First such type that I recall seeing in quite awhile, if ever. Climbing out this morning on my way to KSLC in my FSW C414 Chancellor Ver 2.7.0 FINAL I hit the bottom at about 5500  MSL. Exited and on top at about 7500 MSL. Everything looked pretty much as you would expect. Flat and solid at the bottom, grey and soupy inside, and nice  white puffy top. Very satisfying. 
 

Any other SU10 users seeing similar, or was this a one time random event? 😃

-B

Edited July 17, 20223 yr by btacon
Alt correction

Pics?

The cloud variations in the beta are far improved over SU9.

8 minutes ago, MarcG said:

The cloud variations in the beta are far improved over SU9.

Agreed, imo the atmosphere and clouds look much much better… variation and visually. 

Edited July 17, 20223 yr by Ridvan Celik

1 hour ago, Ricardo41 said:

Pics?

No. But I do have a video, just over 3 min that portrays what I saw and experienced quite accurately. I’m about to take a son to work. In a couple of hours I will YouTube it and post it back here. 
-B

Edited July 17, 20223 yr by btacon

The clouds sure have improved in SU10.  This screenshot was on approach to Mumbai.  I broke out of a high overcast to see this.  

Yes, the clouds have improved. The problem now is there are many airports where there are no clouds even if the metar shows various layers of clouds. But I'm sure they will fix it.

Clouds, ATC & AI, airport services...

It's all in the good way !

The big question is: Are there other cloud types, other then just variations of cumulonimbus?

Altocumulus

Altostratus

Cirrocumulus

Cirrostratus

Cirrus

Cumulus.

Nimbostratus

They insist it is a simmers sim, but neglect some of the bases in weather simulation. They did many things right, but failed with clouds so far (I do not use the beta, so maybe they improved).

The cloud types so far are 'game clouds', not 'sim clouds', meaning, not very realistic, they might look pretty, but not according to rw.

Edited July 17, 20223 yr by Silicus

1 hour ago, Silicus said:

They insist it is a simmers sim, but neglect some of the bases in weather simulation.

I think this represents a huge gap between what is expected and what is realistically possible with the technology we have today.

You see, the clouds we have now are done using a process called raymarching, in which cloud volumes are coarsely simulated by using various types of fluffy algorithmic noise and then "marching" rays of light through them in a GPU shader. However, the cloud volumes themselves are not being simulated granularly, in that all the little whisps and puffs you see are being dynamically computed in a fluid dynamics kind of way. The clouds change shape because the noise formula has a time component to it.

Just getting whispy and thin cloud shapes is an enormous challenge, because the types of noise algorithms applicable to this technique don't tend to lend themselves to these types of shapes. So that advancement is already a huge white-paper level leap forward in the technology that most lay folks sorta cast off as just "well, yeah, those should have always been there".

Distinguishing between and generating all the various subtle distinctions of the more similar cloud types is an even more complex algorithmic challenge that needs yet another generational leap in GPU algorithm research. This stuff is far far more difficult than folks realize, and this technique in general was relegated to very much very non-real-time rendering programs until as recently as about 6 or 7 years ago. This is only the 3rd or 4th consumer software in this category to even have implemented the technique.

I think folks will need to have a lot more patience and understanding: this is very much the bleeding edge of tech in this area, and there are no magic bullets or wands to wave to make it happen other than a lot of white paper level research and time.

It will get there, but it's not just a single company effort, this is a whole industry effort working together and sharing these techniques as this way of doing things is explored more and more in real-time graphical applications.

6 hours ago, btacon said:

First such type that I recall seeing in quite awhile, if ever. Climbing out this morning on my way to KSLC in my FSW C414 Chancellor Ver 2.7.0 FINAL I hit the bottom at about 5500  MSL. Exited and on top at about 7500 MSL. Everything looked pretty much as you would expect. Flat and solid at the bottom, grey and soupy inside, and nice  white puffy top. Very satisfying. 
 

