Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
BMW969

EA Clouds HF2

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, cwburnett said:

But the pixelation from the ground is the worst part, IMO. Where the terrain meets the clouds, there are large constantly flashing pixels; hard to capture in a still, but if you open the image full size, they're pretty obvious along the mountain ridge:

NkeL1oC.png

Pixellation where cloud meets terrain was a major problem with HF1 and earlier.

In HF2, I think it's much improved but still noticable. 

Here's a shot from yesterday near LEAS:

KPgUwRC.jpg

You can see some pixels where the cloud meets the ridge, though I didn't notice them in flight (with HF1, I certainly did).

This problem is decreased by turning up the cloud resolution, my shot was taken on "high", the efect is more noticable on medium.

In summary, it's better but still room for improvement.


Oz

 xdQCeNi.jpg   puHyX98.jpg

Sim Rig: MSI RTX3090 Suprim, an old, partly-melted Intel 9900K @ 5GHz+, Honeycomb Alpha, Thrustmaster TPR Rudder, Warthog HOTAS, Reverb G2, Prosim 737 cockpit. 

Currently flying: MSFS: PMDG 737-700, Fenix A320, Leonardo MD-82, MIlviz C310, Flysimware C414AW, DC Concorde, Carenado C337. Prepar3d v5: PMDG 737/747/777.

"There are three simple rules for making a smooth landing. Unfortunately, no one knows what they are."

Share this post


Link to post

Hi

tje thing that really bugs me about clouds in EA is how they get shaved off at a certain height to apparently ensure flat tops. I am using AS but this is not an AS thing as I noticed it right from the first release of v5.

This effectively precludes any serious vertical development of clouds most of the time.

Anyone else notice this? Or are my settings wrong?

i have EA on ultra but it makes no difference if I lower the settings... grrrrr!!

 

rsy

Share this post


Link to post

Guys, TrueSky isn't ready. It does depict some nice clouds here and then, but there's nothing that can be done to mitigate the issues regarding grids and similar.

Either cope with its deficiencies (like i do, i cannot look at the old system anymore) or disable it until LM finishes integration with P3D.

NOTE: Yeah don't try to find CBs, they do not get depicted at present time. I have flown well over 500 hours with P3D v5 already and they simply do not exist at altitude (i've seen some formations closer to the ground).

Edited by Nuno Pinto
  • Like 2

CASE: Louqe S1 MKIII CPU: AMD R5 7600X RAM: 32GB DDR5 5600 GPU: nVidia RTX 4070 · SSDs: Samsung 990 PRO 2TB M.2 PCIe · PNY XLR8 CS3040 2TB M.2 PCIe · VIDEO: LG-32GK650F QHD 32" 144Hz FREE/G-SYNC · MISC: Thrustmaster TCA Airbus Joystick + Throttle Quadrant · MSFS DX11 · Windows 11

Share this post


Link to post

Yes that's true but there may a simpler explanation. I've noticed it desn't seem to occur much in places like Europe or USA, where AS provides ample local weather data. In remote reas like Colombia however, away from major cities where AS is providing interpolated data, that's where I think it mostly occurs. thinking about it.

In that case, if so, once AS P3D comes out of beta it may be sorted...

Anyone have similar experiences?

 

Ray

Share this post


Link to post

.. and to go back to my first point where I saw it in P3d v5 before the AS update came out. In effect the weather you choose is correct only for your departure aiport, but once you get away from it all the weather presumably is interpolated, which possibly explains why I was seeing it in Canada with the default fair weather enroute.. So in that case it may well be a P3D EA bug.. for interpolated weather...?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

3D clouds are a whole nuther beast programmatically than simulating clouds with a bunch of flat billboard textures. CB is a continuum from puffy fair weather cumulus clouds. They build vertically and the tops are a function of wind speed and temperature. The present implementation just uses the default cumulus parameters combined with a high maximum altitude. That's unrealistic, but give LM some time to experiment with the trueSky SDK. I think Rob A. might have a copy and I do.  I can tell you that the cloud parameters in the SDK are versatile and require experimentation to get  clouds that match real world cloud types. Stratus is easy, as is cumulus and cirrus. But everything else requires fiddling around. The SDK comes with sample cloud sequences for basic cloud types, but that's it. And don't expect MSFS 2020 to lack these issues either. 3D clouds in even the best video games, for example RD2, are primarily designed to be viewed from the ground. It increases the complexity to also make them immersive while flying at altitude and also conform to changing weather conditions.

