PC Hardware Enthusiast/Gaming Media Reaction to Flight Simulator

[vortex681 806]

10 minutes ago, MatthewS said:

It would be very disappointing if cloudscapes can't extend to the horizon

But sometimes they don't in real life. It just depends on the atmospheric conditions.

[MatthewS 761]

Just now, vortex681 said:

But sometimes they don't in real life. It just depends on the atmospheric conditions.

Sure, but in cases where atmospheric conditions do cause the cloudscape to extend to the horizon, if the cloudscape in MS2020 does not then you will see "abrupt" changes in weather rendition.

Ideally weather would be downloaded beyond the horizon and the cloudscape extend out to the horizon.  This would mean no abrupt shift in weather rendition because it's happening beyond the horizon and not visible from the cockpit.

 

[vortex681 806]

1 minute ago, MatthewS said:

Sure, but in cases where atmospheric conditions do cause the cloudscape to extend to the horizon, if the cloudscape in MS2020 does not then you will see "abrupt" changes in weather rendition.

There's no evidence so far that the cloudscape won't stretch to the horizon if that's what conditions require. Just because we haven't seen it, doesn't mean that it won't happen.

[MatthewS 761]

4 minutes ago, vortex681 said:

There's no evidence so far that the cloudscape won't stretch to the horizon if that's what conditions require. Just because we haven't seen it, doesn't mean that it won't happen.

Look at the SFO sequence (FL60? or higher). Seems a rather defined edge to cloudscape well before the horizon.

Of course the horizon is closer at lower altitudes so maybe you'll be proven correct at say FL30.

Edited September 28, 2019 by MatthewS

[FDEdev 955]

10 minutes ago, MatthewS said:

Look at the SFO sequence (FL60? or higher). Seems a rather defined edge to cloudscape well before the horizon.

Of course the horizon is closer at lower altitudes so maybe you'll be proven correct at say FL30.

The SFO sequence has been taken at a much higher altitude. Estimated FL300-400. 

Edited September 28, 2019 by FDEdev

[vortex681 806]

17 minutes ago, MatthewS said:

Look at the SFO sequence. Seems a rather defined edge to cloudscape well before the horizon.

Of course the horizon is closer at lower altitudes so maybe you'll be proven correct at say FL30.

There's often a distinct cut off of clouds in the real world. You can't know if it's realistic or not without knowing the met conditions. Also, in the aircraft altitude in the cloudscape video looks considerably higher than FL60 - more like FL350 or higher. If you say that the aircraft is at about 35,000 ft and the clouds are at (for example) 5000 ft, ignoring attenuation by the atmosphere the cloudscape would theoretically extend beyond 270 NMi. Do you really think that would be practical? You'd use a up a lot of system resources just calculating and displaying the clouds (and that would be just a single layer)!

Edited September 28, 2019 by vortex681

[MatthewS 761]

1 minute ago, FDEdev said:

The SFO sequence has been taken at a much higher altitude. Estimated FL300-400.  How do you know that the cloud layer isn't supposed to end where it does in this sequence? 

Look at any satellite weather image. You never see such a well defined "arc" of cloud coverage.  It's clearly the limit of the cloud rendition in MS2020.

FL300-FL400? Really? So a 100kms? I don't think so... do you mean 30,000ft or 300,000ft?

[vortex681 806]

1 minute ago, MatthewS said:

Look at any satellite weather image. You never see such a well defined "arc" of cloud coverage.  It's clearly the limit of the cloud rendition in MS2020.

FL300-FL400? Really? So a 100kms? I don't think so... do you mean 30,000ft or 300,000ft?

I think you're confusing your flight levels. FL60 is around 6,000 ft. FL350 is around 35,000 ft.

[MatthewS 761]

2 minutes ago, vortex681 said:

You'd use a up a lot of system resources just calculating and displaying the clouds (and that would be just a single layer)!

Presumably the calculation of the global "weatherscape" will take place on Azure and FS2020 will just have to download a precomputed "map" of cloud coverage for display.

[guenseli 1,606]

3 minutes ago, MatthewS said:

FL300-FL400? Really? So a 100kms?

 

FL300 is a common term and should be understood by everybody who is a bit into piloting or simulating.

 

[vortex681 806]

Just now, MatthewS said:

Presumably the calculation of the global "weatherscape" will take place on Azure and FS2020 will just have to download a precomputed "map" of cloud coverage for display.

We don't know that yet.

[MatthewS 761]

2 minutes ago, vortex681 said:

I think you're confusing your flight levels. FL60 is around 6,000 ft. FL350 is around 35,000 ft.

Ok, Well I meant 60,000 ft for the SFO sequence (so FL600).

[guenseli 1,606]

6 minutes ago, MatthewS said:

Ok, Well I meant 60,000 ft for the SFO sequence (so FL600)

of course 😉

[vortex681 806]

13 minutes ago, MatthewS said:

Look at any satellite weather image. You never see such a well defined "arc" of cloud coverage.  It's clearly the limit of the cloud rendition in MS2020.

[MatthewS 761]

1 hour ago, vortex681 said:

We don't know that yet.

Sure. 

But I would be surprised (and disappointed) if MS did not use Azure to process weather for FS2020.

The task of continuously downloading metar and computing weather coverage for the entire world into a compact format for download and display in FS2020 seems ideally suited to Azure.

Imagine a 3D "map" of weather cells (describing cloud type, wind conditions etc) with a resolution of about 1km (and extending up to say FL900) for the entire world, and FS2020 downloading a "diff" of that map as your aircraft traverses the world.  It would be entirely possible for "over the horizon" weather to available in FS2020.

 

Edited September 28, 2019 by MatthewS
changed "did" to "did not" and spelling fixes. FL900