MS/ASOBO pls put some attention on the clouds visuals

[martin-w 3,234]

I think we should be less scathing of those who see an element of the new sim they think could be better. They are entitled to their opinion and shouldn't be chastised and labeled as too cynical.

Yes, I'm one of those on this occasion. I too think there is something about the clouds that doesn't look quite right. It may be something to do with the video's rendition on YouTube, so nothing definitive from me. Clouds seem too blurry.

And yes, I'm aware clouds are vapour, and by their very nature blurry, but there's a degree of blurriness that seems off.

As I said, I'd need to see the new sim first hand on my monitor, may look much better then, so no definitive claims being made.

No complaints because I have a different opinion please, its not compulsory to label the new sim perfection or illegal to state a subjective opinion.

 

[The Flight Level 2,112]

I was kind of shocked to see the title of this post. For me, the clouds have looked absolutely impressive beyond anything in other sim platform. I have watched the majority of the promo videos and the sky/weather is fantastic!  You can’t criticize color, shading etc from a video that you are watching because of color correction setup from one monitor to the next. A simple tweet of saturation, gamma etc on a monitor will change the looks entirely. Remember this is version one with brand new technology. If they look this real now right out of the box, what will they look like a few versions further down the road? And in my opinion, the sky conditions are absolutely stunning. Accolades to Asobo studios and Xbox gaming studios!

[March Hare 720]

We have to hold off judgement about graphics, really. We've seen the promo videos from Microsoft, purportedly running on an RTX 2080 GPU; I've seen videos from testers, also on RTX 2080 GPUs, which look fantastic, but not as pristine as the official videos; and I've seen a video, today, from a different player with an RTX 2080, which looks like it has no anti-aliaising turned on, flat textures, absent lighting effects, and poor LOD pop-in.

It's either some people turning down settings on a GPU that can actually handle high settings, which seems odd, or... Who knows? We'll each find out how it looks and performs on our individual systems when the time comes.

I'm just confident that it won't be perfect, but it will be far ahead of past flight sims. That is what has finally attracted me to the genre: not only learning what it's like, to some extent, to fly airplanes, but to also do that in a detailed world.

Edited August 1, 2020 by March Hare

[ThrottleUp 617]

On 7/31/2020 at 10:48 PM, Nyxx said:

Skip to take off, am not going to say anything more.

 

The wx looks great 🙂 Just as a small side issue - I dont like how distorted that flightdeck view is. Its all stretched out looking 😮 See the center MFD. Im hoping it will be easy to just translate backward (let us remove the seats!) instead of having to zoom out which gives the distorted fisheye.

Edited August 2, 2020 by ThrottleUp

[ShawnG 1,823]

4 hours ago, killthespam said:

All this is taken out of context, the idea of a showcase is to highlight the positive product features, you don't put somebody to present a product that is not familiar with.

There is no justice for the product.

Very funny is how many are complaining about fidelity, stutters, clouds, scenery, the colors are not correct, people complaining about different software that don't interact correctly like software for the checklist to be corrected because some airline's checklist says otherwise, etc. But the way of this guy is doing stuff like that it is OK. I sought that everybody in looking for "as close as to reality" experience and fidelity part of the hubby.

I sought that if we want to see the roads where they are, bridges, airports, correct taxi ways and sceneries, airplanes desighned with accuracy like FsLabs, MadDog, PMDG a few to name known for fidelity and using correct checklists and procedures are what some of sim community is looking for.

You don't put people testing, evaluating, or presenting a product that have no idea about it in certain stages of development and let it go public jeopardizing the outcome of a new product.

Wow, how wrong I was. 

If I told you that I once loaded up a flight in the pmdg 777 in p3d, and left the landing lights on from gate to gate, (I also flew from KSFO to KLAS, which is not even a 777 route <gasp>) how would that make you feel?  Should I lose my fake pilots license? should I receive a debrief bollocking over skype from Captain Randazzo?

 

Leet avsim virtue signalling aside, this is a press preview.  the only credentials MS required was proof of a reasonably significant audience.  they give the access to the preview build, and do not control the message.  No different than movie critics being able to see the latest blockbuster before the paying crowds do.  I like it better if MS doesn't try to control the messaging of pre purchase press too much.  And no, "everybody" is not looking for hyper realism.  Myself, I have more interest in proper procedures than I used to, but I wouldn't have developed that interest if it had been mandated to me (obv. I'm not a real pilot)

 

and, as an aside towards being on topic for once, the clouds aren't perfect, but still the best I've seen so far, IMO and in general.

[MDFlier 2,031]

I think you guys are all wet.

https://www.pcgamesn.com/microsoft-flight-simulator/top-seller Apparently, a lot of people like it already. MSFS in its current state is better than any other sim  ever developed at this point in its life cycle. Full stop. It is starting off better than any other sim we've ever had and It will only get better

I'll say it again. I would never develop software for this crowd, Ever. Nothing makes y'all happy.

Stay with X plane or P3d if you don't like it,.

