1 hour ago, Cpt_Piett said:

Absolutely agree on that. I don't want to mess and fiddle around with that replacement mod. Doing enough fiddling around as it is...

There isn't any fiddling to do - easy to install!  One click to turn it on for Goggle, one click to turn it off back to Bing.  In the apps early days there were some issues but the app has progressed a lot since then.

13 minutes ago, Stearmandriver said:

So... I'm staring at the circled area in the pic, trying to decide what is wrong? I'm looking at it on my phone, so maybe I'm missing something? 

But it's not at all uncommon to have a high, thin, transparent layer.  That's exactly the kind of layer we would joke about if it's in the mid-20s: "still above -40, do we need anti-ice? Does this count as a cloud?"

What specifically are you seeing wrong with it? 

It looks nothing like the cloud type it is trying to represent.

4 minutes ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

It looks nothing like the cloud type it is trying to represent.

But I mean... it does to me, in the sense that it's representing a high, thin, transparent layer.  What *specifically* are you seeing wrong with it? Are you operating under the assumption that cirrus always has to have the stereotypical wispy look? 

8 minutes ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

There isn't any fiddling to do - easy to install!  One click to turn it on for Goggle, one click to turn it off back to Bing.  In the apps early days there were some issues but the app has progressed a lot since then.

Highly agree here; no reason not to try the maps replacement mod. That's not to say that Google is better everywhere, but when you find a region where it is, the difference can be quite striking. This includes most of the US.

It's also nice that the new version allows the use of up-to-date Bing imagery as another option. 

4 hours ago, Bobsk8 said:

There are several Youtube creators that discuss recent air crashes, and their choice for the sim  to demonstrate the doomed flights lately has been MSFS 2020.  Viewers  watching these videos are   reminded that this is a simulation and not actual video of the flight. 

The Air Safety Institute in the US uses the sim to depict their case studies. That institute is one of the leading safety proponents for GA in the US, perhaps the world. The sim does a great job visualizing these incidents. 

23 minutes ago, Stearmandriver said:

But I mean... it does to me, in the sense that it's representing a high, thin, transparent layer.  What *specifically* are you seeing wrong with it? Are you operating under the assumption that cirrus always has to have the stereotypical wispy look? 

Clearly they are trying to create cirrus by using a thin layer of cumulus.  I have been a weather enthusiast all my life so I understand how many flavours or cirrus there are.  Every cloud type in MSFS is using cumulus so plenty of room for improvement.

2 minutes ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

Clearly they are trying to create cirrus by using a thin layer of cumulus.  I have been a weather enthusiast all my life so I understand how many flavours or cirrus there are.  Every cloud type in MSFS is using cumulus so plenty of room for improvement.

Exactly. The same strategy is used to depict a stratus layer as well…and very unconvincingly. It is the best they have right now, but leaves ample room for improvement. 

20 minutes ago, snglecoil said:

Exactly. The same strategy is used to depict a stratus layer as well…and very unconvincingly. It is the best they have right now, but leaves ample room for improvement. 

But... you can easily see literally these exact clouds in real life, right? I mean I climb through them frequently.  

I agree more variety will be nice, but what is "unconvincing" about depicting a type of cirrus that often exists? 

Mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, disappointment that it’s clearly just using cumuloforms to try and approximate something else. On the other, clearly they are at least trying to diversify cloud types now so that’s a move in the right direction.

Late to the party on this one and read through a few usual tangents to the OP. Viewing this on an iPad the original image shows high density cirrus cloud. I do not see any straight edges/pixelation/squares that characterized the sky in FS98 or versions with pixelated clouds.

@Noel Gorgeous screen shots!

Edited April 18, 20224 yr by Doering

4 hours ago, Stearmandriver said:

But... you can easily see literally these exact clouds in real life, right? I mean I climb through them frequently.  

I agree more variety will be nice, but what is "unconvincing" about depicting a type of cirrus that often exists? 

I mean…yeah, but it’s not the only type of cirrus. And from experience you know there is a difference in the appearance of a true stratus layer and a statocumulus layer. It’s not the ruining my enjoyment of the sim not having other cloud types depicted, but it’s something that would be appreciated nonetheless. 

From a programming perspective, I can definitely see how it would be difficult to determine the appropriate type of cloud to depict without a weather engine that could determine atmospheric stability likely to produce one type vs another. 

1 hour ago, snglecoil said:

I mean…yeah, but it’s not the only type of cirrus. And from experience you know there is a difference in the appearance of a true stratus layer and a statocumulus layer. It’s not the ruining my enjoyment of the sim not having other cloud types depicted, but it’s something that would be appreciated nonetheless. 

From a programming perspective, I can definitely see how it would be difficult to determine the appropriate type of cloud to depict without a weather engine that could determine atmospheric stability likely to produce one type vs another. 

Agreed. I was just surprised at the amount of anger expressed over what is a perfectly valid depiction of a cloud layer. I can understand appreciating variety, but there isn't anything actually wrong with this. 

Their current weather engine actually does have the ability to understand atmospheric stability. Whether they make use of it or not is a different question, but the meteoblue model does model lapse rate at least, and I think CAPE as well.  Their website produces faux SKEW-T charts created from their predicted lapse rate / stability data.  So the info is accessible to MSFS; we'll see what they choose to do with it.  Obviously the weather system isn't complete yet. 

It's a 10 year project, the sim will be finished in 8 years.......

10 hours ago, Cpt_Piett said:

Who are you anyway to judge that he's wasting his time? I did find the post interesting enough that I bothered chimming in on the discussion. I guess everyone that's posting or lurking in this thread are wasting their time then. Including you 🥴 Heck, I was just about to load up another flight trying out some exciting things that I came up with earlier today, but this thread picked my curiosity. 

And by the way, your "Understand this:" made me think of Gandalf - (things are now in motion that cannot be undone...). He's got the right amount of authority though to be phrasing things like that. Lol.  

It is a waste of time if his objective is to get the attention of Microsoft/Asobo to fix the clouds.  The key people that could fix what the OP wants fixed probably don’t read the posts here at Avsim.  You should read up on the comment chain, it seems like you missed a lot of information.

Right now, the better place to get Microsoft/Asobo to fix the clouds is in the question forum for the next Twitch Q&A: https://forums.flightsimulator.com/c/community/dev-q-a-april-27/348.  If the OP made a post there and it gets upvoted to the top, Jorg/Seb/Martial will likely be asked the question at the next Twitch Q&A and they will have to answer it.  Plus, there is a chance that Jorg/Seb/Martial will read the post before the Twitch Q&A.  The chance that Jorg/Seb/Martial read anything here at Avsim is probably close to 0% (yes, I am exaggerating a little but you get the idea, the key people who can fix these types of issues on the MSFS team probably don't frequent Avsim much, aside from some people in the Working Title team).

Edited April 18, 20224 yr by abrams_tank

13 hours ago, Bobsk8 said:

Sorry, I got Bing mixed up with Google Maps, yes I use the default Maps.  Google is the one that scares me...

The new installer makes it very easy to use , I go back and forth between the two maps and have never had a issue .