October 23, 201510 yr Same here. First class support.Glad you got it sorted. Apparently I have a problem with my XA account which goes way back (clicked on a button I shouldn't have), but hopefully I will get the upgrade info soon.
October 23, 201510 yr deleted...going back to v2.1.1 ??? Flying gliders since 1980 Flightsimming since 1992 AMD Ryzen 5600x, 32GB RAM, GPU Nvidia RTX 3060 Ti 8 GB, 1 TB and 500 GB nvme2 SSD drives, HP 27" 60Hz LED monitor @ 1920x1080, T16000, Hotas from old X52 Pro, Saitek Combat Rudder Pro (2010 model)
October 23, 201510 yr ??? Just going to say, that after having used v3.0 for over an hour...and have viewed most of the cloud formations, well....it is my personal opinion that v2.1.1 is VASTLY superior to the latest offering. I have gone back to 2.1.1, and am happy once more with the sky rendering. v3.0's clouds looked low quality, and fake. Nothing like this shot, back with v2.1.1 lush....warm looking...real looking. I could get nothing close in v3.0 to what appears in the promotional video. Not even 30 percent close. If other's have a better experience...then all the power to them. That's the name of the game...you pay your money, and take your chance... Here is v2.1.1 back...and you can hear my sigh of relief...., and am sticking with this; / ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The following pics are typical cloud shots and formation as appeared upon my system, using v3.0:
October 23, 201510 yr Just going to say, that after having used v3.0 for over an hour...and have viewed most of the cloud formations, well....it is my personal opinion that v2.1.1 is VASTLY superior to the latest offering. I have gone back to 2.1.1, and am happy once more with the sky rendering. v3.0's clouds looked low quality, and fake. Nothing like this shot, back with v2.1.1 lush....warm looking...real looking. Just wondering... How were the FRs in comparison to 2.1.1? Did the clouds have a "plastic" look. They did in one of the earlier pictures I had seen somewhere before the video came out. John John Wingold
October 23, 201510 yr Just going to say, that after having used v3.0 for over an hour...and have viewed most of the cloud formations, well....it is my personal opinion that v2.1.1 is VASTLY superior to the latest offering. I have gone back to 2.1.1, and am happy once more with the sky rendering. v3.0's clouds looked low quality, and fake. Nothing like this shot, back with v2.1.1 lush....warm looking...real looking. Just wondering... How were the FRs in comparison to 2.1.1? Did the clouds have a "plastic" look. They did in one of the earlier pictures I had seen somewhere before the video came out. John Yes, they looked fake, (IMPO) ,repetitive, and my FPS dropped by about 25-30 percent. As soon as I went back to v2.1.1, I got back beautiful skies...and back to 30 FPS on average. I saw none of the cloud staging, or visual benefits of the v3.0 promo vid. I'm sorry, but I didn't. John, the viewer will decide between my shots with v2.1.1 and the shots with v3.0, what looks better to them, with a sky filled with clouds, and will be guided by their own opinion(s) on the matter. Cheers, Ses
October 23, 201510 yr Thanks Ses. I think I'll keep my card in my pocket until I see improvement. Thanks for being the guinea pig/tester! John John Wingold
October 23, 201510 yr Thanks Ses. I think I'll keep my card in my pocket until I see improvement. Thanks for being the guinea pig/tester! John "Yeah, yeah, yeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah..., I think you owe me at least $10.00 back, for speaking my piece and snapping comparison shots!!! ...LOL!"
October 23, 201510 yr Commercial Member Have to say I'm confused. You're comparing cumulus clouds viewed from low altitude in version 2 to cumulus clouds viewed from high altitude in version 3. In version 2, you wouldn't see clouds rendered out that far to begin with at higher altitudes - but if that bothers you for some reason (or if it affects performance), you can still turn down the cloud draw distance, and at least keep the other benefits of the new version. Nothing changed between version 2 and 3 regarding the shapes or "formations" of cumulus clouds; we just introduced the ability to draw more of them farther out and they're lit a bit better. The big new feature in SMP 3 is the new stratus and overcast clouds, but I don't think you even gave those a look. Still, if you're happy with version 2, you're certainly free to stick with it.
October 23, 201510 yr Author Just bought it and did a short flight. So far I like it. Hopefully I will have some more time during the weekend to try out the new features. I definitely don't think the clouds look like plastic.
October 23, 201510 yr Have to say I'm confused. You're comparing cumulus clouds viewed from low altitude in version 2 to cumulus clouds viewed from high altitude in version 3. In version 2, you wouldn't see clouds rendered out that far to begin with at higher altitudes - but if that bothers you for some reason (or if it affects performance), you can still turn down the cloud draw distance, and at least keep the other benefits of the new version. Nothing changed between version 2 and 3 regarding the shapes or "formations" of cumulus clouds; we just introduced the ability to draw more of them farther out and they're lit a bit better. The big new feature in SMP 3 is the new stratus and overcast clouds, but I don't think you even gave those a look. Still, if you're happy with version 2, you're certainly free to stick with it. Actually, I wasn't truly 'comparing' one specified type of cloud to as rendered, by v2.1.1 and v3.0. Those screen grabs, happened to be within a cloud layer as i decided to take the shot. As I went through different weather, and cloud formations, I truly found a difference in rendering between v2.1.1, and v3.0. as I flew through different scenarios. It's a personal 'visual thing'...and as I said, opinions are formed in the eyes of the beholder. I think your v2.1.1 is quite fantastic, gives me lush formations, while for the most part, I was getting pretty much the pop-corn look by using v3.0. You say that the cloud graphics are exactly the same between versions, and so I will believe that statement. But ..having typed that...it is my eye...that tells me one version looks better than the other, so that is what is guiding my choice to run with. As for my purchase of v3.0...of course I still have it, and as you update the program through its run, will certainly keep my eye upon it. Yes, quite happy with v2.1.1, and so will continue using it, for the interim. I am only one opinion, and to be sure, there will other's that will find v3.0 much to their satisfaction to be sure. It just didn't happen for myself with first use, unfortunately. Cheers! Sesquash Ses - Drop by and I'll buy you a beer! You're on, John...Killian's please...))) ...perhaps two....
October 23, 201510 yr Someone posted a pic on the X-Pilot forums of Skymaxx V3 with a band of clouds in a mountaineous area with the clouds hanging in the valleys between the mountain tops. Looks very nice and something not possible in V2 especially the way the light seems to interact and how smoothly the clouds form around the mountains. I don't think I am allowed to post the link here but head over there and see. More pics please I say! And a video from some brave soul would be great too.
October 23, 201510 yr Thanks Ses. I think I'll keep my card in my pocket until I see improvement. Thanks for being the guinea pig/tester! John me 2, buy button paused also, will wait 4 more reviews.
October 23, 201510 yr me 2, buy button paused also, will wait 4 more reviews. +1, my creditcard screeched to a halt .... Torfi
Create an account or sign in to comment