15 minutes ago, HiFlyer said:

I was only able to do so by inputing the maximum 150kts winds, and at any reasonable height, everything looked fine. To find anomalies in the mesh, I had to drop to essentially wavetop height, and the first thing that occurred to me then was, what the heck am I doing on the water on 150kts winds?!

I took the screenshot at 150kts to exaggerate it and make it more obvious, but the glitches begin at around 40-50kts. It is very obvious at an airport very close to the water, like my usual test airport where I took the screenshots.

15 minutes ago, HiFlyer said:

By the way, I was unable to replicate the repeating patterns.

Many others do: https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/water-wave-foam-tiles-repeat-1-9-3/288984

By the way, if you actually drop beneath the waves in insane weather, the wave simulation breaks completely..... But I suspect asobo never intended us to be there.....

It is after all, not a yachting sim.... 🙀

 

4 minutes ago, ChaoticBeauty said:

I took the screenshot at 150kts to exaggerate it and make it more obvious, but the glitches begin at around 40-50kts. It is very obvious at an airport very close to the water, like my usual test airport where I took the screenshots.

It may simply be a tolerance issue. For instance, many people describe Photogrammetry as melted clay (or something else pejorative) but to me, it was simply never meant to be seen at 300 feet.

Likewise, I suspect with this water (or even with the entire sim) the closer you get, even to the trees, the more the illusion of reality begins to falter. If this bothers people, I'm not sure Asobo will find it possible to deliver the level of detail some are expecting coupled with all the things the sim is doing at once, at a framerate people will find acceptable.

Corners have to be cut somewhere, and it seems I'm simply naturally more tolerant, especially when I honestly compare this with what we had previously as a visual depiction of the world.

I part ways here, it seems, but I wish you and others luck in convincing Asobo to devote more resources to the issue.

I just tested this a few moments ago. Yes the new animations work. I and to HiFlyer's point there isnt much "safe" flying going on past a certain wind speed so while it would be nice to fix animations at max winds i can expect them to fix that in a lower order of importance. What i do have an issue with though is the other end of the spectrum. Maybe it has to do with the weather reporting but that 0kts the ocean image is way too flat. I think most would be happy with what the ocean animations look like at at 5  to possibly 10kts as the new 0 kts. Because Ocean swells travel large distances and while the area where you are immediately flying over may have 0kts surface winds you still have some level of wave action due to far traveling swells.

6 minutes ago, HiFlyer said:

It may simply be a tolerance issue. For instance, many people describe Photogrammetry as melted clay (or something else pejorative) but to me, it was simply never meant to be seen at 300 feet.

Likewise, I suspect with this water (or even with the entire sim) the closer you get, even to the trees, the more the illusion of reality begins to falter. If this bothers people, I'm not sure Asobo will find it possible to deliver the level of detail some are expecting coupled with all the things the sim is doing at once, at a framerate people will find acceptable.

Corners have to be cut somewhere, and it seems I'm simply naturally more tolerant, especially when I honestly compare this with what we had previously as a visual depiction of the world.

I part ways here, it seems, but I wish you and others luck in convincing Asobo to devote more resources to the issue.

I think if they had left the water where it was at release instead of trying hard to improve what no one complained about (as far as i know) this would have not been an issue in the first place.

15 minutes ago, ChaoticBeauty said:

I took the screenshot at 150kts to exaggerate it and make it more obvious, but the glitches begin at around 40-50kts. It is very obvious at an airport very close to the water, like my usual test airport where I took the screenshots.

50 knots is certainly far beyond the demonstrated crosswind capability of any of the GA planes or even the Caravan but some of the heavies are going to be rated for that, at least on a dry runway.

1 minute ago, Maxis said:

I think if they had left the water where it was at release instead of trying hard to improve what no one complained about (as far as i know) this would have not been an issue in the first place.

Believe it or not, people were indeed complaining about the original water. (Too flat, not responding enough to wind)

To me, I think Asobos major mistake is paying us too much attention. (I suspect simple reality will force that solicitude to gradually diminish)

At this point I myself think they should just do what they do, and if anybody has non-critical issues, Asobo can either look at them at their leisure, or hand it off to third parties.

5 minutes ago, Glenn Fitzpatrick said:

50 knots is certainly far beyond the demonstrated crosswind capability of any of the GA planes or even the Caravan but some of the heavies are going to be rated for that, at least on a dry runway.

But of course, how many heavies are going to be flying in that weather at near wave-top height?

8 minutes ago, HiFlyer said:

At this point I myself think they should just do what they do, and if anybody has non-critical issues, Asobo can either look at them at their leisure, or hand it off to third parties.

That would seem to make a lot of sense given the already active and skilled participation from community and 3rd party, certainly for issues with the planes. Other stuff with the engine / world I could understand them wanting to keep things proprietary if they want to flog the engine to other game developers. 

