Some more screenshots. Of course I am using XP10 because XP11 gives bad frame rates and colours at night time. The nighttime light reflections from the aircraft lights is not too bad in fact in XP10.

 

+/- 40 fps with Ortho +  FlyJSim 737-200 and cloud area slider to the max.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Some more screenshots. Of course I am using XP10 because XP11 gives bad frame rates and colours at night time. The nighttime light reflections from the aircraft lights is not too bad in fact in XP10.

 

+/- 40 fps with Ortho +  FlyJSim 737-200 and cloud area slider to the max.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wow! Very nice thanks for sharing

The consensus seems to be that V4 is pretty much the same as V3 and you still get the small box of clouds around your aircraft. That killed it for me in V3, as it totally ruins the immersion factor. Unfortunate.

That screenshot perfectly shows one of the main problems of SMP. No clouds to the horizon. Unacceptable for airliner flying.

 

Right, this series of shots shows off both the best and worst of SkyMaxx. At lower levels and ducking around mountain passes, it looks good and has a great feeling of moving in and out of the clouds. It also does a nice solid overcast layer, flying above it (not shown here). I think the cloud outlines are a little too sharp in places, and show too much obvious transparency layering in places, but in motion through the clouds at lower altitudes, the overall feeling of moving through clouds is good (IMO). 

 

But then you get up to high altitude like those last shots, and unless it's solid overcast (which does look good), you get this layer of popcorn clouds that not only don't extend far enough, but they show an obvious grid pattern in the layout (like that last shot). There needs to be more variation in individual cloud puff size, better blending together, and they need to figure out a way to fake an extension to the horizon so it doesn't cut off suddenly like that.

 

Seeing discrete weather systems in the far distance would be a plus, but those are the immediate issues to work on, I think.

The consensus seems to be that V4 is pretty much the same as V3 and you still get the small box of clouds around your aircraft. That killed it for me in V3, as it totally ruins the immersion factor. Unfortunate.

to be fair the box has gotten bigger again and atleast for me with a good system (6700k, 1080, etc) i got even more frames then before. so as a GA i am happy.

 

However it is still visible and their use of km² is a little bit missleading when they talk about doubling the km² of the clouds, people tend to think that it would double the visibility which is simply not true. from 10km to 20km visiblilty the km² quadrupe, doubling would only get you 15km visiblity.  And this gets worse the farther you move away. at 30km visibility a doubling of the km² would only get you 40km visibilty.  I am not saying Skymaxx did something wrong, just maybe some people are not really aware of that.

 

At the end of the day, i find it a nice evolutionary step but not the hoped "empire strikes back" move i would have loved.  Allthough i am no huge fan of x-enviro, i have to admit that it showed a different way to do things and some scenes shown are indeed spectecular and if you are a tubeliner it is even more convincing. I hope the future lies in the combination of both technologies and we finally get something compareable to ASN

That screenshot perfectly shows one of the main problems of SMP. No clouds to the horizon. Unacceptable for airliner flying.

 

As a new user of XP11 and trying to chose which package to buy, it seems that it boils down to whether you chose to be a lower altitude GA pilot or an airline pilot.  I am the former and can't imagine someone choosing flat 2-D clouds over 3-D, volumetric clouds.  On the other hand, if I flew airliners all the time, I would really be irritated with that "island" of clouds around me at altitude.  Sounds like they both need work to meet the different needs and ways of flying.  But, looks like SMP4 for me.

If you set the cloud puffs to FAST they look more realistic and they are not as transparent. If you are flying above 30k, these clouds are not for you. 

 

I think SMP needs to fake the funk with some 2d clouds for the horizon for higher altitudes

 

 

.

Right, this series of shots shows off both the best and worst of SkyMaxx. At lower levels and ducking around mountain passes, it looks good and has a great feeling of moving in and out of the clouds. It also does a nice solid overcast layer, flying above it (not shown here). I think the cloud outlines are a little too sharp in places, and show too much obvious transparency layering in places, but in motion through the clouds at lower altitudes, the overall feeling of moving through clouds is good (IMO). 

 

But then you get up to high altitude like those last shots, and unless it's solid overcast (which does look good), you get this layer of popcorn clouds that not only don't extend far enough, but they show an obvious grid pattern in the layout (like that last shot). There needs to be more variation in individual cloud puff size, better blending together, and they need to figure out a way to fake an extension to the horizon so it doesn't cut off suddenly like that.

 

Seeing discrete weather systems in the far distance would be a plus, but those are the immediate issues to work on, I think.

Let's goto 80k and pump the FOV to 150deg and post a screenshot......good try.....

That screenshot perfectly shows one of the main problems of SMP. No clouds to the horizon. Unacceptable for airliner flying.

 

No fare ! How high were you flying !

 

 

These pics were taken at 30K and 40K !

That screenshot perfectly shows one of the main problems of SMP. No clouds to the horizon. Unacceptable for airliner flying.

 

It looks like you are flying in the mesophere !

 

Thats a little sneaky don't you think ? Flying 80K ?

 

Where is the moderator for this forum ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgdWLjo1paQ

 

Thanks for posting this, that told me everything I suspected. No more Skymaxx for me

 

I wonder what video card is used for this demo?

I'm liking much of what I see in SMP4 so far, but there are some things they need to work on. There are too many repeating bitmaps used, for one thing. It's not actually that noticeable when you're in motion, but it tends to jump out in static screen shots.

 

For example, this looks pretty nice...

 

 

Until you notice the repeating bitmaps. The one at the upper left even repeats twice, with another one right behind it:

 

 

Again, it's not something that jumps out so much when you're flying, but once you see it, you can't un-see it. With the available memory we have now, I would think they could load more cloud shapes and not have to repeat so often. 

 

I'm going to do some more flying this evening in different conditions. I still like a lot of what I see, at least for low and slow flight in varying conditions. And as I've been harping on, I absolutely need what SkyMaxx + RWC allows for adjusting injected winds.

 

 

First of all it is not a 20$ addon, it's a 40$ addon. Second, RWC+SMP cost 60$

I was commenting on the upgrade price and that IS $20, since it was obvious from my post that I already have SMP 3.0. Also, I don't use RWC, but rather FSGRW, which I've had for years now, since it consists of one version for FSX, P3d and XP. PILOT'S! should be commended for making FSGRW compatible with all three sims for one price.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgdWLjo1paQ

Sorry, but next time I will not spend my money in skymaxx v4. v4 is looking like v3.