On 12/4/2021 at 1:35 AM, Greazer said:

These types of clouds at this altitude don't look accurate IMO. They should have a strong definition to them.  Look like these clouds have been made blurry and hazy.  Probably to improve fps.

These types of clouds at this altitude only look like WIP clouds until XP12 releases. It is most likely possible they will improve until then, and I believe it would be useful you add your feedback here for best visibility: https://feedback.x-plane.com/

Those clouds look like morning fog breaking up on the coast.

8 hours ago, mSparks said:

Thermodynamics

Then you should probably redo your meteorology modules and exam for your own safety.

I'm also a certified meteorologist.  No joke.

I understand what you are saying, that this isn't exactly what natural cloud formations look like.  For a simulation platform, I'll take it.

55 minutes ago, Gulfstream said:

I understand what you are saying, that this isn't exactly what natural cloud formations look like.  For a simulation platform, I'll take it.

I'm saying it isn't anything like any natural cloud formation anywhere ever, because it defies the laws of physics.

I'm not sure what value you think you being OK with that has, but not many round these parts will take it seriously.

55 minutes ago, Gulfstream said:

I'm also a certified meteorologist.

How involved were you with UEA CRU and the subsequent cover up?

Like if I say "light sweet" you say:

____

This afternoon I was mostly

you?

Edited December 6, 20214 yr by mSparks

1 hour ago, mSparks said:

I'm not sure what value you think you being OK with that has, but not many round these parts will take it seriously.

The "interesting" thing with me on these forums is I'm a US CPL, I'm also a certified FAA controller who went through OKC (and thanks to my CPL training, I got sent somewhere interesting .. ever see "Pushing Tin"?), and a meteorologist.  And I was using Flight Simulator in the 80s, not to date myself. 

Now I'm a senior software engineer of all things (lost the medical!).  I belong.

So I won't get into back-and-forth with how specific cloud formations are not rendered in a simulation because the METAR said the clouds were BKN045 and you are seeing what almost looks like an anvil thunderhead.

Think about that from the software engineering side.  That is real-world METAR data rendering 3D clouds that have to be the same across clients.  That gets tricky.

But I digress.

 

Edited December 7, 20214 yr by Gulfstream

23 minutes ago, Gulfstream said:

That gets tricky

So tricky a biology major got it pretty much perfect over 12 months in his spare time.

https://store.thresholdx.net/products/enhanced-skyscapes

You are welcome to be OK with Microsoft, their millions of dollars and hundreds of people dedicated to doing weekly updates failing to get even the simple basics of meteorolgy correct.

But you should understand that here we have higher standards.

Edited December 7, 20214 yr by mSparks

48 minutes ago, mSparks said:

But you should understand that here we have higher standards.

You do realize the weather bugs were fixed in latest build right? And you do realize it can render cumulus clouds? And you do realize it already has rain and snow effects including aircraft ice effects? And you do realize the clouds are 3d not billboards right?

16 minutes ago, Greazer said:

You do realize the weather bugs were fixed in latest build right? And you do realize it can render cumulus clouds? And you do realize it already has rain and snow effects including aircraft ice effects? And you do realize the clouds are 3d not billboards right?

XP11 and MSFS both.

How's their skeletal animation for the winter trees and leaves falling during autumn coming along?

Since this is a seasons topic after all, and we are into winter now.

Edited December 7, 20214 yr by mSparks

3 hours ago, mSparks said:

So tricky a biology major got it pretty much perfect over 12 months in his spare time.

https://store.thresholdx.net/products/enhanced-skyscapes

You are welcome to be OK with Microsoft, their millions of dollars and hundreds of people dedicated to doing weekly updates failing to get even the simple basics of meteorolgy correct.

But you should understand that here we have higher standards.

You spelled meteorology wrong.  

Don't worry about my credentials, I know what I'm talking about even if a cloud in a simulator isn't a true-to-life representation of every raindrop properly adhering to the laws of gravity.  We don't see proper Arcus or mammatus clouds and I am not sure I need them right now while we are all trying to maximize 4k+ framerates.

XP12 won't get you what you are looking for either, it's not possible.  Imagine the software engineering.  Imagine a world where we have true-to-life 3D clouds, that not only adhere to realistic laws of thermodynamics, but appear the same on my screen as your screen.  The particles have to be the same on both platforms, which might be possible if we use sophisticated seed-based noise generators like Perlin noise ala Minecraft ... except that doesn't allow for them to be created for real world weather.  Because you of course you want it so if your friend asks you "why did you just fly into the edge of that cloud?", the response is "I screwed up" and not "I'm nowhere near a cloud".

To do that last part, you'd have to transmit the shape of the clouds, to the horizon, on both systems.  And the more complex the cloud, the more data has to be transferred.  Down to the datapoint of "at X,Y,Z there is water suspended in the atmosphere that will condensate at X Celsius".

