking a little behind graphics but they will catch up. FS is one of the most demanding programs in the game-graphic world.Cheers,MABDo not buy more hardware for 32bits tech. Just wait. NOTE: I do not know about you, but I

"NOTE: I do not know about you, but I

I am really hoping that MS will make weather a major feature of the next version of FS.Not just the candy but the whole dynamics. FU3 was way ahead of its time in dynamics although the eye candy was poor.But John even in FS9 the eye candy falls apart if you have the cloud draw set at 30 miles.Take off in a jet like the level D 767 in awful weather and you are soon above it to see all the weather melt away leaving a good VFR day below and a 30 mile draw set at 30 looking unreal and poor.A lot of the drain has to come from the aircraft and panels as I can have the draw range set at max with the level D 767 and the realair Spitfire and still get great frames while changing to most other aircraft has the computer on its knees.I think it misleading to imply that the clouds are a problem when the fact is the clouds are just a portion of a very graphic intensive programme and no more a problem than the aircraft, panels or terrain.The whole thing really needs looking at top to bottom in the next version maybe with some kind of graphics management depending on where you are.Peter

Good points Peter...In the flight levels I often extend the draw distance to its max since during cruise, fps is not as important. I find I can tolerate a lower fps at FL350 unless I am interacting a lot with the aircraft. But for GA flight, 30 miles works fine for me and I would rather have smooth interaction with my aircraft vs. a whole bunch of eye candy. I am surprised though that the cpu can't help more. When I max draw distance my fps drops to the high teens and many have shown similar shots with similar performance--with much faster systems.Funny though, is that FS2002's clouds were no better. In FS2002 we couldn't extend the clouds draw distance since there was , and they melted into 2-d clouds a certain distance above. I found their fps impact was very similar to similar settings in FS2004 with a 30 mile draw distance.I think weather could be much better. I think FS2002 handled visibility differences better than FS2004. I would like to see a sim that shows visbility subtleties the same way FS2002 does, with true 3-d clouds that thicken and thin at a realistic rate as you fly through them. FS2004 still fudges on the 3-d clouds, although they look tons better for the eye candy shots than their FS2002 counterparts.-John

well, I dont have the problem you mention, my fps stay pretty much steady when flying through clouds. A lot of layers will cause slow down, you can limit the layers in AS in the options, and if you use the default FS weather engine like I do, you can limit the layers in FSUPIC (I think) if you have the registerd version. I dont have a registerd version so I let FS do what it wants and have no problems.I could suggest you get FE2004 and use that, many people report much better performance over any other clouds out including the default ones.heres a video clip of me flying through clouds and here are my settings (sorry for the larg pic.)http://shell2.thebestisp.com/~jjmeyer/spook/Movie_0002.wmvhttp://shell2.thebestisp.com/~jjmeyer/spook/mysettings.jpg

Hello, " could suggest you get FE2004 and use that, many people report much better performance over any other clouds out including the default ones."Sorry these statement are false from FE beta tester, and I do have FE. There is 32 bits clouds resized out there 512x512,256x256,128x128 and 64x64 in 32 bits and DXT3, don't say FE have much better performance over any others clouds out, this is completly wrong statement.FE ONLY have two choice in 32 bits 256x256 and 512x512 and dxt3, FE is NOT differents from others on performance, but are more limited on size. Conclusion and fact, FE will not improve performance overs what's we have seen before."you can limit the layers in FSUPIC (I think)"You can only limit to 1 layers for all weather, not realisticBestEric

>>Any suggestions would be great.>you have to learn to live with compromises. This is what works for me:1. cloud draw distance 30 miles2. maximum visibility 29 miles3. clouds 100% density4. FS9 haze layer turned off (if you use Active Sky)The above settings guarantee this: no cloud pop-ups, no sudden visibility changes, good performance.Oh, you may also wait for the new version of Active Environment by Chris Willis. He has got some great lookig clouds with good performance since they are mip-mapped. Michael J.WinXP-Home SP2,AMD64 3500+,Abit AV8,Radeon X800Pro,36GB Raptor,1GB PC3200,Audigy 2http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/747400.jpg

sorry Eric, but your wrong, if you go to the flight 1 forum, or the simflight forum, you'll see there are several people that say they get a better look AND performance with FE2004. FE offers 256x256 and 512x512 in 32bit, and a faster set in DXT3, we found the 256x256 32bits ran better (smoother) then the DXT3s and Peter almost didnt include them but knew people would ask for them.FE IS different from others freewares on the market, they look better, "feel" better, and give a much more realistic enviroment then any others.Conclusion, your wrong and some people do say their fps went up with FE.

spookymufu,"several people that say they get a better look AND performance with FE2004"They probably never use resized clouds for performance before this is why.We and I am talking on PERFORMANCE not visual, users will not get better performance with FE, from what's we have seen before. Don't try to confuse users about this one, there is 32 bits 512x512, 256x256,128x128 and 64x64 same as DXT3 out there, saying FE does have better performance than what's we have seen is a LIE, but visual are differents for sure I have it. BestEric

Hey rightseat!I suspect you're not seeing the optimal performance you should. In general, I use ActiveSky with the number of cloud layers restricted to 6. I also use Chris' HighestFPS clouds, which make a tremendous difference. In most situations, the exception being many layers of 9/10 overcast, I achieve the 18fps my sim is locked at. This is not true if I'm sitting on the tarmac in atlanta with 100% ultimate traffic AI, but I don't blame the clouds then. In general,the clouds don't hammer my fps, particularly scattered, or thunder storms.Also,1. cloud draw distance 70 miles2. maximum visibility 65 miles3. clouds 100% density4. FS9 haze layer turned off.I have a P4/2.8/533fsb/1gRAM/gf-ti4600+128mb - but you knew that!Best,sg

sorry Eric, but again, your wrong, go look at the flight1 forum for FE, you'll see people saying their fps went up, not all of them but a good portion of the users state that. I did read one person say that between FSSW DXT3 and FE's 256x256 32bits, they got smoother performance with FE.dont kid yourself Eric, there are a few ways to make clouds and Peter has unlocked a way to get smoother performance out of them over other clouds out there, believe it or not, I dont really care, there are a lot of people that have stated this including our beta testers.With FE most people, I'd say 90% of the ones that have posted on it say they get better look, feel, and PERFORMANCE with FE.See, now you've turned this into a comercial for FE and that wasnt my intetion. I simply wanted to point out that I dont have the problem with MY settings that the original poster has....

Hi, "I did read one person say that between FSSW DXT3 and FE's 256x256 32bits, they got smoother performance with FE.Comparing DXT and 32 bits is completly wrong, ALL fsw and others 3rd party ARE in 32 bits and DXT3 for ALL size, FE texture size KBMB are the SAME as fsw or others out there for 512x512 and 256x256, I have FE and the performance is the same with 3rd party sorry."Peter has unlocked a way to get smoother performance out of them over other clouds out there"unlocked a way ? there is nothing you can do, texture size, mip map for 32 bits and DXT, no matter what's the texture size.I am sorry but the performance is not better then what's we have seen.BestEric