Lol, all your heads are in the clouds. I just purchased the full x11 and my head is trying to find a decent airliner that works in the new version. 

9 minutes ago, warbirds said:

Lol, all your heads are in the clouds. I just purchased the full x11 and my head is trying to find a decent airliner that works in the new version. 

Well, depending on what you like to fly, there are many options.  I do know that the FlightFactor 767 has been updated to run on the latest Beta (and still runs great on XP10).  JarDesigns A320 and A330 are functional in the latest Beta, though I have seen sporadic reports of minor issues with the A330.  I own the A320 and haven't found any issues yet in 11 that hamper flight operations.  I believe FF is keeping their 757 up to date, though i don't own that one, and can't report my findings.

8 hours ago, Paraffin said:

Let's not be too hasty. Options are good. 

XEnviro is doing some things at higher altitudes that the airline pilots like, and it's a work in progress. It may end up being the go-to weather plugin for those who fly with real weather 100% of the time.

SkyMaxx Pro has always been a little lighter on frame rate than default XP clouds, and it does a few unique things like rain from individual clouds, raindrop/snowflake sizes, and some other tricks. I know Ben is still working on optimizing the clouds, but right now SkyMaxx Pro v4 is easier on the frame rate on my system than pb15 clouds. If that carries over to final XP11 release, there may be people who prefer this plugin to get a few more frames.

I like having options. I don't see these plugins as being that expensive to experiment with, and you can't really know which one is right for your flying style without trying them. Screen shots can only show so much. They don't recreate what you'll see on a typical flight in the places you fly, and with the planes you fly. 

I like having options too, but when a cloud plugin is costing me as much as the simulator that took years to develop (and also has good clouds), you know something is wrong. I'll use the options that are sensible and not gouging. I haven't tried XEnviro, so I can't say much about it, but it sounds to me like it's offering a whole lot more. But I still can't understand how it costs more then the simulator.

1 hour ago, warbirds said:

Lol, all your heads are in the clouds. I just purchased the full x11 and my head is trying to find a decent airliner that works in the new version. 

Well until IXEG (and the others mentioned) update on final there's always this awesome freebie over at the org. Not sure what the flight model is like though.  

Everything is subjective, especially on a flight sim forum... quite obvious that it was my feeling. This stuff that we must always repeat "in my opinion" "on my experience" "for me"...on every single post we write is a non sense.

I read some posts like "lucky I saved money not buying SMP or XEnviro", well FOR ME they were a good investment and I explained why. Even looking at new PB15 clouds the box effect is noticeable but of course way better than before, this makes less attractive a payware package hence the price reduction I forecast unless some new stuff is brought on the dish which in the case of Xenviro could be historical wather, new cloud textures or pseudo volumetric cloud near the aircraft.

60 or 70 $ was understandable when default clouds were ridicolous as in PB14 and before, now they look overpriced.

2 minutes ago, Desaix said:

Even looking at new PB15 clouds the box effect is noticeable but of course way better than before

I can't say I have seen this effect that you speak of.  I've seen nothing but great looking clouds that I can fly through and actually feel like I am flying through them, instead of them moving out of the way, like other sim experiences I've had.  There was  along-standing issue with the XP11 Beta, whereby flying through a cloud layer at various altitudes would cause the outside to go completely white, and you couldn't see a thing.  At night, it was worse, with the strobes from the aircraft flashing off of it (easy to get a seizure from it).  Since PB15 came out, that layer no longer renders like it did and I can pass through the first 10,000 feet without any issue.

2 hours ago, Jimm said:

Then there is the simulation of snow blowing across runways...I see that in people's videos who use X-Enviro and THAT doesn't seem real to me.

I'm pretty sure the snow blowing across the runway is an Laminar effect built into X-Plane and not an X-Enviro effect.

1 hour ago, steve310002 said:

I'm pretty sure the snow blowing across the runway is an Laminar effect built into X-Plane and not an X-Enviro effect.

Right, that's Laminar, not any of these weather plugins. It looks pretty good from the level of the runway, but once you climb or fly above it, the repeating pattern looks weird and unrealistic. I think it's possible to kill the effect by replacing the texture, or setting it to transparent or something. I can't remember where I heard the details.

Back to general weather -- I think one important thing to consider is that we're seeing most user tests and screenshots under very mild conditions. Pretty pictures of blue skies and cloud puffs at noon, or pretty sunset/sunrise.

Personally, I'm much more interested in how the default weather and the plugin options represent horrible weather like fog, heavy rain, heavy snowfall, and moving in and out of those conditions. I want to see how close they can get to showing a thunderstorm, which is crippled by X-Plane's internal weather engine's inability to model vertical systems, but at least some eye candy should be possible. For me, a big part of the fun in flight simulation is in scud running and beating the weather with bush planes and helicopters, not climbing over the bad stuff in a tubeliner.

I've only just begun to experiment with how that looks on the new pb15 and with SkyMaxx. With XEnviro it's hard to test because with real weather I either have to wait for bad weather in the areas I normally fly, or hunt for bad weather on a given day.