BTW, the gridding that's seen in trueSky is from a combination of not properly adjusting the cloud noise factors and performance deficiencies on specific hardware.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, jabloomf1230 said:

3D clouds are a whole nuther beast programmatically than simulating clouds with a bunch of flat billboard textures. CB is a continuum from puffy fair weather cumulus clouds. They build vertically and the tops are a function of wind speed and temperature. The present implementation just uses the default cumulus parameters combined with a high maximum altitude. That's unrealistic, but give LM some time to experiment with the trueSky SDK. I think Rob A. might have a copy and I do.  I can tell you that the cloud parameters in the SDK are versatile and require experimentation to get  clouds that match real world cloud types. Stratus is easy, as is cumulus and cirrus. But everything else requires fiddling around. The SDK comes with sample cloud sequences for basic cloud types, but that's it. And don't expect MSFS 2020 to lack these issues either. 3D clouds in even the best video games, for example RD2, are primarily designed to be viewed from the ground. It increases the complexity to also make them immersive while flying at altitude and also conform to changing weather conditions.

BTW, the gridding that's seen in trueSky is from a combination of not properly adjusting the cloud noise factors and performance deficiencies on specific hardware.

Thanks Jabloom1230 that helps me understand the SDK side of it better (of which I know absolutely nothing) and I undertand the complexity and that this is still very much work in progress.

I am not so sure they can't do proper cumulus though. I have some screenies enroute SKPS just past Bogota in Colombia which show what is possible  - and that was with HF1. I'll upload them if someone could remind me how to do it here. But suddenly (METAR changes are still v sudden with AS) I had magnificent menacing cumulus at FL200. No flattened clouds there and really big dark thunder CB clouds with loads of vertical development terrible turbulence and heavy rain - OK not anvil heads to be fair. Almost like MSFS in fact - but just for about 5 mins then it all of a sudden disappeared  snd back to the normal chopped off flat fair weather rubbish. I've never encountered anything like that before or since.

So I know it's possible even now with AS but maybe as you say not stable yet.

Ray

I await developments with impatiernce 🙂

Share this post


Link to post

I might be wrong, but the complaints about CB were more related to the shapes of the tops of the clouds. With the EA beta, it doesn't seem that upper level winds affect the cloud tops for towering CB. As to the coloration and overall shape, I agree with you that the beta EA does a good job with CB. As to rapid changes,like all animations in 3D apps, trueSky is keyframed and the animations gradually change between each keyframe reference condition. The SDK comes with a sequence called rolling storm clouds, which for an example does a pretty good job of CB buildup, including rain and lightning.

Share this post


Link to post
47 minutes ago, rayharris108 said:

So I know it's possible even now with AS but maybe as you say not stable yet.

I wanted to comment on this separately. It's not so much that the implementation is unstable. It doesn't seem to have very many bugs, so to speak. Rather it is that the implementation is both simple and "cast in stone". trueSky's SDK is not a dynamic link library that P3d calls. Rather, LM uses the trueSky SDK to tailor the binary shader files to allow access via the PDK. Many P3d5 and FSX users are familiar with the HLSL shader source files. The difference with trueSky is that the shader source code is not included with the sim. Thus, 3rd parties can't alter the shaders. Although a lot of creative things have been done by 3rd parties in modifying the FSX/P3d5 HLSL shader code, I think it's a wise choice by trueSky to not expose their hard-earned work to thievery and modification. 

