Still no cloud shadow

[michal 44]

Well, but I generally agree with John's above post. For example in case of 60% cloud coverage one could generate enough soft shadows to create desired effect equivalent to this 60% coverage (perhaps allowing for the Sun's position in this crude calculations). One could argue it is better to have some shadows, even when not necessarily correctly placed than no shadows at all. I would say that the former is more "as real as it gets". ;)Michael J.http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/pmdg_744F.jpghttp://sales.hifisim.com/pub-download/asv6-banner-beta.jpg

[Guest christian]

I agree with Michael. Personally, I'd rather you fudge some stuff than leave it out completely. Some things really don't matter very much (like correctly placed cloud shadows) or are a huge improvement even if not 100% accurate (like up- and down drafts in mountainous terrain - I'm using the Cross-Counry Soaring add-on which has a very crude model, but it's better than nothing).I think the problem is the "as real as it gets" slogan. I understand it's a mareting slogan, and I'm not saying don't use it - just trying to explain whats "wrong" with it. Marketing slogans are there to sell a product - that's fine, but people will always take them literally. If you sell a vacuum cleaner that states it has 5000W and it turns out it only has 4990W, people will complain. Similarily, if another flight sim - or even a 3rd party add-on has some functionality that MSFS doesn't have, strictly speaking MSFS isn't "as real as it gets" anymore, because it has been shown that you can get more real than that. Again - not saying stop your marketing, that's not going to happen since this is the world we live in, just saying that people will complain about marketing hype and there will always be a number of complainers no matter what (and sometimes even justified complaints).What I'm trying to say is this: If you would make a poll asking if you should fudge some features to be able to include them in the final product or leave them out because you cannot get them 99% realistic, I bet you that the vast majority would vote for inclusion. Yes, you get complaints, but overall you will have satisfied a larger user base. And as Michael said, it's not just about individual features being "as real as it gets" it's also about the overall product being "as real as it gets" and the more features you include you closer you get to reality. Just my opinion :)Christian

[John_Cillis 2,406]

Good reply Christian,Add to that, even the clouds themselves are a fudge. They are very good ones, but they are not "real" in any sense and if you catch them in the right angle, can even appear paper thin--and they always turn to present their best side :)Regardless, I think they are the most beautiful "fudge" ever added to a sim and I can spend hours looking at them, and at the way they capture light etc... I think they are a perfect example of how Microsoft responded to users wanting a better feature. For me "As Real As it Gets" isn't about how the "Real" is done, it's about the impact it has on the overall experience. -John

[Guest SpectroPro]

>If I could wish for one graphical enhancement, without a>doubt it would be cloud shadows. VFR flying using photographic>terrain would look supberb.Must seriously suck to live in a place where there are that many clouds all the time. ;)heheheWith 1000's of hours of flight time, I gotta say...I am thinking as hard as I can, and I can't tell you the last time I saw or rather 'noticed' a cloud shadow. The clouds in the water are fantastic...and THAT indeed will add something, but other than that, I can live without the shadows so very easily as they simply are not noticable in real life... Oh, and if we gotta get more real...then I better see bird shadows as well....because you see those all the time!!! Even when it's NOT cloudy!There are 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary, and those who don't!***************************************Gregory D. Swagler, PresidentFlight Simulator Design UniversityKHAO - Hamilton, Ohio USA (Cincinnati)

[Guest HGNK]

LOCK-ON has cloud shadows and they are amazing. They also don't slow down my PC.I admit I can't remember noticing a cloud shadow whilst being a passenger in a real aircraft, but I am sure that they were there. I think that they greatly add to immersion in a simulator, and help to trick you into believing that the simulated landscape is a real one (I have had many Simulator moments like this - you know it is a computer generated image, but you still marvel at how real it looks). Incidentally most of my Simulator time is not like that (only sometimes).I have been requesting it in surveys since FS2004, but didn't realise there were so many others feeling the same way as well, till I saw it implemented in LOCK-ON. "Visually", cloud shadows are as realworld as "flight dynamics", and I confess that I lean towards the eye-candy side of the simulation experience.HK

[Guest SpectroPro]

ok...I was just out flying this morning. I live in SW Ohio, USA just north of Cincinnati. Some people will know where this is. We have incredible weather today. There are some very high and light cirrus clouds poofing around. These cause NO shadows at all. Too thin. So, what I was thinking about, as I was knocking off some hours, was that if they do put them in, and please know, I am NOT against them...I just don't see the need to put much time in for them... but, we all have our own wants... is that there will have to be a 'starting point' for when you will see them. In other words, not all clouds will have them. While you will see the high sirrus in the water reflections, they are too thin to cast any shadows. None that would be noticible at least... So, it would seem to me, that great study would have to be done to determine at what point the shadows are 'worthy' of being visible. How thick are the clouds..how dense...what height above ground...etc... You would not see a shadow even for a very thick cloud that is say 11000 feet up that is only say 1/2 mile long... The light getting around it would negate the shadow effect. See the problems..... I have lock on, and never noticed cloud shadows...maybe I will try to see one later after church...Have a great one....And keep your eyes looking for birds and other aircraft...NOT looking down. ;)heheThere are 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary, and those who don't!***************************************Gregory D. Swagler, PresidentFlight Simulator Design UniversityKHAO - Hamilton, Ohio USA (Cincinnati)

[crvm 0]

