Interesting pics shared on the P3D FB site with hints. Maybe not a Bummer, maybe yes.

https://scontent-vie1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/162855831_10222770861852911_2274189021903896029_o.jpg?_nc_cat=107&ccb=1-3&_nc_sid=b9115d&_nc_ohc=CmS1Xk7x0gQAX_b1UHE&_nc_ht=scontent-vie1-1.xx&oh=9864111321db804fcce10856053c5944&oe=607D86BE

https://scontent-vie1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/163762645_10222770861532903_3787149750722758142_o.jpg?_nc_cat=100&ccb=1-3&_nc_sid=b9115d&_nc_ohc=CCup6gSXJlIAX8C4of8&_nc_ht=scontent-vie1-1.xx&oh=b8f317ed5cd5bd41acd285e335b078f8&oe=607CDCCC

regards

Michael

Edited March 22, 20215 yr by MichaelLowl

They were posted in another thread... probably just some dude messing with TrueSky. Not sure why anyone would break their NDA to post these. Regardless, if LM hasn't implemented something like these screenshots with CB's, multiple layers, etc. a year after V5's launch then that'll be a big fat L for them.

1 hour ago, Chapstick said:

They were posted in another thread... probably just some dude messing with TrueSky. Not sure why anyone would break their NDA to post these. Regardless, if LM hasn't implemented something like these screenshots with CB's, multiple layers, etc. a year after V5's launch then that'll be a big fat L for them.

Even with lots of VolumetricClouds.cfg tweaks I haven't seen any TCU formations like that. His reply afterwards makes it even more suspicious:

As a side note, current trueSKY implementation on P3D v5.1 HF1 already supports up to 4 layers.

Edited March 22, 20215 yr by BiologicalNanobot

That post on FB is full of b***locks.. I would Ignore it.

S.

That cloudscape looks like stuff you see in a Nintendo switch game. I really hope we see better quality than that. We have waited almost 11mo already.

This is how CU buildups should look like, not the blurry mess we are treated with in EA.

*SMH*

EA is an absolute joke at this point. 

11 minutes ago, SAS443 said:

That cloudscape looks like stuff you see in a Nintendo switch game. I really hope we see better quality than that. We have waited almost 11mo already.

This is how CU buildups should look like, not the blurry mess we are treated with in EA.

 

*SMH*

This appearance is what i get with EA off and ActiveSky+ASCA+ENVShade....LOL 😜

15 minutes ago, BerndB said:

This appearance is what i get with EA off and ActiveSky+ASCA+ENVShade....LOL 😜

Yes and thats the crux, isn't it. But I guess LM is gonna LM.

 

35 minutes ago, SAS443 said:

That cloudscape looks like stuff you see in a Nintendo switch game. I really hope we see better quality than that. We have waited almost 11mo already.

This is how CU buildups should look like, not the blurry mess we are treated with in EA.

*SMH*

As someone who made a freeware volumetric cloud add-on for X-Plane, I felt the need to comment.

Volumetric clouds work in a completely different way than texture-based 2D clouds. In order to have a cloud "volume", several layers of noise (usually Perlin and Worley) are combined. While this approach is easy and gives the flexibility a flight simulator needs, it is really hard to have a strict control on cloud shapes as the entire cloud volume is made by noise and other mathematical functions. After a volume function is generated, color and opacity is calculated for each pixel in the screen using ray marching / ray tracing.

Volumetric clouds might be less detailed due to limited control on cloud volume and processing power, however they also have two serious advantages over texture-based 2D clouds: Realistic lighting and lack of rotating textures. First one is obvious, cloud lighting is simply inaccurate and it's impossible to simulate effects like self-shadowing accurately with 2D texture-based clouds. Even add-ons like REX Sky Force can't capture these details due to inherent limitations with 2D texture-based clouds. EA might have its own set of lighting issues, but cloud lighting looks more authentic than any 2D texture-based cloud add-ons I have seen. Second one is also an inherent limitation of 2D texture-based clouds, impostors need to rotate to be orthogonal to the camera all the time, which causes a distracting effect.

I can't return to old 2D clouds anymore, just because of those two main advantages. EA definitely needs improvement, but clouds shapes are already okay. Again, these have nothing to do with LM and even MSFS clouds are a lot less detailed compared to 2D texture-based clouds. Volumetric clouds and 2D texture-based clouds use different methods, it is misleading to directly compare them.

Edited March 22, 20215 yr by BiologicalNanobot

7 minutes ago, BiologicalNanobot said:

but clouds shapes are already okay

And this is where you and me have totally different views 🙂 

I fly with EA b/c of the reasons you mentioned (and I 100% agree with you re: lighting and no more rotating clouds) , but the cloud shapes look extremely generic and artificial.

11 minutes ago, SAS443 said:

And this is where you and me have totally different views 🙂

I should have rephrased it correctly - cloud shapes are okay for a typical volumetric cloud implementation. Not ground-breaking, but not bad either.

11 minutes ago, SAS443 said:

but the cloud shapes look extremely generic and artificial.

Indeed, because they are artificial. While 2D texture-based clouds are most of the time based on photographs of real clouds, volumetric clouds are artificially generated using noise.

Here's how Perlin noise looks like:

I would love having best of the both worlds: Accuracy & detail of 2D texture-based clouds and lighting of volumetric clouds. But I guess it will take several more years for GPUs to allow rendering such clouds at real-time.

Edited March 22, 20215 yr by BiologicalNanobot