So whatever functionality is exposed in the PDK limits what 3rd party developers can do. Over time, LM will probably go down two parallel paths with trueSky. First they will continue to refine the atmospherics. An example of that was making the sun and moon the correct size in HF2. They will also probably add additional elements to the PDK. For example, one item that is missing in the present implementation is any ability to create distinct weather regions within the user's reality bubble. trueSky has this ability, but it's just not in the PDK (yet). There is also no way to gradually change the weather when the METAR changes at the user's location. The cloud shape and sky conditions do change, because there are animations built into trueSky. But the weather is static until it isn't. It's sunny, then bang it's cloudy and raining.

Edited by jabloomf1230

Share this post


Link to post
On 6/24/2020 at 6:28 PM, cwburnett said:

Re: The Grid: The grid typically only appears from above and typically only with a large area of overcast that extends a long distance. It is most obvious when looking down from above, and is not at all noticeable when at the same altitude as the clouds like in OzWhitey's shot. It has been discussed extensively on the prepar3d.com forum and is a known issue that will hopefully be addressed in future updates of EA, beginning with v5.1,

What I'm most puzzled about is that I still have pretty dramatic pixelation where clouds meet terrain and trees; it is particularly noticeable when on the ground on a cloudy day. The size and notability of this is directly linked to your EA settings - so it is really quite bad at Medium, less noticeable at High and mostly un-noticeable at Ultra. Unfortunately, you really need more than 8GB of VRAM to run at High or Ultra.

Re: Envtex, ASCA, etc: As for Envtex, ASCA, etc...those programs modify the non-EA cloud textures, so you should be able to seamlessly swap between the two simply by turning EA on or off in P3D. ASCA, Envtex, Rex, etc cloud textures have no bearing on EA clouds. They are totally separate cloud engines and the files live in separate places in your Prepar3d v5 folder.  Envtex/ASCA/REX modify the 2D cloud textures in the \Weather folder (I believe). Truesky lives in its own \TrueSky folder that is untouched by the aforementioned programs.

So to use Truesky clouds and atmospheric effects, all you need to do is enable it in the sim. No need to uninstall or remove the other products, though you may not want to run them because they'll just be consuming resources and not impacting your sim at all.

What I don't know is whether there are settings in ASP3D that can influence the density of clouds that might help alleviate the grid problem, or for that matter if the draw distance and density settings in P3D have any influence on EA/TrueSky.

This is how mine look on Medium when at the same level as the clouds. Look great...

kmEn81g.jpg

From above, less so. Pixelation at the horizon and a pretty obvious grid...

JKiVpkK.png

But there are also circumstances with ASCA/Envtex/ASP3D and 2D clouds where you could see a grid from above in overcast situations, so while irritating, EA still provides a more immersive experience IMO.

But the pixelation from the ground is the worst part, IMO. Where the terrain meets the clouds, there are large constantly flashing pixels; hard to capture in a still, but if you open the image full size, they're pretty obvious along the mountain ridge:

NkeL1oC.png

I noticed in your first pic your clouds seem nice and dense with EA on.

mine looks like kinda hazy and jaggy around edges and see through with same cloud type.

perhaps envshade causing this?

i use envtex but clouds are untucked 

cheers

mike

 

Share this post


Link to post

Well there is still a bug with Activesky and EA which we had in the past "repetitive clouds depiction" from a higher altitude and double clouds inserted...

That having said I can't go back to fly anymore with the 2d outdated graphics stuff... So hoping for some improvements with EA and the Activesky combo.

  • Like 1

 

André
 

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
  • Tom Allensworth,
    Founder of AVSIM Online


  • Flight Simulation's Premier Resource!

    AVSIM is a free service to the flight simulation community. AVSIM is staffed completely by volunteers and all funds donated to AVSIM go directly back to supporting the community. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. Thank you for your support!

    Click here for more information and to see all donations year to date.
×
×
  • Create New...