REX Sky Force Very First look

[B777ER 2,484]

33 minutes ago, Rockliffe said:

Just seen this on YT   https://youtu.be/FqCKVBMPhUA

 

Gotta say, clouds look pretty darn good in that video.

[dmaljun1 2]

5 minutes ago, B777ER said:

Gotta say, clouds look pretty darn good in that video.

Dont like at 2:56 how cloud dissapear

[Alexx Pilot 23]

Another LIVE Flight test right now: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qyhdIjGjHY

[B777ER 2,484]

5 minutes ago, dmaljun1 said:

Dont like at 2:56 how cloud dissapear

Clouds only was what I was talking about, not wx engine properties.

[steve howlett 137]

just out of interest ,how many patches has AS16 had since release?.to compare a newly released program against a rival one which has been patched a few times is not fair.noone can forsee what will happen until it has been out for quite a few weeks and the vast majority of users have had time to evaluate it.

it's been less than 24hrs  and the critisisms are already in full flow .some people just can't wait to swing the axe.

 

 steve

[Paul_ 52]

14 minutes ago, steve howlett said:

just out of interest ,how many patches has AS16 had since release?.to compare a newly released program against a rival one which has been patched a few times is not fair.noone can forsee what will happen until it has been out for quite a few weeks and the vast majority of users have had time to evaluate it.

it's been less than 24hrs  and the critisisms are already in full flow .some people just can't wait to swing the axe.

 

 steve

Hi Steve

Hmmmmm I can't quite buy that one  ..... SkyForce 3D has been in the making for a very long time so surely  it should be good to go from day 1

I don't know the answer to this question but I am sure someone will tell us  ..... I wonder how much flack HiFi Simulations got when they first released AS16 and ASCA? ....

[evaamo 549]

40 minutes ago, dmaljun1 said:

Dont like at 2:56 how cloud dissapear

I agree that didn't look too convincing. Maybe REX should offer a trial version. That would put most of this discussion to rest.

[Bruce Nicholson KMFR 20]

I realize the SF map function is not functional at this time, but can anyone say whether the cloud positioning in SF is non-repeating as REX claims in their manual and advertising?

As an example, ActiveSky places a grid of data points around the world similar to SF's claim of 70,000 data points (so nothing revolutionary with that). AS then interpolates the weather between the data points providing a smooth transition. However, AS cannot provide a gradient of clouds between data points and one can see a "grid" of cloud types on the AS map and in the sim. A great example of this are the equidistant placement of CB clouds in AS within the grid. Also apparent is the transitions between an overcast and broken/scattered layer where one can see the straight line along the edge of the overcast as it meets the grid boundary. Does SF show a bit more of a gradient to the cloud positioning or is it also placing clouds in a grid among the 70,000 data points?

This pertains to the IWX of SF as I would expect AS's engine to place the SF cloud models in the same method it places ASCA clouds.

The other thing I'd like to know is do the anvils of CBs point in the correct direction (downwind of the CB) or are the CB models the same as other products where the anvil is simply shown without regard to the upper winds?

[sanh 823]

1 hour ago, B777ER said:

Gotta say, clouds look pretty darn good in that video.

They look awesome. Definite buy for me. Don't care about the weather engine. It was always improbable it could beat AS2016 which is fantastic but the SF clouds best ASCA clouds hands down in my view. I have been waiting for a cloud package like this for a long time. The cloud banks, shapes etc. IS revolutionary in my view. No more looking at same small fluffy clouds in all weather conditions. Gimme gimme gimme!

[anden145 2,284]

The clouds seem very impressive from that video.

In my testing, I have found minimal difference between depiction between AS16 and the built-in weather engine - so currently I'm using AS16 + SF3D which gives quite good results. Also, I find that the cloud layer and overcast depiction is more solid with SkyForce's new cloud models and structures. 

I think it's extremely hard to judge the weather depiction (and compare it to the number 1 of all weather engines; ActiveSky 2016 which does an impressive job!) from a fair weather day. 
Go storm chasing. Find weather fronts and see how is the weather system depiction and feel of it? Find an active hurricane, super cell, a massive thunderstorm or some weather fronts and fly through, above and below them - and try it with both AS16 + ASCA and AS16 + SF3D. Just to get a feel for the new cloud textures and cloud models and the new features which should be available.

It's simply impossible, to give a fair picture from 3 screenshots - and it simply doesn't do it justice. Experience and see it first hand. Actually a good idea would be to fly some routes - 2-4 hours in a jetliner. Across multiple weather stations and weather systems, to get a more complete picture. Also, maybe choosing a route which flies across/above some serious weather - a good thunderstorm or rain system for instance.

I can't understand why people are complaining about this. Come on - you won't find the features they advertise on a fair weather day - Rain shafts, Cloud funnels, thunderstorm- and super-cell depiction, 70.000 ft towering cumulus etc... Go look for them, and then judge. But please, gentlemen, try to remain objective and don't judge it, before you've experienced the full potential of the program... 

Thank you.

[aktorsyl 93]

Test flight from KIAD to KSEA done. My experience:

It started with an incorrect weather depiction at KIAD. I decided to just go with it, though. Overall, I wasn't overly impressed with the cloud textures and honestly it doesn't beat AS+ASCA in this department (with the exception of cumulus clouds, where it really shines, in my opinion). What really grated my nerves was the cloud redraw issue - for two reasons.

