17 hours ago, mSparks said:

bouncing off the walls waiting for his exams to finish.....

This is incredibly impressive for one guy doing this as freeware, I can't wait to see this released.

I'm afraid it will be painful for FPS.
 

5 hours ago, Bulva said:

I'm afraid it will be painful for FPS.
 

vulkan compatible shader program, so as long as your gpu can handle the extra draw in parallel with everything else its doing it shouldn't have an impact.

If you don't have a gpu with the horsepower to draw it without frameloss.... The Nvidia Ampare 3000 series launches soon.

4 hours ago, mSparks said:

vulkan compatible shader program, so as long as your gpu can handle the extra draw in parallel with everything else its doing it shouldn't have an impact.

If you don't have a gpu with the horsepower to draw it without frameloss.... The Nvidia Ampare 3000 series launches soon.

Yup, a bit like truesky in P3DV5. Using a 2080ti, you don’t even notice any performance hit. Hopefully someone comes up with something like that for xplane. 

Actually UWXP is also working with shaders to simulate 3D clouds.

many if the bugs in 2.6 are solved in the next release 2.6.1. I recommend to check it if you haven’t yet.

i think the 3D freeware cloud project deserves its own thread, it is very impressive indeed.

the OP asked about opinions for UWXP 2.6, it is the first weather addon I considered buying , clouds stretch to the horizon, they simulate 3D clouds through shaders with only a few FPS ( 1 to 3) penalty, sun and sky are much better (less dull).

1 minute ago, soaring_penguin said:

Actually UWXP is also working with shaders to simulate 3D clouds.

many if the bugs in 2.6 are solved in the next release 2.6.1. I recommend to check it if you haven’t yet.

i think the 3D freeware cloud project deserves its own thread, it is very impressive indeed.

the OP asked about opinions for UWXP 2.6, it is the first weather addon I considered buying , clouds stretch to the horizon, they simulate 3D clouds through shaders with only a few FPS ( 1 to 3) penalty, sun and sky are much better (less dull).

Yeah, but the standard clouds in that app have a 10-15 FPS hit depending on the weather front. 

I disagree. The overall impact is only a few FPS in general. In some cases I have seen an impact, in other cases an improvement of FPS, but I am running on 11.50 Vulkan beta. Possibly the situation is different with OpenGL.

I am also on Vulkan beta. Beta 11. Add a thunderstorm layer. With default clouds its 60FPS using a 2080ti. With UWXP it's a 15FPS hit. With Skymaxx pro it's a 25FPS hit. 

Of course a few clouds here and there or nice weather don't have any FPS hit. It's the hard stuff when the chickens come home to roost. 

Edited June 24, 20205 yr by Ianrivaldosmith

I think it depends on how you use any clouds.
If you use "manual" weather, you have one layer of clouds and it is ok even with a cloudy sky, but if you use, for example, ASXP and have several layers of clouds + winds generated, then the FPS decrease is very large.
I am currently using ASXP (i7 8700K (4.2GHz), 1080Ti, 32RAM) and flying on a cloudy day with default clouds means a huge FPS decrease.
I use Vivid Sky - the only clouds that don't kill very much FPS for me.
I would gladly replace them with nicer ones, but for fear of the huge drop in FPS, I am still staying with them.

(I use XP beta11+Vulkan)

Edited June 24, 20205 yr by Bulva

Just now, Bulva said:

I think it depends on how you use any clouds.
If you use "manual" weather, you have one layer of clouds and it is ok even with a cloudy sky, but if you use, for example, ASXP and have several layers of clouds + winds generated, then the FPS decrease is very large.
I am currently using ASXP (i7 8700K (4.2GHz), 1080Ti, 32RAM) and flying on a cloudy day with default clouds means a huge FPS decrease.
I use Vivid Sky - the only clouds that don't kill very much FPS for me.
I would gladly replace them with nicer ones, but for fear of the huge drop in FPS, I am still staying with them.

This ^^^ Exactly right. And thats the problem with UWXP or SKymax pro. 

UWXP and SkymaxPro are 2 different products, the first improves the visuals (only), the second simulates the weather.

Agreed, with several layers you have an impact on framerate, but you have this also with default clouds.

34 minutes ago, soaring_penguin said:

Agreed, with several layers you have an impact on framerate, but you have this also with default clouds.

That's why (unfortunately) I stay with Vivid Sky, which is the least voracious FPS.

14 minutes ago, Bulva said:

That's why (unfortunately) I stay with Vivid Sky, which is the least voracious FPS.

for good measures, I just checked and on my system, with 3 layers, real weather, I have between 1 and 2 frames penalty (one of the good things in the beta 😉 ). I don't think the problem is with UWXP or default weather, but with the number of layers you depict.

Edited June 24, 20205 yr by soaring_penguin

42 minutes ago, soaring_penguin said:

for good measures, I just checked and on my system, with 3 layers, real weather, I have between 1 and 2 frames penalty (one of the good things in the beta 😉 ). I don't think the problem is with UWXP or default weather, but with the number of layers you depict.

What settings do you have set in UWXP? 2.6.1? Using active sky? 

5 hours ago, Ianrivaldosmith said:

What settings do you have set in UWXP? 2.6.1? Using active sky? 

I am running on Linux, this excludes Active Sky  😉 .