Best cloud package for P3D

[Dean_EGTC 57]

1 minute ago, Bobsk8 said:

Sure does lack a great deal in daytime flying, however. 

I'm not so sure when you add in Enviro 1.6.  That changes things totally.

[Ray Proudfoot 8,961]

28 minutes ago, Dean_EGTC said:

Hiya Ray,

Good to see you've made the switch to P3D.  I'll go with most of the folks recommendations here and agree AS16 and ASCA seem to be the best.

I do find i'm spending more time in XP11 though.  The night flying experience blows P3D out of the water.

Cheers Dean. Mixed feelings so far as the lighting in P3D makes me feel I'm flying in permanently overcast conditions. Living near Manchester should I be surprised?

[scottb613 1,188]

Hi Ray,

Have you loaded PTA yet - with the right preset and settings it's very bright on a sunny day...

Regards,

Scott

[Denco 48]

I noticed that when using Global Automatic most of the clouds are disabled in the WX influence configuration and I reckon it's because of this "Adjusted automatic wx influence definitions for significant influence towards newest content". I've enabled them all to give it a test tonight but in case I'd like to stick to default cloud setting is there a way for me to revert back?

[Ray Proudfoot 8,961]

1 hour ago, scottb613 said:

Hi Ray,

Have you loaded PTA yet - with the right preset and settings it's very bright on a sunny day...

Regards,

Scott

No Scott because I haven't a clue what PTA is.

[scottb613 1,188]

Hi Ray,

It's a shader package with a full front end interface - similar to the old ENB or RESHADE suites...

At this point - it's practically a necessity in my book...

It's completely free and there are numerous profiles built and shared... It's also far superior to then older products I've mentioned...

http://1coder.ru/PTA/

Personally - I'm using the profiles made by the ENVTEX guys - these should work fine whether you have ENVTEX loaded or not... It brightens the environment and removes the dull drab default colors...

http://togaprojects.proboards.com/thread/85/maxime-profile-pta-envtex

Regards,
Scott

[Ray Proudfoot 8,961]

Thanks Scott. Prepar3d Tweak Assistant. Once I have got most things installed and running as I like them then I will definitely look at this.

[Glynn 405]

15 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

No Scott because I haven't a clue what PTA is.

Ray if you want the best out of P3D's graphics and would rather have sunshine than gloom then you really need PTA, pretty much everyone uses it these days

 

The forum is here, get stuck in.

https://www.avsim.com/forums/forum/764-p3d-tweak-assistant-pta-and-realismshaderpack/

[TonyD 132]

+1 PTA

I couldn't understand what all the fuss was about PTA....until I tried it.
Now I won't fly without out it.

Very easy to install, try the various presets from THOPAT or Adamaski to start with.

[Ray Proudfoot 8,961]

Thanks Glynn. I will take a look when I have installed my airports. Still a lot of work to do in P3D.

Slightly related question. I used to use Nvidia Inspector to set AF etc. in FSX. I don't see much talk about that with P3D. Is it better to use the settings in P3D rather than Inspector? The options in P3D seem quite limited.

[TonyD 132]

I found that I needed nVidia Inspector for Carenado aircraft.  Link below is to Rob Ainscough's settings.  Bear in mind he has a beast of a machine...so you will probably need to reduce a few settings

http://www.robainscough.com/Prepar3D_Settings_2.html

 

[Ray Proudfoot 8,961]

13 minutes ago, TonyD said:

I found that I needed nVidia Inspector for Carenado aircraft.  Link below is to Rob Ainscough's settings.  Bear in mind he has a beast of a machine...so you will probably need to reduce a few settings

http://www.robainscough.com/Prepar3D_Settings_2.html

 

Thanks Tony. Mine was a beast three and a half years ago. probably closer to a docile elephant these days. Definitely not a lamb... yet.

[GolfMikeBravo 7]

11 hours ago, WebMaximus said:

Did some testing and below are the results and I found them quite interesting. Both how little the resolution as well as the compression seem to matter but also that I got the best result using the higher resolution and 32-bit textures even if by a very small margin.

Interesting results!  Although the DXT textures are smaller files, I wonder if processing the compressed textures on the GPU can actually take ever so slightly longer than an uncompressed texture (not sure).  If choosing the 32-bit textures vs. the DXT textures, it certainly will use more RAM on the video card, an may even give the opposite results (lower frames or slower texture loading) if the particular system has insufficient video RAM.  I'm not sure if the larger texture files would impact VAS all that much.  Would be interesting to test.  To date, I have never had a VAS related problem with P3D v3 on my system, although I fly mostly general aviation aircraft and do not have any complex add-on airports.

As far as DXT compression causing a painted look to the clouds, my experience with that goes back to the old FEX textures, where I found the effect quite visible.

Cheers,

Gerald

[Boeing or not going 578]

On 4/18/2017 at 4:37 AM, WebMaximus said:

Did some testing and below are the results and I found them quite interesting. Both how little the resolution as well as the compression seem to matter but also that I got the best result using the higher resolution and 32-bit textures even if by a very small margin.

All tests were performed using the exact same setup, weather, test procedure and so on. The NGX parked at F33L at Orbx ESSA with AS16 running providing real-time wx and using ENVTEX textures.

Started in the v/c looking straight ahead and panned around 360 degrees twice in both directions. I then used spot view, zoomed out max and performed the same 360 panning twice in both directions at approx a 45 degrees angle. Finally went back to v/c looking straight ahead and checked the VAS and FPS.

Here are the results:

Resolution    Compression    VAS left       FPS

512               DXT5                1389460      49-50
512               32-bit                1382696      50-51
1024             DXT5                1404316      50-51
1024             32-bit                1418952      51-52

Why would 512 use more vas than 1024? Are you sure you have the right numbers for that comparison? dxt should use less memory space than 32bit also.

[WebMaximus 372]

I don't know and yes, all the values are correct.

If you find it interesting why not give it a go yourself conducting the same kind of test?