Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Todd2

Are clouds the best ever now? I'm impressed.

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Looks stunning to me. I dont really care about numerous more types of clouds needed. It’s always impressing me every time I fly. 
 

there is still this overcast issue with light poles. Have a look at airports as you taxi past them under overcast. 

Edited by flyhalf
  • Like 3

Regards,

Max    

(YSSY)

cd8dun-4.png +RTX 3070ti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, regis9 said:

They do look gorgeous, but could look even more gorgeous with a variety of cloud types implemented.  Hopefully we get there eventually.  

This is why I often fly with REX Weatherforce - it displays more cloud types which enhances the flight in some circumstances. Of course it has its negatives but I'm happy to have the choice.

  • Like 1

Intel i9-10900K @ 5.1Ghz,  Nvidia 2080ti 11Gb, 32Gb Ram, Samsung Odyssey G7 HDR 600 27inch Monitor 2560x1440, Windows 11 Home

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, spitzer said:

Depending on lightning conditions my clouds can be still very pixelated and grainy. Is it just me? 

Nope.


Intel i9-10900K @ 5.1Ghz,  Nvidia 2080ti 11Gb, 32Gb Ram, Samsung Odyssey G7 HDR 600 27inch Monitor 2560x1440, Windows 11 Home

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CLE_AA-5B_GrummanTiger said:

Clouds are the one thing I set permanently on Ultra.

I don't think the team at Asobo were lazy at all. I think some people may underestimate the difficulty of creating such a complex, unpredictable, and dynamic weather system. I mean, there are super computers dedicated to weather. It stands to reason that to do anything further with clouds is just asking for trouble in the form of melting PC's. I think what they achieved with MSFS is nothing short of remarkable.

I get that people want more, bigger, better, and badder things, but we're limited by technology at the moment. Calling a talented team of developers "lazy," I think is inaccurate, to say the least.

Although I surely don't agree with that comment at all about Asobo being "lazy", I do want to add that the realistic look, variety and overall feel of the live weather system was fine at release. It had it's issues, yes but they degraded all the clouds (XBOX) then they hacked the system by adding METAR an messed up a beautiful organic live weather system. Don't really want bigger and badder, just what was there on release, ya know?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CLE_AA-5B_GrummanTiger said:

Clouds are the one thing I set permanently on Ultra.

I don't think the team at Asobo were lazy at all. I think some people may underestimate the difficulty of creating such a complex, unpredictable, and dynamic weather system. I mean, there are super computers dedicated to weather. It stands to reason that to do anything further with clouds is just asking for trouble in the form of melting PC's. I think what they achieved with MSFS is nothing short of remarkable.

I get that people want more, bigger, better, and badder things, but we're limited by technology at the moment. Calling a talented team of developers "lazy," I think is inaccurate, to say the least.

I don't see why much more processing power is required to display a stratus or cirrus cloud instead of a cumulus. Rex Weatherforce can display more cloud types than default live weather.

  • Like 3

Intel i9-10900K @ 5.1Ghz,  Nvidia 2080ti 11Gb, 32Gb Ram, Samsung Odyssey G7 HDR 600 27inch Monitor 2560x1440, Windows 11 Home

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

I don't see why much more processing power is required to display a stratus or cirrus cloud instead of a cumulus. Rex Weatherforce can display more cloud types than default live weather.

Exactly. They hacked up the organic live weather by #1 degrading quality of clouds (XBOX update) and then really tossed it when they tried to add METAR.

Even when the live weather clouds turn up a rare nice act, the weather always seems to break apart really fast it's like the blue sky gods are always pushing the bad weather away. Clouds molt and dissipate like putting liquid onto cotton candy.

It's like Asobo cannot give us bad weather conditions because too many people would complain they cannot see or would crash because of "adverse" conditions. Welcome to what would be a "simulation". Maybe some day? Maybe a on/off option (Simulation mode=ON?). The visibility is always way too "clean", real world rarely has visibility and air quality as beautiful as it shows in MSFS. We need more realistic "dirty air". Not sure how else to describe that.

REX does a good job adding in Aerosol in conditions that warrant it (i.e. high humidity). What I do many times is start my flight with MSFS live weather on, then turn it off "clear skies" - THEN i BOOT UP rex and let the weather load. Then I turn on LIVE weather again and let REX run in the background. It actually updates the visibility (but obviously does not update clouds, winds, temp, etc.) but for some reason MSFS allows REX to run and still update visibility depending on what the nearest METAR has. Usually this gives a nicer blend of real world conditions.

Edited by KERNEL32

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

I don't see why much more processing power is required to display a stratus or cirrus cloud instead of a cumulus. Rex Weatherforce can display more cloud types than default live weather.

Probably not, but (don't know the answer to this) is data available on a worldwide basis to say what types of cloud are present?

G


Gary Davies aka "Gazzareth"

Simming since 747 on the Acorn Electron

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, Gazzareth said:

Probably not, but (don't know the answer to this) is data available on a worldwide basis to say what types of cloud are present?

G

I wish Asobo would hire Weather coding experts much like they have done for other areas of MSFS. Yes, with the right data one could easily use data from (Asobo partner with?) a website such as this -> https://www.lightningmaps.org/#m=oss;t=3;s=1;o=0;b=0.00;ts=0;y=38.891;x=-50.9326;z=4;d=2;dl=2;dc=0; or perhaps Meteoblue already has lightning data like that...?

use this data to possibly show "live" lightning strikes just like they do live air traffic. A weather programming expert could also safely assume and create cumulonimbus and towering cumulus (along with precipitation) in the area around these lightning strikes because it's pretty much 100% guarantee you need to have strong towering cumulus to have lightning, right?