>Frankly we try to avoid having to do this since there are a>few users who will notice and flame us on the boards for not>being "as real as it gets". While we are talking about everything it seems what about SDK instructions for "accurate" wx radar developement =P?[h4]Randy J. Smith[/h4]AMD 64 4000+|ASUS K8V DELUXE|SAPPHIRE ATI X800XT PE|MUNCHKIN 3200|80 gig SATA|DELL 1905FP 19" LCD|TRACKir PRO|PFC JEPPESEN MOONEY YOKE|CH PRO PEDALS|

[Guest SpectroPro]

Just wanted to follow up my last post. I was on my way to church, and the cloud cover had thickened up quite a bit. Now, I was looking at cloud shadows. However, again, would you want to put this in when clouds are say 85% of the sky or more??? Here you had so much cloud shadow, it was more like darkness with some sunny spots. So, if you were at say 6500', just below the clouds we had here, you would have been looking at ground a bit darker than normal, with every now and then, a lighter spot. So, I have concluded, that to make it worthwhile, and I am not saying it wouldn't add anything, obviously, it's one more thing that adds a piece to the puzzle... I don't think there should be any cloud shadows from say maybe <15% UNLESS the cloud is a big fat thickee because I will admit, one big fat cloud in the sky causing a shadow on a nice sunny day, is very cool, ... or >75% cloud cover... Again, easier to reverse the geomotry, and make a 'sun shadow' as you would only have to move the sunlight and not ALL that cloud darkness... Does that make sense....???There are 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary, and those who don't!***************************************Gregory D. Swagler, PresidentFlight Simulator Design UniversityKHAO - Hamilton, Ohio USA (Cincinnati)

[Guest Foxtrot 125 Tango]

>>> Actually at this point FSX will likely be cutting>features,>>not adding them.>>>>The cloud shadows are essential ;( >>>To expand a bit on Mike' point which was pretty much in>response to the post that said:>>"Please do not forget: FSX is in early development stage. FSX>will be released in a bit less than a year. This is very long>time in game development and I believe there is enough time to>add tens of new features and bug fixes":>>I've talked a little bit about the remaining time we have>here:>http://blogs.technet.com/pixelpoke/archive.../06/417087.aspx>>In the time left there is a list of features we'd like to>tackle. Each feature has a degree of depth to which we'd like>to reach in order for it to be successful.>>The nature of what we build (a rich, immersive, aviation>oriented world) means that we will *never* run out of>features. What we *have* to do then is prioritize. So when>Mike says "FSX will likely be cutting features" he's>absolutely correct.>>Before you start freaking out though...>>There's a lot of new feature work on the schedule (including>some of what's been asked for/speculated about on boards like>this), and a lot you guys have'nt seen yet. There's a lot of>work ahead to finish what you've glimpsed so far (which>includes new code *and* bug fix time). >>When we cut work, it's done so that we can: a) finish>necessary feature work, :( fix bugs, and c) stabilize features>so we can do SDKs (which gets you 3rd party content)>>Cloud shadows are high on our list, but you won't find us>promising stuff will be in the product until it's actually in>the product...>>Cheers,>>Jason>Sounds great! Is it possible to indicate what type of performance level or frame-rates that may be available in the new FSX? The new features are nice to have but it would be especially nice to have solid fluid motion when making small input changes via the Yoke and Pedals, etc. and not have anymore visual output delays when trying to land a complex aircraft at a busy international airport.Kindest regards,Mark ;-)

[Manny 1,293]

1. I'd like to have softer night runway lights.2. I'd like to have pilot controlled runway lights for small airports.Manny

[Guest Robin.B]

Indeed. Instead of the computer having to calculate 1500 cloud shadows to produce a darker ground, it could darken the whole ground and calculate where the sun comes in to lighten only that bit and it's near surroundings. :)

[oktorn777 0]

Well guys I think we need raytracing to get job done. :-)Seriously, the lightning is something that still lets alot to be desired. I hope ms packs as much advancements into fs x lightning engine as possible. I would love to see cloud shadows.

[Guest Robin.B]

I'm not quite sure I'm following you there. Do you mean Lighting? You've said you wish for the lightNing to be improved twice over, then talked about cloud shadows :)

[Guest SpectroPro]

>what a knee jerk response.>>a bird is in no way part of a simulation of a cockpit.>>go up to some of the real sim guys and ask them whether they>simulate birds flying and animals roaming. >>give me a break.>I had missed this back when it was posted. I have seen several airline sim setups where they simulate birds. I have seen simulated bird strikes taking out engines as well. When I was in the USCoast Guard and was in flight training, we did a simulated bird strike in the engine as we flew around Sea Gulls ALL the time. And bird strikes actually happen way more often than you may imagine. And if you ever fly low around a coast, you are always aware of birds and flying with them. Never had a cloud strike take out one of my engines... ;)There are 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary, and those who don't!***************************************Gregory D. Swagler, PresidentFlight Simulator Design UniversityKHAO - Hamilton, Ohio USA (Cincinnati)

[crvm 0]

I wonder why the animosity towards animals in the sim? Do people believe that MS should only work on items for the hard core simmers amounst us? The ground, sky, water etc are no part of a cockpit sim either but are a part of the simming world. Birds mean nothing to me, it would bother me if they caused a frame rate loss while flying but other than that I would love to see a simulated "living" enviorment..[h4]Randy J. Smith[/h4]AMD 64 4000+|ASUS K8V DELUXE|SAPPHIRE ATI X800XT PE|MUNCHKIN 3200|80 gig SATA|DELL 1905FP 19" LCD|TRACKir PRO|PFC JEPPESEN MOONEY YOKE|CH PRO PEDALS|