[UAL4life 237]

Meh it could be better if they added some kind of effect when passing through the clouds. 

[MDFlier 2,031]

Yes. It could also be better if the virtual flight attendant would bring me real coffee, too. 

Edited August 2, 2020 by MDFlier

[ThrottleUp 617]

Its a funny looking sim with the Bing photoscenery but apart from that I am excited for it, specially the lineup of planes. The GUI looks amazing (the big fluid globe of Earth) and so does the default flight planner. Im hoping for the little touches - like fade in/out when we fly through clouds and also strobes reflecting off the clouds. 

The clouds look ok to me but I do know where the OP is coming from because in some vids just for an instant some clouds looked a bit cartoony but Im not at all worried because the sim will only get better and better with patches and updates.

Id like to add that we cannot forget that when it comes to stuff like this each one of us responds differently, its so subjective. No point getting worked up about it. Its like crying because someone said they dont like your favorite song. 

[BerndB 349]

On 8/2/2020 at 3:16 PM, MDFlier said:

Yes. It could also be better if the virtual flight attendant would bring me real coffee, too. 

hmm...for sure this will be implemented latest in the first hotfix from ASOBO. Or this would be the only leftover for add-on developers...😏

[BerndB 349]

On 8/2/2020 at 3:26 PM, ThrottleUp said:

The clouds look ok to me but I do know where the OP is coming from because in some vids just for an instant some clouds looked a bit cartoony but Im not at all worried because the sim will only get better and better with patches and updates.

Thank you much. You have understood my intention and hit the nail on it´s head.

[badderjet 181]

On 7/31/2020 at 1:42 PM, Mengy said:

Now the missing water landing effects, THATS an area where I'd love to see huge improvements!

Totally o/t, but me too, especially since the water seems to be completely opaque when the fuselage dives in. Improving that (i. e. adding transparency) might be another big step though, graphics wise.

 

On 7/31/2020 at 3:03 PM, Nyxx said:

Sick to death of the endless nick picking and 90% of it is from people that are not even Alpha/beta testers.

Not even? Are you kidding? So only testers may nit pick and point out things that are wrong from the available information? Jeez...

 

On 8/1/2020 at 9:38 AM, travelabroad said:

I mean, how can you tell the physics are wrong, if you don't know the setup that is being presented?! What if the realism settings are set to 'simple' or they're using/testing out the 'legacy flight dynamics'?

Completely misinformed. There is no such thing as "simple" realism settings anymore. (sorry, couldn't resist 😂) But to add, yes it's very possible to state opinions based on the information, footage, pictures etc. that are available to this day. Guess what, here's 60K posts on a product that, apparently, we can't assess. But that's the point of this forum, somewhat. Otherwise we could wipe this forum clean and we'd have the first thread on the 18^th, when we have "the full information to make qualified assessments". That's really not the way it works.

To the OP's original topic, the look of the clouds changes quite a bit depending on their settings from low to ultra. There's some footage that will show the effects nicely. In general they are unbelievable much better than anything we've had before, and yet I somewhat agree that they sometimes look "wrong", for the lack of a better term, as it's highly subjective. They say the weather system can simulate all kinds of clouds, yet we always see pretty much the same, mostly cumuliform patterns. We see tons of rainbows (which I see almost never irl), a great amount of airplane icing (which I see a bit more often than rainbows irl), but nothing like simply lenticulari or the like (which I see quite a bit more often than icing). It's a very subjective matter but I'm happy to see what we have at the moment and hope for sure it will get improved even more in the future. While I appreciate and always have appreciated all 3PD's efforts, I really think it's a good thing for this sim to be the very best possible out of the box.

[Nyxx 6,993]

nvm you really are not worth the time. lol

Edited August 5, 2020 by Nyxx

[wim123 758]

1 hour ago, badderjet said:

Totally o/t, but me too, especially since the water seems to be completely opaque when the fuselage dives in. Improving that (i. e. adding transparency) might be another big step though, graphics wise.

 

Not even? Are you kidding? So only testers may nit pick and point out things that are wrong from the available information? Jeez...

 

Completely misinformed. There is no such thing as "simple" realism settings anymore. (sorry, couldn't resist 😂)

well sorry to burst your bubble there there are different settings for flight sim reality, someone showed it clearly..

and i def agree with the fact , way way too much nitpicking, but thats to be expected.

[SAS443 1,716]

1 hour ago, badderjet said:

To the OP's original topic...

I really agree with your reasoning (did not quote entire post due to space).

Some posters may call that 'nit picking',  but I think Asobo has in some way  brought this upon themselves when they showcased the advanced weather model and their partnership with Meteoblue (a service myself use before flying IRL). 

It is natural that people ask where are the cirrus shaped clouds, why are CU clouds so dominant? I am pretty sure  one official video showcased Orographic lift (and in theory should support lenticular clouds.)

I have been flying the alpha/beta since alpha 3 and would gladly exchange rainbows for impressive CirruCumulus formations 🤓

But  at the end of day visual wise, nothing is even close to this sim.