As for 'non-critical' issues, if we can all agree on what's critical that would also make a lot of sense. Mind you my idea of critical is simply no CTDs and acceptable performance which is at odds with many who feel things like autopilot functionality and fuel consumption are critical.

As you say, we will never be satisfied.

10 minutes ago, HiFlyer said:

But of course, how many heavies are going to be flying in that weather at near wave-top height?

True - apparently this is quite the thing to do though ...

 

 

19 minutes ago, HiFlyer said:

Corners have to be cut somewhere, and it seems I'm simply naturally more tolerant, especially when I honestly compare this with what we had previously as a visual depiction of the world.

My point is that both the issues I demonstrated as well as the new water texture, missing night reflections and the lack of waves at reasonable wind speeds, were not a problem with the initial release and the first patch. They broke the water with subsequent patches (of course I know that it was not intentional), when it looked perfectly fine initially. Tthe amount of waves and the textures are something subjective, but many people in the forums feel that launch build water looked best and are asking for a revert.

It's not about cutting corners for performance, as those changes were not made for performance reasons. And if we aren't supposed to get close to the water, then are we going to just forget about water landings, the first thing you mentioned in your initial reply? I agree that even in its current state the water looks way better than previous simulators, but it just worked better two patches ago so the bar is higher now. I can wait for a fix and I'm sure they will tackle those issues at some point, but it is undeniable that the water was degraded since launch.

21 minutes ago, Maxis said:

Maybe it has to do with the weather reporting but that 0kts the ocean image is way too flat. I think most would be happy with what the ocean animations look like at at 5  to possibly 10kts as the new 0 kts.

In 1.7.12.0 and the first patch, the water would look like a mirror at 0kts but waves would be added as soon as 0,1kts. In 1.8.3.0 you needed like 20kts for waves to start appearing in preset weather, but in live weather it was the same as before (this indicates that this was a bug and not an intended change). In 1.9.3.0 it's a more gradual transition, but still a bit too flat at lower wind speeds, and then those issues I reported appeared.

25 minutes ago, HiFlyer said:

Believe it or not, people were indeed complaining about the original water. (Too flat, not responding enough to wind)

To me, I think Asobos major mistake is paying us too much attention. (I suspect simple reality will force that solicitude to gradually diminish)

At this point I myself think they should just do what they do, and if anybody has non-critical issues, Asobo can either look at them at their leisure, or hand it off to third parties.

That was their mistake.

When i got my boxed or rather Canned Fs2004 the platform was whatever came in that can and whatever the platform was after install was the platform. Was there service packs eventually?.. yes But the platform was the platform and everyone had to make do with what came in the box. The community went to town on it and it was successful.

Now with this update and patch situation where features are added and bugs are simultaneously introduced. I don't know if i can hold on and manage. For me the initial release of FS2020 was the platform but apparently i have to get used to the developer tinkering with stuff that for me at least doesn't need tinkering. There should be a long term baseline set up where after release the developer is on high alert for bugs to stabilize the core features. After that period has passed and you don't have people clamoring for your attention that x or y is broken then you can start to look at feature development. Too many changes at once going on and they aren't tested to the full range of usage scenarios so they break even more stuff. (YES i know they have acknowledged this) but it leads me to wonder how badly this project was managed in the first place.

So here we are..

Then we have bickering with the camp that was fine with the RTM version till their stuff got broken and is having a !@#$fest about it,,, The camp that thinks its ok and to give Asobo time to fix because of the promise of this new shape shifting platform and the camp that thinks Asobo can do no wrong and think that because the sim works for them Asobo is off the hook and should not get negative press for any of this.

I think most of you know by now where i lie on this issue. But whatever ..nothing i can do but park the word not allowed thing and wait.

Edited October 16, 20205 yr by Maxis

4 minutes ago, Maxis said:

but apparently i have to get used to the developer tinkering with stuff that for me at least doesn't need tinkering. 

I think in the case of the water -- it's possible that Asobo are trying to fix the water-to-hull transition in the amphibian, which would of course translate to other amphib/flying boats too.  That may explain their tinkering with the water.

1 minute ago, Mace said:

I think in the case of the water -- it's possible that Asobo are trying to fix the water-to-hull transition in the amphibian, which would of course translate to other amphib/flying boats too.  That may explain their tinkering with the water.

Which is along the lines of what I was thinking. Also they might be working on boats and planes having wakes, as well as having boats and planes respond realistically to the moving water.

17 minutes ago, ChaoticBeauty said:

And if we aren't supposed to get close to the water, then are we going to just forget about water landings, the first thing you mentioned in your initial reply?

I don't think it's that we're not supposed to get close to the water, rather I think they may not have been concentrating on the outlier possibility of planes trying to land on the water in 50kts and above winds.