Firstly, you completely run out of clouds before SkyForce realises it needs to re-update the sim and injects cloud cover again. You go from overcast to clear and back to overcast, and it breaks immersion completely. When it does load the "new" cloud cover, it does so instantly, not gradually or phased.

The second reason is that every time SkyForce updates the sim, you fall/rise between 300-600ft instantly as it also "realises" that the winds aloft data needs to be changed. No smooth transitions at all. If I had real pax on board, they'd be quite upset and demanding new sick bags. For such an important aspect of flight simming (accurate weather), this went in the opposite direction completely.

From my experience, I don't see how tubeliners would benefit from this. Seeing some thunderstorms 70,000ft high would be amazing, yes - but not at the cost of accuracy, realism and immersion. For VFR flying, it might be an amazing addon though.

I took several screenshots of the trip, which can be found below:

-

At KIAD. METAR reported clear skies, SkyForce's briefing reported clear skies, SkyForce's weather window shows clear skies, but ingame depiction was this (with rain):

 

Taking off from KIAD, approaching the clouds:

 

Breaking through the clouds, upper cloud layer now visible too:

 

Above the lower cloud layer just west of DC:

 

This is what the clouds looked like for the first 300nm of the trip:

 

This was followed by 100nm of this cloud pattern:

 

After that, the weather changed to overcast:

 

Overcast for the rest of the trip (approx 800nm):

 

The big issue though was that the clouds stopped at the draw distance until SkyForce redraws them on the next injection update (I believe every 15mins?). Here is an example:

 

Another example.. it appears as if the overcast cover stops here. But after about another minute, it was all completely overcast again with no sign of the gap in cloud cover that you see here:

 

 

[Denco 48]

15 minutes ago, sanh said:

Don't care about the weather engine. It was always improbable it could beat AS2016 which is fantastic but the SF clouds best ASCA clouds hands down in my view. I have been waiting for a cloud package like this for a long time.

This is the are I'm interested the most. I don't care about the REX Sky Force weather engine since nothing will replace active sky from my point of view. AS is a very mature product.

All I wan't to know if the clouds representation is improved over ASCA because I find ASCA cloud representation to be very cartoonish in some areas especially where there are major thunderstorms.

[Bruce Nicholson KMFR 20]

29 minutes ago, steve howlett said:

just out of interest ,how many patches has AS16 had since release?.to compare a newly released program against a rival one which has been patched a few times is not fair.noone can forsee what will happen until it has been out for quite a few weeks and the vast majority of users have had time to evaluate it.

Steve, there is more to this than just patches to AS16/ASP4 to be able to make a fair comparison.

What SkyForce is demonstrating with their IWX is very similar to ActiveSky wxRE v1, the first version of ActiveSky (release back in 2002). It had radical wind shifts and cloud updates every time the new weather was read into the engine. It had weather that didn't match the local METAR. There was no weather smoothing between stations, so one would experience drastic changes in the weather just flying between two adjacent airports.

ActiveSky made incremental improvements with each version to what we have today, 15 years later. I think some people that have been around from the beginning with ActiveSky suspected that IWX may also have the same "teething pains" that ActiveSky had at the beginning. I was prepare to be amazed if SkyForce was going to work well out of the starting line. After all, they had 15 years of ActiveSky to show them what needed to be done to produce a current-level weather engine. However, REX remaining silent when asked about some of the features of SkyForce was also foretelling.

In the end, it seems REX realized they had a better graphics product than ASCA (no surprise there) and it was going to take much longer to produce an ActiveSky equivalent WX engine, so they released the product with the hooks to work with other WX engines as a compromise. It's not about how many patches are needed to improve SKyForce as REX is saying their WeatherForce (in development) is the solution to the issues we are seeing. I take this to mean this is REX's opportunity to continue working on an ActiveSky equivalent while SkyForce brings in the revenue to fund the development of WeatherForce.

Lastly, what better way to create WeatherForce than to take in all of the comments about SkyForce in what could be described as a public beta of the IWX. I suspect IWX is the engine of WeatherForce that will be tweaked and improved during development.

[ErichB 3,638]

Based on everything I have read and seen today, I don’t think I’ll be purchasing SF - not even for the textures - which are pretty disappointing in the above post. 

Definitely more work to do here. 

[sbs9 40]

Gents, the truth is that this product is not meant to be a substitute for AS16. It is a potential replacement and a direct competition for ASCA. The core functionality of SF is to (1) provide textures and (2) change these textures during the flight. The equations are:

• REX Sky Force 3D = ASCA
• REX WEATHER FORCE (not released yet) = AS16.

Thus, I think the only reasonable question is if SF is better than ASCA. True, they also provide a simple weather engine with SF, but they officially (in the manual) encourage to use other weather engines. Basically, the weather engine provides information about the altitude and density of clouds, temperatures, winds, etc. and SF changes the cloud and sky textures according these data. It means a comparison of (AS16 weather + SF textures) vs. (SF weather + SF textures) may be misleading, because the output of the two weather engines (weather data) can easily be different. One time you can see more clouds with AS16 weather data, another time with SF weather data. It is not a fair, ceteris paribus comparison of the textures quality.