I don't think anyone has discussed this before about fsx so I thought I would bring a new topic to the discussion forums. I was wondering what the thunderstorms will look like in the new fsx? Any new improvements over fs9? Here are some things that would be interesting to know if it is available in the new fsx:1. Different kinds of Thunderstorms: Squall lines, and imbedded thunderstorms, etc. in other kinds of clouds like stratus or strato-cumulus.2. Lightning settings: cloud to cloud (also known as sheet lightning) cloud to ground or both. I was wondering if there was a setting you could put into fs to tell the kind of lightning you wish to have like a radio button inside the advanced weather settings.3. Tornadic or Superthundercells and Hurricanes. I was wondering if this would be modeled into the new simulator.4. Lighting is a big issue with thunderstorms. When you fly above the thunderstorms the clouds are white and puffy with white anvil tops. When you fly below them they look dark grey to grey purple. If the sun is shinning on them let say; For example you set t-strms to the east of the airport and the sun is west of the airport you would see the clouds would look very dark to the east. I was wondering if this effect is poosible.5. Also better transitioning between fair weather and thunderstorm conditions. Let say you set a 5,000ft base of fair weather cumulus or any other cloudy conditions and watch it build into towering cumulus and finaly into thundertorms and have it disipate about the same as well. Or if you set thunderstorms in a location and fly towards that are you will see this happen as you get closer and farther away from the storms.With most bad weather including t-storms and hurricanes etc. the clouds usually follow as this: cirus, ciro-stratus or cumulus, then alto-stratus or cumulus, and then the cumulus cumulinbus- or nimbo-stratus would follow depending on warm front or cold fronts. I was wondering if a new weather engine would model this as well as visibility settings. These are some of the thoughts I have. Others are welcome to comment.Thank you,

100% Agree. Better modelling of TRW's, MCS clusters, supercells, etc... and all associated weather (downbursts, gust fronts, etc...) would be just fantastic!!! First person to show me a well modeled TRW even in this version will get my $$$ for their product.Good visual modeling of buildups and cells would make this product so great. Lets face it, eye candy is what many of us strive for! :9

Mmmmmhhh... I think we need to wait FS11! :-(

Hi,I agree. There is a general problem with the weather simulation in FS: It is eye candy in certain situations but has almost nothing to do with all the effects that you encounter during real flight. In my opinion the developer's attention to weather is way too far on the graphics side. I would prefer simpler visuals but much more realism concerning fronts, transitions, thermals, icing, vertical winds in hilly terrain, turbulence, wind shear, precipitation effects (like downbursts) and many more. They all are simulated very poor or not at all.Simplify the visual effects and take the processing power to simulate at least some of the above more realistic. That would be much more fun than having perfect coud visuals!Jan

One thing I noticed immediately after taking real-world flying lessons is how >>LOUD<< the rain can be on small canopies.It sounded like we were flying through little pebbles.... I didn't get that at all in FS9.Andrew

>That would>be much more fun than having perfect coud visuals!>>JanI disagree, #1 in that we are FAR from "perfect" with cloud visuals in FS at this time. #2, we only have 2 ways to "simulate" the real world flight. One is VISUAL, the other SOUND. MS needs to take those two senses and put as much as possible into them so that it convinces the user that they are "really" flying, or as much so as possible in a simulation.

>100% Agree. Better modelling of TRW's, MCS clusters,>supercells, etc... and all associated weather (downbursts,>gust fronts, etc...) would be just fantastic!!! First person>to show me a well modeled TRW even in this version will get my>$$$ for their product.>Good visual modeling of buildups and cells would make this>product so great. Lets face it, eye candy is what many of us>strive for! :9>Heh, you do realize what you're asking for is nigh impossible on a desktop PC of any speed, right? Take a look here if you want an idea as to the complexity involved in modeling weather systems on a global basis:http://www.es.jamstec.go.jp/esc/eng/