And then bring in the subtle heating effects from the sun on the higher droplets, the warmer air rising from the ground on the lower droplets, the wind fields generated that are moving them all around, yadda yadda.

You get the idea.

Edited December 7, 20214 yr by Gulfstream

2 hours ago, Gulfstream said:

Don't worry about my credentials,

I'm not, its very clear where you are on the Dunning Kruger chart. Not an insult, just an observation.

2 hours ago, Gulfstream said:

it's not possible

We are entering the "next gen" world now. Not "what was hip in graphics 15 years ago".

LR just skipped a graphics gen while they got the hard stuff sorted.

2 hours ago, Gulfstream said:

Because you of course you want it so if your friend asks you "why did you just fly into the edge of that cloud?"

Default MMO isn't coming to desktop any time soon, Tyler left, you're stuck with Vatism, IVAO and AutoATC for a while yet.

2 hours ago, Gulfstream said:

To do that last part, you'd have to transmit the shape of the clouds, to the horizon, on both systems.  And the more complex the cloud, the more data has to be transferred.  Down to the datapoint of "at X,Y,Z there is water suspended in the atmosphere that will condensate at X Celsius".

real time volumetric clouds use maps, in XP12s case grib files, Austin went into lots of detail about that while high on acid at the start of:

TLDW: XP12 isnt just slated to match what your friend sees, it will match what you can see from the cockpit of your actual plane while you fly around irl.

Certain other sim did promise that I guess. But unlike anyone working on that sim Austin really does have a pilots licence, I also suspect, unlike the other sim, he can tell the difference between a natural cloud formation and an artists rendering of nuclear fallout.

Edited December 7, 20214 yr by mSparks

Hi Gulfstream,

you will not win this argument 😉 - Well, you won it already if most of us here were the judges, but you will not get your antagonist to stop or concede...so carefully ponder how much effort you want to put into this.

And please don´t judge the "X-Plane crowd" on one prolific supporter here, the normal people on this forum will readily concede that MSFS looks lightyears better than XP11, and will likely look still a bit better than XP12 on the whole. It is just one of the core features of MSFS that had a ton of effort and attention and as you rightfully noticed - financial backing.

One can always make ludicrous claims and then cling to them like a madman just for the sake of the argument. But it isn´t much of an argument if one guy says that black is more bright than white and he has the youtube video to prove it 🤣

So drag this discussion out if you want to - or just bow out and let it be. You have won and everyone except the usual guy knows it.

Cheers, Jan

5 minutes ago, mjrhealth said:

I will never use VR because I live in a "real"world, and nothing comes close to flying a real plane.

Next time you are buzzing through the streets of New York in your Eurofighter Typhoon can I sit in the back please.

2 hours ago, mSparks said:

Next time you are buzzing through the streets of New York in your Eurofighter Typhoon can I sit in the back please.

Endless fake news.

5 hours ago, Janov said:

the normal people on this forum will readily concede that MSFS looks lightyears better than XP11, and will likely look still a bit better than XP12 on the whole. It is just one of the core features of MSFS that had a ton of effort and attention and as you rightfully noticed - financial backing. [...] So drag this discussion out if you want to - or just bow out and let it be. You have won and everyone except the usual guy knows it.

I'm sorry to say but per your definition I'm not a "normal people" then, because the last @mSparks post, his answer to @Gulfstream here, is spot on to me too. I'll try to explain what I think about this below.

@Gulfstream I agree with you that syncing 2 computers with the cloud information as YOU are describing it is probably not feasible easily if you're just looking at the problem from an end result / what's displaying on the screen perspective. @Janov I also agree with you that a ton of effort and attention and financial backing of FS2020 goes into its visuals only (meaning less effort and attention and financial backing of FS2020 goes into what is a "simulator" in essence, a "flight simulator" in addition to that?).

However, whether it is FS2020 or XP12, the cloud rendering technique is the same: ray marching the 3D view and test whether the ray hits a blob of cloud or not (I keep it simple but this is the root of the rendering technique). The resolution of the rendered cloud on the screen depends mostly on the "resolution" to which you're dividing the sky into blobs (i.e. the size of the box you're testing the ray against). The visual definition of the cloud depends mostly on a noise function (the result of a more or less complex composition of noise functions).

To me, but maybe only to me, the key differentiator here will be both the choice of the noise functions for the visual part of the clouds, but also the way you're generating the blobs the ray marching will test against.

