Thunderstorms

[Guest Karybdis]

Hmm. I do agree that these things should be modellable on our hardware. not perfect dynamics obviously, but at least to a large degree realistic.The question is whether MS would/should risk doing it at the expense of the graphics enhancements. I doubt it. However that isnt to say that while updating the graphics, a lot of dynamic weather couldnt be fit in under the hood too. The only way the average consumer will get to expecting true dynamic weather features, will be to have them in the previous version of the Sim and know they're there, and not want to do without them in the next version (Activesky helps with this drastically). So to that end, I imagine the development team will keep including as many as they can fit into the content development timeframe without sacrificing (many of) the large graphics updates to do it.That being said, I'm keeping an eye out for more accurate nimbostratus (massive towering wall like blankets extending down from the alto layer) as opposed to the thin grey stratus-sized current ones, and updates to CB modelling. CB (cumulonimbus) turbulence/graphics has always been where I noticed the limits of the engine, and updates to them would show significant weather engine progress.

[Guest cwright]

>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. That's absolutely true. Very often, when a new feature is proposed, someone will say something like: "It would be nice, but it would need a super computer to run it and would bring the average PC down to a crawl". This even happens when the proposed feature has been standard in other games for some years. This certainly applies to realistic dynamic weather. As you point out, FU did this years ago. I'm actually quite amazed that FS still hasn't caught up in many areas. For example, what about the rain drops on the windows and windscreen in FU? The droplets were very realistic and they moved according to the prevailing wind (when parked), the speed of the aircraft and even the wash from the props. In comparison the equivalent effect in FS is so bad that I would prefer it wasn't there. Of course, it would be perfectly feasible to replicate and even improve on the FU weather system. Weather conditions change fairly slowly and therefore require only a small CPU load. In most cases, if a new feature such as realistic dynamic weather has not been implemented in a new release, it's not because current computers are not powerful enough. It's because the design team did not regard it as being important enough to justify the software development time that would be required. I look forward to greatly improved graphics and scenery in FSX. But I would also love to see realistic weather a la Flight Unlimited. And realistic rain water on the windshield! Best regards, Chris

[Guest sclincoln]

Yeah, FU2/3 were great. I skipped from FS98 straight to FU 2, then 3 and skipped right past FS2000 entirely. I didn't come back to FS until FS2002, when FS finally implemented quite a few of the features of FU (ATC, AI planes, etc). To be fair, FU only covered SF and Seattle and not the whole world but it did a great job with the areas that were there. The weather is probably the last part of FU that FS still hasn't quite overtaken. I remember the wind gusts being really jarring. The rain was great. It was really ahead of its time.

[Guest jboweruk]

Pretty much still is. That said even in FU2 over the Bay I got hit by an AI plane because I was told to maintain my course, wish I hadn't followed her instructions now, stoopid stoopid dumb useless.....