Because I was bored...

 

And how was I bored with three kids to watch while mommy is out?

 

No idea

 

lol

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nice comparisons Ryan. X-Plane cloud engine falls definitely short compared to FSX, regarding both performance and visuals. I used to complain about FSX clouds but I must say FSX's is by far the best cloud engine I've ever experienced in any flight simulator (including the well-known military flight sims).

Indeed, interesting comparison.

 

I have to agree with Murmur regarding not only the quality of the clouds in XP10, even when SPM is used vs FSX/P3D.

 

Yet another aspect is how they pop in and out, as the reporting stations change.. Last time I used it, even with the NOAA plugin, it wasn't much better :-(

I agree the default X-plane clouds are nothing to write home about. They look more like smoke than clouds. However, Sky Maxx Pro clouds look fantastic to me. In fact, I like them a little better than FSX clouds, which are also very good.

 

Another sim that does nice clouds is Rise of Flight.

 

Rob

 

 

Nice post, I always loved stock clouds in FSX, the best ones. In XP10 also prefer stock, sometimes SMP do better visuals, perhaps the next major update of SMP may bring us a more plausible clouds and more cloud types.

I'll try it tomorrow ... Just bought XP10 again :-)

 

Digital Download - no more DVD required to run it :-)

 

Looking fwd to check how my GTX 960 4GB card behaves ...

I'll try it tomorrow ... Just bought XP10 again :-)

 

Well jcomm, you might be interested to know that, inspired by the results of the experiments that Andy Goldstein made on the roll/yaw issue, a couple of days ago I apparently succeeded to make a leap forward by modifying the geometry of the default C172. Basically, the modified aircraft appears to fly uncoordinated at take off if controls are centered, but requires only rudder input to center the ball and stop the roll. Looks like Andy Goldstein was very accurate with his experiments, and his conclusions seem to be correct.

 

If I have the time, I hope to continue the tweaking for some days, and if I can get good results I'll upload the modified C172.

 

P.S. Sorry for the off topic.

That's great Murmur! Thx!

Nice little test.  Run it again in three days and I bet your numbers are different!  I have a heck of a time nailing down what does and doesn't cause performance issues in XP.  Sometimes it seems that what XP decides is the most taxing thing, performance wise, changes day by day.

 

In FSX (granted I have more hours in it than in XP), I can very accurately predict the effect of certain settings or sliders, making it easy to turn something down if need be.  In XP, I can turn something down one day to gain smoother framerates, and the next day I'll find that turning down what I previously did before has little effect, and that I need to turn something else down instead.  Hard to explain, but I do find it harder to balance at the edge of settings vs. acceptable performance.

 

Anyhow, I vastly prefer SMP, but I do wish there was a decent real world weather engine!

Well jcomm, you might be interested to know that, inspired by the results of the experiments that Andy Goldstein made on the roll/yaw issue, a couple of days ago I apparently succeeded to make a leap forward by modifying the geometry of the default C172. Basically, the modified aircraft appears to fly uncoordinated at take off if controls are centered, but requires only rudder input to center the ball and stop the roll. Looks like Andy Goldstein was very accurate with his experiments, and his conclusions seem to be correct.

 

If I have the time, I hope to continue the tweaking for some days, and if I can get good results I'll upload the modified C172.

 

P.S. Sorry for the off topic.

 

Interesting ! Will this simulate the spiraling slip stream that is missing in XPX ?

Interesting ! Will this simulate the spiraling slip stream that is missing in XPX ?

 

In X-Plane the spiraling slipstream seems to be less than it should be, but AFAIK there's no way to increase it from outside, since it's part of the X-Plane core flight model.

 

What I'm trying to do, is amplifying its effect thanks to a supplemental aerodynamic surface, tuned so that it does not interfere with the rest of the flight model.

 

Also, from Andy Goldstein's experiments, looks like the reason for the discrepancy was not only the weak spiraling slipstream, but also the fact than in the real aircrafts the dihedral effect (roll/yaw coupling) is stronger than calculated by X-Plane. So it must be compensated as well (not hard to do).

Nice little test.  Run it again in three days and I bet your numbers are different!  I have a heck of a time nailing down what does and doesn't cause performance issues in XP.  Sometimes it seems that what XP decides is the most taxing thing, performance wise, changes day by day.

 

In FSX (granted I have more hours in it than in XP), I can very accurately predict the effect of certain settings or sliders, making it easy to turn something down if need be.  In XP, I can turn something down one day to gain smoother framerates, and the next day I'll find that turning down what I previously did before has little effect, and that I need to turn something else down instead.  Hard to explain, but I do find it harder to balance at the edge of settings vs. acceptable performance.

 

Anyhow, I vastly prefer SMP, but I do wish there was a decent real world weather engine!

 

I too have found this behavior in XP.  Not scientific in any way, but it seems to be related to other applications taking up RAM space.  I'm running on an 8GB RAM iMac and if I have multiple apps open (safari, mail, calendar, etc) before I start XP, this will limit the RAM available to XP and seems to have a significant impact on XP from day to day.  Maybe I'll do an experiment today to bring this hypothesis   more into the scientific realm.

The clouds impact fps the more you set though

 

For a long while people said "just set puffs to 15%." As you can see there is a huge difference between 150 and (interpolated) 15%. It's like all layers are scattered instead of overcast.

 

However I can't afford to run 150 in big cities.

As a tubeliner jockey I can afford to sacrifice shadow and water reflection levels to maintain healthy fps (which those two take big chunks out of). It means I can keep clouds at 80% with no adverse effects.

I agree the default X-plane clouds are nothing to write home about. They look more like smoke than clouds. However, Sky Maxx Pro clouds look fantastic to me. In fact, I like them a little better than FSX clouds, which are also very good.

 

 

 

Another sim that does nice clouds is Rise of Flight.

 

 

 

Rob

 

 

 

 

 

 

1_zpsyquislps.jpg

 

 

 

Comanche, I see you have the Carenado Centurion. If you want to raise the bar a few notches, look at SimCoders REP engine for this aircraft. It's sure to bring a smile to your face.