XP 11 clouds

[mpw8679 428]

So like an idiot I accidently erased my default cloud textures.  Besides doing a reinstall is there a way to get these back?  Or our there any good alternative freeware textures available?  Thanks

[Colonel X 1,428]

Just run the installer to "Update X-Plane", it will put them back right were they belong (they won't be prettier though)...

[mpw8679 428]

1 minute ago, frontendrob said:

Just run the installer to "Update X-Plane", it will put them back right were they belong (they won't be prettier though)...

Does this work with the Steam install as well?

[Guest]

For Steam, you probably need to use the option to verfiy integrity, at least that's how it works with my steam games:

https://support.steampowered.com/kb_article.php?ref=2037-QEUH-3335

[mpw8679 428]

Thanks guys!

[sightseer 895]

1 hour ago, frontendrob said:

(they won't be prettier though)...

 

theyre not that bad...the close ones anyway.  Just change the cloud lighting and the sky texture color and they look pretty good.  Those flowing cloud decks just don't exist in other sims.  FSX and P3D have cumulus textures and XP has flowing cloud decks that are immersive.  If they ever figure out how to combine the two then that would be awesome.

[Colonel X 1,428]

The close clouds and the flowing decks are great - it's the distant clouds you see at altitude that ruin the experience. 

[sightseer 895]

I agree.  The problems definitely lie with cloud puffs 4 and 5.  they need to be made differently than the inner rings and I haven't done enough experimenting to have any idea on the best approach but I think only using either the 'upper' or 'lower' part of the cloud may be the answer. 

One problem is that with the farther out rings the textures get stretched horizontally and its just hard to make anything look right.   Combine that with the altered lighting that I guess exists in the datarefs (which I have no experience with) and you get clouds that are just hard to know what to do with.

 

I wonder how it would look if the horizon was totally fictitious ( a graphic based on weather conditions) and the nearer clouds flowed out of that.  When I say 'horizon' I mean all weather that is not where you are.  ive never understood why that approach isn't already done.

[Colonel X 1,428]

1 hour ago, sightseer said:

I agree.  The problems definitely lie with cloud puffs 4 and 5.  they need to be made differently than the inner rings and I haven't done enough experimenting to have any idea on the best approach but I think only using either the 'upper' or 'lower' part of the cloud may be the answer. 

One problem is that with the farther out rings the textures get stretched horizontally and its just hard to make anything look right.   Combine that with the altered lighting that I guess exists in the datarefs (which I have no experience with) and you get clouds that are just hard to know what to do with.

 

I wonder how it would look if the horizon was totally fictitious ( a graphic based on weather conditions) and the nearer clouds flowed out of that.  When I say 'horizon' I mean all weather that is not where you are.  ive never understood why that approach isn't already done.

It's so hard because of the infinite possible viewing angles. But I could totally see Xenviro using volumetric puffs in close proximity while maintaining the original 2D rendering for distant weather. They have to come up with some kind of combination, I don't think they will be able to go fully particle based just yet, that is if they go particle based at all, and not some other route. I think there has to be some trick to it either way - like their "3D cloud passing effect" which works really well.

[Murmur 3,941]

1 hour ago, sightseer said:

One problem is that with the farther out rings the textures get stretched horizontally and its just hard to make anything look right.  

The stretching of the various cloud puff rings can be modified with specific datarefs (they're called "squish_layer" something).

1 hour ago, sightseer said:

I wonder how it would look if the horizon was totally fictitious ( a graphic based on weather conditions) and the nearer clouds flowed out of that.  When I say 'horizon' I mean all weather that is not where you are.  ive never understood why that approach isn't already done.

I think MSFS uses a similar approach, with impostor far clouds.

A similar trick (not exactly the one you described) is used by xEnviro, in that the horizon is colored the same as the clouds, so that there is not an apparent range where cloud puffs ends, since they blend with the color of the horizon.