46 minutes ago, SAS443 said:

Well David....In my opinion it is the same un-defined hodgepodge since FS2002 (see below. timestamp of screenshot is january 2003)
Not much has happened in 15 years. 

https://www.surclaro.com/photo2066.html

Perhaps you need to try another weather engine / clouds app / shader app combo ....

Imho Adapa’s and Nyxx’s clouds look very nice..

The engine is too limited, it might look realistic but only at very few specific occasions. Lack of real improvement for many years, I agree with the ones thinking it needs to be totally revamped.

33 minutes ago, Wanthuyr Filho said:

The engine is too limited, it might look realistic but only at very few specific occasions.

+1

I spend a lot of time tweaking PTA (or Tomato-Shade) so need to check what happens with all the major sky/cloud injectors (REX, ActiveSky etc.) across all weather conditions. *Occasionally* you get a realistic-looking formation but, more often than not, the result is pretty dire.

Adam.

8 hours ago, SAS443 said:

In my opinion it is the same un-defined hodgepodge since FS2002 (see below. timestamp of screenshot is january 2003)

If you really think that the screenshot you posted and Davids brilliant low sun screenshot are 'the same', you must be blind.

IRL it simply doesn't look more realistic than in Davids low sun screenshot. 

Nevertheless, apart from the glider and the color banding, your pic it doesn't look too unrealistic either. 

Edited November 21, 20187 yr by FDEdev

1 hour ago, FDEdev said:

If you really think that the screenshot you posted and Davids brilliant low sun screenshot are 'the same', you must be blind.

IRL it simply doesn't look more realistic than in Davids low sun screenshot. 

Nevertheless, apart from the glider and the color banding, your pic it doesn't look too unrealistic either. 

I will never engage in "you are blind"-arguments. 

All I saying is that when I look at his  screenshots, it shows basic shaded  "flat" cloud textures that lacks cohesion . There is no difference in light absorbtion between the wispy stratus and cumulus clouds. No part of the clouds are lit up by the sunlight (left most clouds would def. be lit up by the rays of light)

This is how clouds react to sunlight. Light is scattered all over the place and the clouds are lit up according to their position relative to the sun and camera view angle. And no P3D screenshot is able to give you this sensation. And that is what I am trying to say.

 

I don't know why you are comparing apples and oranges. You can't even remotely compare the view from an airplane at high altitude and descending into a cloud layer with a scenic sunset photo while standing on a mountain.  

I don't think that many people would want to trade a high framerate for perfectly calculated/drawn clouds and stutters.

After all this is a FLIGHT simulator.

Edited November 21, 20187 yr by FDEdev

1 hour ago, FDEdev said:

I don't know why you are comparing apples and oranges. You can't even remotely compare the view from an airplane at high altitude and descending into a cloud layer with a scenic sunset photo while standing on a mountain.  

I don't think that many people would want to trade a high framerate for perfectly calculated/drawn clouds and stutters.

After all this is a FLIGHT simulator.

Let's just agree to disagree 🙂

Whenever the topic of clouds comes up it seems to spark controversy. The current system cannot portray the light as seen in the photo above, PMDG latest and greatest -8 came with flight deck lights that were so poor, as many of you have seen I made my own. So lighting is a problem within the sim I think we can all agree it could be better. But until then we have what we have.

Also, the biggest problem with clouds is everyone has a different opinion on what looks best, no ones right or wrong its personly opinions and nothing else, the general consensus is AS weather engine is the best, then as a general rule use  ASCA/ENVTEX/SF in different ways. 

I use all 4, AS for weather engine, ENVTEX with ASCA for only sky colours and for my eyes SF cloud formations set a new level a million miles from pre-SF let alone 2003. But that difference can only be seen with a flight, not screenshots.

 

Edited November 21, 20187 yr by Nyxx

Rex is working on a new product for the environment in P3Dv4 we will have wait and see what it brings to the sim.

59 minutes ago, rjfry said:

Rex is working on a new product for the environment in P3Dv4 we will have wait and see what it brings to the sim.

With the emphasis on 'see'... 😎 

(And btw I don't expect that new addon to solve any of the mentioned problems.)

I think, long-term, we'll never get to the kind of lighting everyone is clamoring for until Ray Tracing hits the scene full force.   Until then it will be an approximation. 

But, for those of us without full cockpit builds, we're already having to look past a lot of things to enjoy the immersion, and this is one I don't have a hard time with (using Active Sky Prepar3D, REX Textures).  This past year I have been setting the date and time to the system time and set Active Sky to current conditions for where-ever I'm taking off from, and enjoy the randomness of it all.

Mark

 

6 hours ago, SAS443 said:

I will never engage in "you are blind"-arguments. 

All I saying is that when I look at his  screenshots, it shows basic shaded  "flat" cloud textures that lacks cohesion . There is no difference in light absorbtion between the wispy stratus and cumulus clouds. No part of the clouds are lit up by the sunlight (left most clouds would def. be lit up by the rays of light)

This is how clouds react to sunlight. Light is scattered all over the place and the clouds are lit up according to their position relative to the sun and camera view angle. And no P3D screenshot is able to give you this sensation. And that is what I am trying to say.

 

This is a simulated environment ...

All aircraft are not realistic compared to their real world counterparts too.

And flying over a LC scenery is the less realistic there is.

The best you can do is trying to get your PPL so you won’t have to look at this unrealistic Sim anymore ...

Edited November 21, 20187 yr by GSalden

why is it that some feel that they need a real world to sim in, will never be and shall never be in a million years, so be happy with what you have and what it will bring- mankind will never reproduce real life- so live with it!!!   +5 Mr GSalden

Even with the lighting limitations we have now, you can still achieve some pretty amazing approximations of real world with the right texture sets, shader settings and light settings - assuming you also have appropriate hardware.

 

42 minutes ago, ErichB said:

Even with the lighting limitations we have now, you can still achieve some pretty amazing approximations of real world with the right texture sets, shader settings and light settings - assuming you also have appropriate hardware.

 

Totally agree with you.

Let us not forget : this is called Flightsimulator and not Cloudsimulator.. 🤔