I'm at a point now where I could be comfortable with the way sunny days and blue skies with cloud puffs look from all three of the major contenders (default XP11, SkyMaxx, XEnrivo). Pretty clouds on a good day aren't that hard to pull off. But I'm a long way from figuring out which weather version I like for moving in and out of seriously nasty weather. And that's a LOT more important to me.

13 minutes ago, Paraffin said:

For me, a big part of the fun in flight simulation is in scud running and beating the weather with bush planes and helicopters, not climbing over the bad stuff in a tubeliner.

 

LOL in real life this is a case of the what most GA accidents - loss control in flight while trying to beat a bad weather

34 minutes ago, sd_flyer said:

LOL in real life this is a case of the what most GA accidents - loss control in flight while trying to beat a bad weather

Sure, I realize that. In fact, it might even encourage bad practice, if the zero risk in "beating the weather" in the sim was transferred to real flying. But for those of us who aren't real world pilots, it's an added level of challenge that makes flying fun.

Especially in bush planes and helicopters, that don't ever climb up to the flight levels and have to deal with this stuff on a day-to-day basis.

1 hour ago, Paraffin said:

Back to general weather -- I think one important thing to consider is that we're seeing most user tests and screenshots under very mild conditions. Pretty pictures of blue skies and cloud puffs at noon, or pretty sunset/sunrise.

Personally, I'm much more interested in how the default weather and the plugin options represent horrible weather like fog, heavy rain, heavy snowfall, and moving in and out of those conditions. I want to see how close they can get to showing a thunderstorm, which is crippled by X-Plane's internal weather engine's inability to model vertical systems, but at least some eye candy should be possible. For me, a big part of the fun in flight simulation is in scud running and beating the weather with bush planes and helicopters, not climbing over the bad stuff in a tubeliner.

Here are some various weather conditions with the new default clouds. Low broken clouds:

Rain and thunderstorm with 25sm visibility:

Snow:

Thunderstorm and broken clouds from above:

Stratus from above:

They don't look bad to me. Some of them even on par with the best xEnviro. Of course in some situations they may look less nice than that, and maybe the default clouds are a little more apt to tubeliner flyers than GA flyers. I think how the default weather engine or a 3rd party weather add-on interpret weather data is important for the final result. Also, consider that these new clouds have just been added and so there is a margin for improvement, even considering that Ben added new datarefs for the clouds allowing even greater control.

 

18 hours ago, Murmur said:

Those in the video are not the new XP11 default clouds. The new default clouds now look remarkably similar to IL-2 clouds.Of 

 

Well he never go back to me so somethings up - wish I could figure out what hes up to - why did you compare to il-2 are you thinking hes using some files from il-2 ?

5 hours ago, Jimm said:

Well, depending on what you like to fly, there are many options.  I do know that the FlightFactor 767 has been updated to run on the latest Beta (and still runs great on XP10).  JarDesigns A320 and A330 are functional in the latest Beta, though I have seen sporadic reports of minor issues with the A330.  I own the A320 and haven't found any issues yet in 11 that hamper flight operations.  I believe FF is keeping their 757 up to date, though i don't own that one, and can't report my findings.

As quoted here I can confirm the FF767 definitely works well with PB15. With regards to JAR design as an owner of both the A320, A330, Tug Master & Ground Handling Deluxe I was very disappointed with their decision to charge an upgrade fee for both the 320 & 330. A few weeks ago I decided to copy my complete A330 folder from XP10.51 to XP11 and guess what... It worked without any activation issues and I have been flying it ever since. The only thing I found so far is that the glare shield lighting at night doesn't work properly. Apart from that it has been plain sailing.Makes me wonder what exactly JAR are doing with peoples hard earned money in the official XP11 version !

2 minutes ago, Richdem said:

As quoted here I can confirm the FF767 definitely works well with PB15. With regards to JAR design as an owner of both the A320, A330, Tug Master & Ground Handling Deluxe I was very disappointed with their decision to charge an upgrade fee for both the 320 & 330. A few weeks ago I decided to copy my complete A330 folder from XP10.51 to XP11 and guess what... It worked without any activation issues and I have been flying it ever since. The only thing I found so far is that the glare shield lighting at night doesn't work properly. Apart from that it has been plain sailing.Makes me wonder what exactly JAR are doing with peoples hard earned money in the official XP11 version !

Since I did the "upgrade" for the A320 (more or less out of shear curiosity), I did find it to be more stable than with the previous release.  Like you, I was able to use the A320 in XP11 without any issue...that I could experience, which means that at some point, something was going to go wrong.  I didn't mind the nominal fee, since I knew these guys are very active in the XP community and my fee helped solidify their presence as well as ensure I had a 100% working aircraft, or at least up to the time of the latest beta.  I know my decision was a bit contradictory, but I figured I'd jump on this now, rather than later, if there was price shifting at some point.  I thought about getting the A330, but I already had a decent long-range aircraft, which is the FF767, and now that this one has been updated, I'm eager to get this bird back up in the air.

15 minutes ago, Richard Sennett said:

Well he never go back to me so somethings up - wish I could figure out what hes up to - why did you compare to il-2 are you thinking hes using some files from il-2 ?

No, just because Jcomm mentioned IL2 clouds as a comparison. :-)