Any other SU10 users seeing similar, or was this a one time random event? 😃

-B

You look down the whole time while going up through the "bottom" of the layer and "into" the cloud deck? Not that I believe you but ever since like SU3, there has not been a "true" overcast you can always see down through the cloud to the ground while ascending through the "layer" then all of the sudden once you break through the "top" then you cannot see through to the ground anymore. Always go to outside view and look top-down from that perspective to see what I mean. Not sure if this is a bug or limitation once Asobo made the xbox and METAR changes.

What annoys me the most is the transparency of most of the clouds. Especially the partly cloudy variety. Totally transparent and although we cannot normally see through them farther away, as soon as one approaches close enough to any said cloud in live weather, it becomes transparent so much so that you can see scenery or whatever right through them.

When I first loaded up SU10 I though there may have been improvements but I think I suffered placebo effect.

22 minutes ago, MattNischan said:

I think this represents a huge gap between what is expected and what is realistically possible with the technology we have today.

You see, the clouds we have now are done using a process called raymarching, in which cloud volumes are coarsely simulated by using various types of fluffy algorithmic noise and then "marching" rays of light through them in a GPU shader. However, the cloud volumes themselves are not being simulated granularly, in that all the little whisps and puffs you see are being dynamically computed in a fluid dynamics kind of way. The clouds change shape because the noise formula has a time component to it.

Just getting whispy and thin cloud shapes is an enormous challenge, because the types of noise algorithms applicable to this technique don't tend to lend themselves to these types of shapes. So that advancement is already a huge white-paper level leap forward in the technology that most lay folks sorta cast off as just "well, yeah, those should have always been there".

Distinguishing between and generating all the various subtle distinctions of the more similar cloud types is an even more complex algorithmic challenge that needs yet another generational leap in GPU algorithm research. This stuff is far far more difficult than folks realize, and this technique in general was relegated to very much very non-real-time rendering programs until as recently as about 6 or 7 years ago. This is only the 3rd or 4th consumer software in this category to even have implemented the technique.

I think folks will need to have a lot more patience and understanding: this is very much the bleeding edge of tech in this area, and there are no magic bullets or wands to wave to make it happen other than a lot of white paper level research and time.

It will get there, but it's not just a single company effort, this is a whole industry effort working together and sharing these techniques as this way of doing things is explored more and more in real-time graphical applications.

Thanks for the explanation Matt!

I think the best solution is to implement the clouds that are the most common, and that can be implemented with today's current technology without a big hit to the FPS. I think if the specific clouds type isn't as common, or the technology isn't there to implement them yet, or the cost to FPS would be too great if there was an attempt to implement them.  So I don't think those clouds should be prioritized.

Of course, if there is a cloud type that is common, and the technology is available to implement it, and the cost to FPS is not that great, that type of cloud should be prioritized.

11 minutes ago, KERNEL32 said:

You look down the whole time while going up through the "bottom" of the layer and "into" the cloud deck? Not that I believe you but ever since like SU3, there has not been a "true" overcast you can always see down through the cloud to

Very true observation and while it exists (and I look specifically for that gap) you will see just how much in my soon to be published video. Nothing special, I ain’t Cecil B DeMill but it does illustrate the topic adequately. 
 

-B 

 

Edited July 17, 20223 yr by btacon

Here is the video I captured

 

 

46 minutes ago, MattNischan said:

You see, the clouds we have now are done using a process called raymarching

Well, you see, why does Rex Weather Force (I own it, I don't like it, because of the stutters when it refreshes the weather and because of a bunch of other things) have more accurate cloud depiction??? They have the cloud types much more accurate (by no means perfect) in many instances. I am not asking for perfection, I just have the feeling Asobo/MSFS dumbs down certain things in the sim, which technology wise is could be much more advanced..... 

Edited July 17, 20223 yr by Silicus