Hi,I absolutely disagree that it's only visual and sound that create all the things to get the feeling of a real world flight. It's also the way the aircraft (in terms of simulation that actually is the virtual camera) behaves and interacts with the visuals, and how visuals change with time. What is the benefit of having "perfect" cumulus cloud visuals (will we ever have?) if you have to pay for it with missing thermals being simulated below these clouds?Again: Turbulence and icing modeling is poor. We don't see real weather fronts in FS. Poor wind shear effects. No real weather transistions. Where are the thermals below these nice cumulus clouds? Maybe it's only my feeling, but I feel that all this kind of stuff is way behind compared with all the nice visual effects we see today. I would rather see this being improved than having higher and higher resolution textures or moving vehicles. But we can't have it all on the same time, I know ;-) FSX will be exciting though, I'm pretty sure about that.Jan

I can see your point, However, I think its a bit of a curse to know that much in this case. Let me explainACES will design the game to satisfy the greatest percent of the customer base. How much of the customer base do you believe has accurate knowledge of what a gust front should feel like from the air, etc. If I had to guess, I'd say that the weather graphics account for 85-95% of what the average FS customer will notice about the weather. Its just more biased towards the under the hood stuff here since there's such a large percentage of real pilots on the forum.I have to admit I tend towards the graphics too, just because I know what the graphics should look like, while I don't know what the dynamic effects should feel like, since I've only piloted a plane on one flight in real life.I will be hoping for, but not expecting, tons of dynamics improvements in the weather area.....however, I am completely expecting new graphics because that's most of what I will notice and as such is my (and most users) basis for buying the game.

I have to disagree totally with those who say its too complex or too demanding on the computer to have accurate fronts and weather sytems which are dynamic and based on real weather highs and low pressure systems and fronts.To those who place such an arguement I say go and buy an ancient copy of FU3.FU3 was an old programme designed for slow computers compared to what we have now.Having said that FU3 was a programme way ahead of its time which modelled all of the above. There is NO excuse for MS to just give us a Candy programme with no meat.I would like to see at least an equal to the FU3 weather engine.FU3 had the bare bones of a living dynamic weather system but lacked the visual eye Candy of the clouds.With the vastly faster computers and capability FSX should not just have superb weather dynamics but superb graphics to go with it.So MS no excuses this time around. Give us the weather capability that your people are capable of creating and which FSX deserves.When that has been done then add the liviing animals and birds and secondary additions which again FU3 incorporated all those years ago.Peter

>One thing I noticed immediately after taking real-world>flying lessons is how >>LOUD<< the rain can be on small>canopies.>>It sounded like we were flying through little pebbles.... I>didn't get that at all in FS9.>>AndrewInteresting (and now that I think about my real world flying days - TRUE!), but I wonder don't the rain sounds come from a simple .wav file? Couldn't this be "fixed" in the current installment of FS? I would surely try it if someone with sound expertise could whip one up?

I also loved FU3 and the immersive weather environment it tried very hard to create. I was blown away while flying through the Rockies and looking out at developing cumulus. All of you folks are correct. Obviously we can't model weather on a real fine grid in the program but the visuals can make up for alot and make us think about where we fly next. If I see a batch of towering cu's, I would expect some precip under them, or at least turbulence within. Lets put the new physics processors to work and create weather! If MS wants to sell to a majority, then you know what will sell-great visuals! Let the advanced weather be left to third party developers, but the graphics have to start from within! :7

>>100% Agree. Better modelling of TRW's, MCS clusters,>>supercells, etc... and all associated weather (downbursts,>>gust fronts, etc...) would be just fantastic!!! First person>>to show me a well modeled TRW even in this version will get>my>>$$$ for their product.>>Good visual modeling of buildups and cells would make this>>product so great. Lets face it, eye candy is what many of us>>strive for! :9>>>>Heh, you do realize what you're asking for is nigh impossible>on a desktop PC of any speed, right? Take a look here if you>want an idea as to the complexity involved in modeling weather>systems on a global basis:>>http://www.es.jamstec.go.jp/esc/eng/This is a point I wanted to make too...In the 26th Top 500 supercomputers list from Nov 2005, there are two primarily devoted to atmosphere simulation:#4 - Nasa Ames Research Center's Columbia (clocking 51.87 teraflops)#7 - Japan's Earth Simulator (clocking 35.86 teraflops)

Dang, there you guys make me go missing FU3 all over again. It (and FU2) was revolutionary for its day and I hope that FSX does the same sort of thing when it hits the streets.Gary

Well said Pete!Peter Sydney Australia