Thanks for your quick reply. I think the VRAM /RAM monitor is an excellent idea and will help to solve many performance issues. At least for those with Skymaxx v3 installed

Looking forward to release day

 

Flo

Ask and ye shall receive:

 

 

What's new are the RAM monitors, cloud/terrain blend softness config, and new options in the stratus / overcast section. Also, you can't see it, but the "cloud draw distance" slider covers a much larger range now. The rest should look familiar.

 

Good to see (more) options but to be honest, I have no idea whether a solid or broken stratiform is appropriate for certain conditions. How do you tell?

Good to see (more) options but to be honest, I have no idea whether a solid or broken stratiform is appropriate for certain conditions. How do you tell?

 

I'd say it's really a matter of personal preference. "Solid" stratiform has smoother tops, and no holes in it which you might see the ground through. In most cases I would say it is the more realistic choice, which is why it's the default choice. It also happens to be the fastest from a FPS standpoint.

 

"Broken" stratiform clouds have small holes in them, and as such are much "bumpier" from above as their thickness ranges from 0 to however thick the cloud layer is. They can look more dramatic in screenshots because their rough nature gives them more contrast and they're more visually interesting from below, but if you're after realism I'd stick with solid stratiform.

 

In the end you can switch between the two using the UI and decide which one you like better. There's no right or wrong answer.

What is sparse and dense particles boxes?

Good to see (more) options but to be honest, I have no idea whether a solid or broken stratiform is appropriate for certain conditions. How do you tell?

 

Depends on what you want to simulate...

 

If you're generating your own weather than it gives you the ability to set a continuous ( solid ? ) stratocumulus layer, but you would like to see some "holes" here and there, then you should tick the broken option instead.

 

I think it would be great to have an option to decide which based only on the METAR string, which, depending on the situation, will report overcast ( OVC ) or broken ( BKN ) layers...

 

I really don't know what the Particles options do, or if they can be combined with the exclusive options for the OVC vs BKN depiction of stratiform cloud layers? Probably if you're trying to simulate altostartus ( AS ) you could use OVC and Sparse ?  But IRL, very few metar stations report such high altitude clouds anyway.... 

What is sparse and dense particles boxes?

 

Those correspond to the "medium" and "high" overcast representation settings in SkyMaxx Pro 2. So if you miss the old clouds, they are still there.

Well if the new clouds are more FPS friendly, I doubt I'll miss the old ones.... Thanks:) 

So when might this be released?

I'd say it's really a matter of personal preference. "Solid" stratiform has smoother tops, and no holes in it which you might see the ground through. In most cases I would say it is the more realistic choice, which is why it's the default choice. It also happens to be the fastest from a FPS standpoint.

 

"Broken" stratiform clouds have small holes in them, and as such are much "bumpier" from above as their thickness ranges from 0 to however thick the cloud layer is. They can look more dramatic in screenshots because their rough nature gives them more contrast and they're more visually interesting from below, but if you're after realism I'd stick with solid stratiform.

 

In the end you can switch between the two using the UI and decide which one you like better. There's no right or wrong answer.

Thanks Frank. I see your point about the broken looking nicer but the solid being (probably) more natural. I'll probably end up just checking the metar and doing whatever that reports.

Thanks Frank. I see your point about the broken looking nicer but the solid being (probably) more natural. I'll probably end up just checking the metar and doing whatever that reports.

 

Ah, I think I missed your original point. Let's talk about METAR...

 

When overcast or stratus conditions are manually specified, X-Plane always seems to send the same cloud coverage value to us, which is slightly less than 100%. So it really does become just an artistic choice in that case as to whether you want a few spots where the ground shows through in the cloud. Stratus and overcast are by definition almost complete coverage anyhow; broken clouds would generally be represented by cumulus clouds, not stratus.

 

It would be possible for METAR-based weather to tell us to set up a stratus or overcast layer with some smaller coverage value, however. If we receive a coverage value of less than 80% for stratus or overcast, we will represent that accurately - but only if you're using our "broken stratiform"; "solid stratiform" always forces the coverage to 100% for these cloud types. But a stratus cloud with less than 80% cloud cover isn't really a stratus cloud at that point - I'd question the accuracy of the METAR data in that case.

 

So bottom line, if you are concerned with accurately depicting whatever METAR tells us, right or wrong, choose "broken stratiform". If you want stratus and overcast clouds that look more natural though, choose "solid stratiform". And if it's artistically pleasing screenshots or videos you're after, try both. 

 

I think it'll make more sense once it's in your hands

2 question:

 

- Are there some new skycolors that will come with SMP V3? (just out of curiousty , if not , not a problem at all)

 

- I didn't like in previous versions how clouds looked like in transtion to night times , there was some offset between the skies and the clouds colors.

In this case I love the default clouds , the the colors changes so smooth.

 

I saw this on the features list:  Better darkening of clouds as the sun sets

 

Is this meant to solve the problem above I metntioned?

2 question:

 

- Are there some new skycolors that will come with SMP V3?

 

No, but as before, you can add whatever sky color sets you find on the Interwebs that you like into SMP.

 

- I didn't like in previous versions how clouds looked like in transtion to night times , there was some offset between the skies and the clouds colors.

 

Yes, this has been improved.

All I want to ask is - will SMP3 have towering cumulonimbus? I usually fly out from Singapore and we have storms nearly all the time - X-Plane models icing and turbulence very well, but the clouds don't cut it when I see a huge grey wall of cloud when I look outside my window, but in X-Plane, it looks more like nimbostratus - just one dull grey layer all over.

 

Also, have the cumulus clouds been improved? The billboards in SMP2.1 appeared slightly grainy as you flew into them (showing the pixellation of the .png files).

 

Besides this, the news sounds great. I look forward to the performance improvements mentioned in the OP, seeing that I (and several others here) run X-Plane on laptops or worse, MacBooks. 

All I want to ask is - will SMP3 have towering cumulonimbus? I usually fly out from Singapore and we have storms nearly all the time - X-Plane models icing and turbulence very well, but the clouds don't cut it when I see a huge grey wall of cloud when I look outside my window, but in X-Plane, it looks more like nimbostratus - just one dull grey layer all over.

 

Also, have the cumulus clouds been improved? The billboards in SMP2.1 appeared slightly grainy as you flew into them (showing the pixellation of the .png files).

 

 

Both of these features already exist in SkyMaxx Pro 2, and have been carried into SkyMaxx Pro 3. In stormy conditions, both cumulonimbus and towering cumulus clouds will be generated, depending on the intensity of the storm. There is also a "hi-res cumulus" option in our configuration screen that it sounds like you may not have tried...