TrueSKY 4.2 release has multiple 3D cloud layers

[Guest]

Excellent news, TrueSky did NEED multiple cloud layers, but even with just 2 layers using the stormy set I was sadly at 14 FPS into KOAK (graphics settings all maxed out at 4K) ... not sure how another layer is going to impact performance?  

Hopefully FSW dev team can tune out some of the excessive rapid and repetitive warping of clouds to simulate what I guess is supposed to be cloud motion?   HiFi ASP4/ASCA with 4096 texture sets still has a rather significant reality edge, but if FSW can get it looking close to the screenshot above at min 30 FPS, then they'll have a winner.

Add Dynamic weather downloaded in realtime and seamless updates, that would be a big step above the rest.

Cheers, Rob.

[TheFlightSimGuy 514]

3 hours ago, Rob Ainscough said:

even with just 2 layers using the stormy set I was sadly at 14 FPS into KOAK (graphics settings all maxed out at 4K) ... not sure how another layer is going to impact performance?  

Hopefully FSW dev team can tune out some of the excessive rapid and repetitive warping of clouds to simulate what I guess is supposed to be cloud motion?   HiFi ASP4/ASCA with 4096 texture sets still has a rather significant reality edge, but if FSW can get it looking close to the screenshot above at min 30 FPS, then they'll have a winner.

I thought the complexity of weather in TrueSKY doesn't affect performance? Remember its completely different tech than anyone here has ever seen, so I dont think layers will affect us like they do in older FSX titles. 

Do you have traffic turned all the way up? I have it on low and everything turned to the right. I just did a KOAK thunderstorm run and I am getting 35fps on a far lesser system than yours @ 1440p. 

[scotchegg 4,156]

Same here; one of the big advantages for me with TrueSky is it seems to have no effect on FPS. Clear skies, heavy overcast, barely a whisker of difference in FPS.

[jabloomf1230 2,445]

I think you are all saying things that aren't conflicting. My experience with TrueSky is that no matter the sky coverage is, the performance is about the same. But running FSW with default AI traffic levels, a default user aircraft and no cobbled add-ons from FSX etc., for me yields about 30 to 35 fps. That's not going to cut it as more performance killing add-ons are tacked on. I also agree with Rob regarding the aberrant cloud patterns. Maybe it's a 4k thing.

[Pastaiolo 1,686]

6 hours ago, jabloomf1230 said:

I think you are all saying things that aren't conflicting. My experience with TrueSky is that no matter the sky coverage is, the performance is about the same. But running FSW with default AI traffic levels, a default user aircraft and no cobbled add-ons from FSX etc., for me yields about 30 to 35 fps. That's not going to cut it as more performance killing add-ons are tacked on. I also agree with Rob regarding the aberrant cloud patterns. Maybe it's a 4k thing.

Pretty sure that FSW default planes are not comparable with FSX default aircrafts, and their "weight" on the system is also not the same.

[jabloomf1230 2,445]

I'd agree with that. My only point in mentioning it was that I have not "corrupted" the default FSW installation with any any foreign add-ons.

[Guest]

10 hours ago, scotchegg said:

Same here; one of the big advantages for me with TrueSky is it seems to have no effect on FPS.

AI traffic certainly has an impact as you can see from my video here, but so does the rain effect and so does TrueSky.  All max ... including AI traffic in an "uncorrupted" installation ... although without "corruption" support I don't think any FS platform will succeed in this market. :)   18 FPS ... drop Traffic down to Min and I'm back upto 30-40 FPS ... lets hope DTG can figure out how to improve Traffic performance as it's AG LOD distance is considerably shorter than other platforms.

 

Cheers, Rob.

[theohall65 64]

Per the DTG devs during the last Multiplayer session, the reason the last updates have been delayed is they are working with Simul to get the lighting and TrueSky updates improved.

Get the various types of base static weather working and simulating real world weather becomes much easier.

[TheFlightSimGuy 514]

7 hours ago, theohall65 said:

Get the various types of base static weather working and simulating real world weather becomes much easier.

Good point. Reminds me of how REX released Cloud Architect before their full new weather system. Likely because it is easier to create static and controllable environments before dynamic ones. Can't wait! 

[G-RFRY 1,705]

This is my hope that the graphics engine in FSW Trusky will do justice to a real weather data.

Ray Fry 

[Cyrex1984 175]

On 3.9.2017 at 6:18 AM, TheFlightSimGuy said:

I thought the complexity of weather in TrueSKY doesn't affect performance? Remember its completely different tech than anyone here has ever seen, so I dont think layers will affect us like they do in older FSX titles. 

Do you have traffic turned all the way up? I have it on low and everything turned to the right. I just did a KOAK thunderstorm run and I am getting 35fps on a far lesser system than yours @ 1440p. 

After my tests it seems like the weather dont have so much impact on fps. The real fps killer i think is the scenery. If i turn down the scenery slider my fps jumps up realy high even with all the other sliders on max settings.

 

My system.

I7-7700k 4.7ghz

16gb ddr4

Gtx 1080

[A32xx 129]

I found a couple of entries in the FSW.cfg relating to weather depiction, sorry I forget what they were, but they included the number 512 which I assumed meant pixels. I increased them to 1024 and got superb HD truSky clouds - and FPS in single figures! I quickly changed them back again...

[A32xx 129]

I'd be interested to know if anyone with a better GPU than mine (GTX750Ti 2GB) gets better FPS, here are the entries I changed at the bottom of the [weather] section:

CLOUD_WINDOW_GRID_X=256
CLOUD_WINDOW_GRID_Z=32
CLOUD_MAXIMUM_CUBEMAP_RESOLUTION=512
CLOUD_NUM_SLICES=255

I simply doubled all the figures to get the next higher bitmap resolution:

CLOUD_WINDOW_GRID_X=512
CLOUD_WINDOW_GRID_Z=64
CLOUD_MAXIMUM_CUBEMAP_RESOLUTION=1024
CLOUD_NUM_SLICES=510

Using the Fair Weather preset, this increased the cloud cover and the resolution, but pushed my FPS down to 8-12.

So I re-set the grid and slices entries to default:

CLOUD_WINDOW_GRID_X=256
CLOUD_WINDOW_GRID_Z=32
CLOUD_MAXIMUM_CUBEMAP_RESOLUTION=1024
CLOUD_NUM_SLICES=255

This returned the Fair Weather cloud cover to default but kept the higher res clouds, with FPS up to between 15-20.

So I then doubled the cubemap resolution to 2048 and got a CTD twice while loading the flight - black screen then the message "display adapter stopped responding" etc. That's when I returned it all back to default, but your mileage may vary.

[switch686 50]

Mine was default as below. Tried to change the resolution but it reverted back to 512 after loading.

Graphics=High

Aircraft and Scenery=Ultra

Weather=High

Traffic=User Defined

CLOUD_WINDOW_GRID_X=512
CLOUD_WINDOW_GRID_Z=64
CLOUD_MAXIMUM_CUBEMAP_RESOLUTION=512
CLOUD_NUM_SLICES=255

• i5 6600k no overclock
• 16g RAM
• gtx 1050 Ti no overclock
• Windows 10 windowed mode
• 32-35fps

 

[A32xx 129]

49 minutes ago, switch686 said:

Tried to change the resolution but it reverted back to 512 after loading.

 

Ah, well - maybe that's a Windows 10 permissions thing, I wouldn't recommend pushing your luck with it!

Nice rig by the way, I really must get a GTX1050 myself, one of my local PC shops is doing a GTX1050Ti 4Gb for only £140.