1) The FS2020 algorithm seems to be very simple for that matter (my own analysis): Meteoblue is generating weather metadata (temp, humidity, pressure, eventually observation like data such as cloud type) in the form of voxels (they divide the sky in boxes like minecraft) and FS2020 is interpreting these boxes in a certain way to set the parameters needed for the ray marching algorithm. With SU7 they are adding a blending of METAR and Meteoblue, meaning they generate and/or interpolate Meteoblue metadata boxes around airports based on the transformation of METAR data into blob boxes. The look of the FS2020 blobs is not related to the interpretation of the Meteoblue box metadata, it is solely a computer noise based generation for the look of it.

2) The XP12 algorithm is unknown for now, but again, my analysis tells me: the root data is similar, using a grid sky metadata source and METAR around airports. The rendering technique is the same too, based on ray marching the box blobs and using noise functions to shape the box blobs into something looking like condensation. Nothing different than FS2020 in principle and no reason to think this can be less good.

The difference though is that the LR team is not approaching nor thinking of this process in terms of visuals only, but in terms of root conditions. I don't believe the FS2020 team is thinking alike otherwise there would never have introduced some categories of bugs in their depiction/interpretation. Think of the FS2020 air temp bugs, the AGL vs MSL cloud altitude, or even just the fact you can read 3 different wind speed and direction between the wind socks, the simvars, and the gauges.... Some of these bugs are telling me me from both the amateur weather man I am, and the less amateur aviator and developer, that the FS2020 clouds are meant to just be a visual depiction of whatever Meteoblue data is feeding with, and only from a visual perspective regardless of the underlying conditions which are the ones prevailing the very data Meteoblue is ingesting.

What I mean with this for example is that the notion of a weather front is not just a wall of clouds you'd receive in the form of a series of voxels, it is the collision of 2 air masses of different temperatures, with all the associated phenomenons beyond just the clouds visuals. FS2020 would be representing this weather condition only if Meteoblue is correctly dividing the sky and filling the boxes with the appropriate data AND only if Asobo is interpreting this data correctly AND if their per-blob shader is rendering the specific condensation pertaining to this type of box. On the other hand, although XP12 has exactly the same constraints as FS2020 to represent and render this weather condition (dividing appropriately, interpreting data, rendering specific condensation), I believe the main difference between FS2020 and XP12 here lies in the awareness of such process: FS2020 is most likely considering Meteoblue like a black box from which they are rendering an interpretation of clouds based on an interpretation of metadata representing a box of sky, itself based on an interpretation of weather reports and projections, whereas XP12 seems to be doing the very same but is using the NOAA GRIB data and knowledge of the data which builds up the NOAA GRIB representation.

In any case, there is no reason to doubt at this stage XP12 can't represent at least as good cloud visuals as FS2020, and there is a lot of reasons to believe XP12 clouds and weather rendition will be baked with a solid interpretation of weather science and knowledge, both because of the way they describe it, and because the people doing it are actual IFR pilots experienced with both the science behind it (both meteorological and computer), and experienced in encountering weather in actual flights.

PS: to your question @Gulfstream of syncing the visuals amongst players, if you're using the same algorithms with the same data, there is a great chance the visuals will be exactly the same. It is much more efficient both in time/space point of view, and in efficiency point of view, to share the underlying grid data and let each client generate the same image from the same data source, than trying to sync the individual tiny 3D voxels of the entire sky.

NB: please understand the above is not an essay to explain why XP12 is better or why FS2020 is not good, it is just my own speculation of what goes behind the visuals and the reasons why. I might be entirely wrong too but the point is not trying to be right, the point is to foster exchange and knowledge in debating these questions.

Flowing with the recent discussion/debate around here, I do feel "design decisions" and "what is available in the simulator out of the box" are both different things that some are having hard time to grasp.

So as an example, it is obvious that LR will have some hard time in the future to make their out of the box scenery more on par with MSFS however the design decisions of Xplane (from what we know for now) are no less impressive hence the underlying engine is not less capable (for those who are familiar with the SDK).

Here are some more examples; MSFS and Xplane12 both (will for the unreleased latter) have 3d water, however LR designed it to work on the GPU then transfer the data for the CPU hence reaching a level of "what you see is what you get"=better wave interactions.

The same goes for artificial light sources, both are photometric based but Xplane12 will be on par with FAA and real industry standards, lighting is directional hence locating a runway at night is VERY challenging when not on the right angle.

What about trees? Xplane12 will have a translucency material (not to be mistaken with transparency), artists will be able to control the animations without rigging, seasons etc... Last time I checked, MSFS trees animations are an absolute bizarre feature.

And if we revert back to clouds and weather, we will see who will better accurately depict weather once Xplane12 is released because graphics wise this:

 

or this:

 

 

Is not less impressive than MSFS.

There are a lot more examples of just better decisions, it may not be reflected out of the box but it will reflect if 3rd party's will stretch and use capabilities.

Edited December 7, 20214 yr by akita