And for other types of clouds I'm certain there are ways to discern what type of cloud is in the area. Meteoblue has the data and shows clouds low/medium/high along with bases and tops. Temperature and humidity could be used in conjunction with other factors to determine cumulus (typically rising air - higher temps and humidity), stratus (colder temps at ground), and so on.

Edited by KERNEL32
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
31 minutes ago, Gazzareth said:

Probably not, but (don't know the answer to this) is data available on a worldwide basis to say what types of cloud are present?

G

No. This would only be possible using the dynamic weather system they first implemented along with a lot of guesswork in deciphering available data on clouds and satellite imagery to get the initial picture.

A next gen weather engine, with lenticular clouds and microbursts and anvils where the rain hits you from below, will only happen when ASOBO relies on internal dynamic physics. Personally I don't see that happening by this products end of life due to the initial complaints levied against the launch version of the dynamic weather engine. The most likely scenario is we'll first see some of these features either in MSFS 2 / MSFS 2030, or in an addon using its own hand built weather engine, using its own data, entirely decoupled from meteoblue/ASOBO.

This is one of those times where I would be thrilled to be proven wrong. Please, ASOBO, make a liar out of me.

Edited by WestAir
  • Like 1

Take-offs are optional, landings are mandatory.
The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire.
To make a small fortune in aviation you must start with a large fortune.

There's nothing less important than the runway behind you and the altitude above you.
It's better to be on the ground wishing you were in the air, than in the air wishing you were on the ground.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The community collectively asked for Metars, and we got them. Predictably, and without mentioning our own part in the situation, we are now complaining about the addition of the very thing, we originally complained was missing.

Jeez...

  • Like 10

We are all connected..... To each other, biologically...... To the Earth, chemically...... To the rest of the Universe atomically.
 
Devons rig
Intel Core i7 8700K @ 5.0GHz / 32.0GB G.SKILL TridentZ Series Dual-Channel Ram / ZOTAC GAMING GeForce® RTX 2080 Ti Triple Fan / Sound Blaster Z / Oculus Rift VR Headset / Klipsch® Promedia 2.1 Computer Speakers / ASUS ROG SWIFT PG279Q ‑ 27" IPS LED Monitor ‑ QHD / 2x Samsung SSD 850 EVO 500GB / 1x Samsung SSD 860 EVO 1000GB / 5 other regular hd's with up to 10 terabyte capacity each / Windows 10 Pro 64-bit / Gigabyte Z370 AORUS Gaming 5 Motherboard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, HiFlyer said:

The community collectively asked for Metars, and we got them. Predictably, and without mentioning our own part in the situation, we are now complaining about the addition of the very thing, we originally complained was missing.

Jeez...

While there was a large vocal voice fighting for METARS, you'll find many others were also opposed. ASOBO chose which voice to listen to, rather than the third option of a METAR toggle.

As an aside, I think venting frustrations that we collectively shot ourselves in the foot is fine. Not like we can do literally anything else about the situation.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Take-offs are optional, landings are mandatory.
The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire.
To make a small fortune in aviation you must start with a large fortune.

There's nothing less important than the runway behind you and the altitude above you.
It's better to be on the ground wishing you were in the air, than in the air wishing you were on the ground.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The y look much better now.

Approach to KSRQ this afternoon:

Screenshot-156.pngScreenshot-158.pngScreenshot-159.pngScreenshot-161.pngScreenshot-163.png

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CFIJose said:

The y look much better now.

Your pictures illustrate the issue - cumulus, cumulus, cumulus!

I'll agree with most simmers MSFS can generate some lovely skies when those skies just contain cumulus.  I start every flight with Live Weather, but often switch to Rex Weatherforce because I know I will see multi layers of different cloud types.  Of course I then get a global cloud layer, but often this is more satisfying than a poor live weather depiction with local weather.

Every now and then Live Weather throws up a cloud other than cumulus that looks good. I have seen some very high cirrus type clouds, so I am hopeful change is coming.

  • Like 2

Intel i9-10900K @ 5.1Ghz,  Nvidia 2080ti 11Gb, 32Gb Ram, Samsung Odyssey G7 HDR 600 27inch Monitor 2560x1440, Windows 11 Home

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with the two main points made, the clouds look very good (on ultra!) and we could use different types of clouds. If they could add just two type of clouds I think it would make an exponential difference on what the rendered skies can look like. I like to keep expectations low. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, NismoRR said:

I agree with the two main points made, the clouds look very good (on ultra!) and we could use different types of clouds. If they could add just two type of clouds I think it would make an exponential difference on what the rendered skies can look like. I like to keep expectations low. 

I used active sky for years in P3D. You could select the number of cloud layers you wanted, and if you selected more than two or three different layers, the FPS would go into the dumpster for many people. I would imagine the same thing would happen with MSFS. 

  • Like 1

spacer.png

Bob Cardone         MSFS 2020 , Fenix A320, Milviz C 310 , Kodiak , PMDG DC6,   Carenado Seminole,  Mooney, JF Arrow, Simple Traffic  

TrackIR   Avliasoft EFB2    ATC  by PF3    FlyVirtual.net  CLX PC

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

  • Tom Allensworth,
    Founder of AVSIM Online


  • Flight Simulation's Premier Resource!

    AVSIM is a free service to the flight simulation community. AVSIM is staffed completely by volunteers and all funds donated to AVSIM go directly back to supporting the community. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. Thank you for your support!

    Click here for more information and to see all donations year to date.
×
×
  • Create New...