48 minutes ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

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

I was in this area (KSRQ) today IRL and it was chock full of storms and cumulus clouds....so not at all an issue in this case.

If only the Live weather could more accurately depict storms and the higher CB's....

53 minutes ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

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.

I've been using REX intermittently. But I'm a bit confused as to the settings for optimal weather and performance (if there's such a thing). Not wanting to derail the thread, but what are your settings? Do you enable "frame rate performance improvements"? 

8 minutes ago, Flic1 said:

I was in this area (KSRQ) today IRL and it was chock full of storms and cumulus clouds....so not at all an issue in this case.

If only the Live weather could more accurately depict storms and the higher CB's....

Rex WeatherForce CB's are amazing and often punch through a high layer of alto stratus, which throw shadows over the cb's.  Stormy days always have layer clouds mixed with the storms that Rex Displays.

Edited June 21, 20223 yr by MrBitstFlyer

Just now, Cpt_Piett said:

I've been using REX intermittently. But I'm a bit confused as to the settings for optimal weather and performance (if there's such a thing). Not wanting to derail the thread, but what are your settings? Do you enable "frame rate performance improvements"? 

No as Frame Rate Performance just deletes all clouds then redraws them!

Here's some nice non cumulous haze effects in California.

2 minutes ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

No as Frame Rate Performance just deletes all clouds then redraws them!

Right. What about "enable persistent weather load"? I guess the alternative would be leaving this off and adjusting the "weather transition rates" manually. 

I must say MSFS does a pretty good job as is. Yes there is certainly there is room for improvements, and definitely new types of clouds would be welcome!

 

7 minutes ago, Todd2 said:

Here's some nice non cumulous haze effects in California.

Looks pretty good! I mean where is sim and where is RL? LOL

3 hours 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...

Jeez... Devon.  I think the community was relatively happy with the current wx system in place at the time, but simply wanted the inclusion of actual winds/clouds, etc being accurately depicted at the arrival airport and correctly conveyed by ATIS - something we had grown accustomed to having in previous sims and seems awfully basic to aviation - not a huge ask IMHO.

I don't think any of us, including myself, could have predicted that the dev's would have to seeming gut, neutur and/or totally revamp the sims current wx system to incorporate something that, in fairness, probably should have been there in the first place.

Regardless,  my biggest beef is the steadfast refusal of the dev's to open up the wx system to 3rd party developers.  If they can't or won't deliver, then at least allow others to fill the void.  If one chooses to use the sim's wx, fine and dandy, but at least allow those who want to pay for an addon have that option.

Another possibility - partner with a 3rd party - they have partnered with others, why not now?  Doing so would have made for one grand 40th anniversary for MSFS for everyone who uses the sim.

1 hour ago, Cpt_Piett said:

Right. What about "enable persistent weather load"? I guess the alternative would be leaving this off and adjusting the "weather transition rates" manually. 

I use Persistent weather load for better transitions, although there is an fps hit at update time. I leave my update time at ten minutes.  I find transitions too fast even at the highest setting of transition rate.

7 hours ago, vonduck said:

Just a quick question, and perhaps some here have tried it... the Level D training simulators that pilots use, are the graphics as good as we have in MSFS or are they generic but accurate? From watching YouTube vidoes they seem to be not so crisp..perhaps not needed as the flight model is what matters? Any ideas?

They suck. Hands down. The runway environment and lights from the airplanes are spot on but the earth and clouds are trash. The flight dynamics are different from the real plane too. It aint the end all be all.

I find this weather/cloud engine realy good, and if it cost a lot of recources and smoothnes it would be better to stay with that we have as the other way around..

cheers 😉

Ignorance is bliss. I love the skies I am getting. I love everything MSFS gives me. 

2 hours ago, irocx said:

Another possibility - partner with a 3rd party - they have partnered with others, why not now?  Doing so would have made for one grand 40th anniversary for MSFS for everyone who uses the sim.

Because they've more than likely got a license agreement with Meteoblue, in fact I'd put money on this being the stumbling block and refusal of Asobo/MS to fully open up the WC (which is fair enough, it's their game and their license/business deals).

10 hours ago, spitzer said:

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

In VR yes, this was practically non existent pre-SU5 then got really bad with that update when they ruined the clouds (Medium level became Ultra in SU5 for VR...!), in a recent update however it has improved a lot so it's not as noticeable (to me) but it is still there in certain situations.

As for the actual clouds, yeah they can look brilliant at times but certainly more variation is needed.