Just now, cmpbellsjc said:

 

If you post a photo and it’s not displaying correctly then you must not have posted the correct code format.

ok thank you for pointing this to me and sorry for my misunderstanding.

SkyMaxx

MSFS2020

 

I wish to GOD I could find a picture of those horrendous tetris volumetric clouds that were in Fs2000.

 

 

43 minutes ago, Casualcas said:

I wish to GOD I could find a picture of those horrendous tetris volumetric clouds that were in Fs2000.

 

 

Oh man, me too!! Those things were hilarious. Although back then of course, I thought they were not all that bad at all!

I turned them on .... once and said. Umm.. nope

18 hours ago, mp15 said:

Having everything ready out of the box sounds cool but what about the clouds shown so far? 

Shall we have an addon with cripsier clouds?

 

Absolutely agree. Clouds are blurry of course, after all its vapour. But one of the first thing I noticed was that the clouds have to much of an out of focus look.

In order to create wonderful volumetric clouds as I do, one has to understand the importance of negative advection in density, after injecting to my "explosive" cloud some pressure and very sparse convulional noises frequencies, I manage to obtain a wonderful cloud in a near location from the viewr with shades of blur and crispy curlings at the same time.

Another trick that I use is to keep octaves down with a decent spatial expansion in order to keep voxels with a good resolution in the same amount of itinerations.

 

 

 

 

There's so much we dont know though.  With depth of field being in there, are they blurry?  Guess we could say the same thing about this.  We just dont know

 

That is gaussian blur, it is represented to enhance depth of field and because of aesthetics and the nostalgia of professional photography that makes focus in one part of the image and blur the rest, as cell phones made a huge impact in our modern photography now we are used to automatic focus in the entire frame, but that example is much better in beauty terms.

@Casualcas however apart from beauty if you think about it in terms of realism, if you are there as the viewr and you look into the second plane you will naturally see the first plane out of focus because of ocular resoluion, just as the image do.

Edited February 28, 20206 yr by mp15

18 hours ago, Bdub22 said:

I agree the clouds do sometimes look like volcanic ash and can be blurry. I hope they address that.

Volcanish ash is much more dense and heavy than a cloud, but more importantly the volcanic ash does not interact with the light as clouds do, this is why I classify a cloud as positive and ash as negative and this is why your brain is telling you 'do not fly there, it is ash'.

I could write 50 pages of this Topic to explain volumetrics and how they should look, basically I just prepared ash and clouds in the same voxel of my matrix for you todo your own compare.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think I noticed 2 details:

1- the far away clouds, in some screenshots, sometimes stand out more than the closer clouds creating an optical illusion in terms of distance evaluation.

2-There is a blur effect I see in the MSFS previews, I believe to simulate photographic depth of field, that I think in my opinion, could be eventually improved. It feels for now more like a gaussian blur rather than a lens blur in the language of Photoshop/Premiere

But again and again, seeing the level of skills, talent and attention to details etc. Asobo know how to deal with all this if the improvements are put as high priority by MS.

Edited February 28, 20206 yr by Claviateur

5 hours ago, Casualcas said:

There's so much we dont know though.  With depth of field being in there, are they blurry?  Guess we could say the same thing about this.  We just dont know

In one of the leaked videos - I think I remember seeing an option in the camera selection panel which was some sort of "theatrical" camera. Or "cinematic" camera. Obviously, don't quote me on what those actual names are but I remember seeing something to that affect. Which (of course, if true) would be awesome, and make sense. 

Actually procedural dynamic simulations is my specialty.

17 hours ago, HiFlyer said:

SkyMaxx

I always thought that was a terrible product, and that silly H-bomb shows why. xEnviro comes closer to what Asobo are doing, and the MS sim shows some of the same negative traits that product displays, such as dithering and some blobby structures, but it undeniable does it way-way better, and without the massive performance hit. Of course there are things that could be improved, such as close range detail and clarity and maybe they will before release, but as things stand, these are wonderful looking skies, that display a large amount of weather types and react in a realist way to lighting changes.

I do feel for REX who's future now looks uncertain. I used them from day one in FSX and then P3D, but other than supporting those legacy sims their future must be in question.

4 minutes ago, Stratocaster said:

 I do feel for REX who's future now looks uncertain. I used them from day one in FSX and then P3D, but other than supporting those legacy sims their future must be in question.

Not necessarily since I'm sure other things will need repaints, or upgrades on textures. Just like their Rex HD airports.  Or Autogen textures. Who knows.