23 minutes ago, Noel said:

I have to generally agree with this and have so hoped from initial release Asobo would make substantial improvements.  In fact initially I thought it was really in the realm of fine-tuning to get it to very serviceable.  But it needs major work now and it is the most glaringly off part of MSFS because it's so pervasive, so a huge part of sim-time.  We all know ATC and AI traffic management needs lots of work but they pale in comparison to clouds and weather. This being said it can look very convincing--mostly from a distance, unfortunately!  Definite downturn from initial release.  And the weird part:  I was running this on an RTX 2070 Super 8Gb VRAM back then.  I ran clouds on Ultra almost always though certain types of thin diffuse clouds/fog could really stress the GPU so would temporarily drop down to High.   So really it was quite well handled even w/ that hardware. 

 

 

Idk I'm having a hard time with the extreme lack of detail clouds in XP.  I've been trying to fly it often to get things setup how I want.  The clouds are just subtle puffs with no detail.  They have even less detail than the MSFS clouds (and I've been complaining about them post SU5).

I'm genuinely curious how many people have flown near to clouds irl...  They are very detailed.

I do agree xp has the slight edge on atmospheric lighting but unless you have TB's of storage for Ortho textures I can't see myself using it as much as MSFS.

Plenty of time for both sims to grow though!  I've said it before and I'll say it again...it's a great time to be a flight simmer!

12 minutes ago, ryanbatc said:

 

I'm genuinely curious how many people have flown near to clouds irl...  They are very detailed.

 

It really depends on the cloud!

10 minutes ago, sd_flyer said:

It really depends on the cloud!

 

 

Those are all detailed to my eyes (if you look at them closely).  The sim version is just a blur for the most part.  And cumulus....  Totally lacking detail.  Situation far worse in xp12.

Yay!   I was getting really tired of all my add-ons and menu settings working perfectly.   This will give us all a welcome chance to embrace chaos all over again.   I do realize, however, that SOME people's MSFS2020 will actually work perfectly after updating, but those individuals will be amongst the rarefied few.   Good luck everyone! 

8 minutes ago, ryanbatc said:

Those are all detailed to my eyes (if you look at them closely).  The sim version is just a blur for the most part.  And cumulus....  Totally lacking detail.  Situation far worse in xp12.

Well it looks detailed enough to me in a sim 

 

read my lips:

 

50 minutes ago, ryanbatc said:

I'm genuinely curious how many people have flown near to clouds irl...  They are very detailed.

I myself have not flown an aircraft since late 1985.  From 2015 until the start of the pandemic I rode right seat on a number of flights with a friend, who has since sold his 310.  But to respond to the question, how many of us have not flown as a commercial passenger, where exposure to clouds at all levels is a certainty, unless all the window shades are drawn closed on every flight.  The superior textures I have seen in a sim came from REX Skyforce 3D in previous sims.  It appears to be the case that MS/Asobo may have entered into an exclusive agreement that has REX and others locked out (SDK), ignoring technology that had been around for several years.... 😡

18 minutes ago, sd_flyer said:

Well it looks detailed enough to me in a sim 

 

Sorry, but those as cumuliform do not at all look realistic to me.  Looks more like blown-in attic insulation.  Any cloud layer that consistent in altitude and vertical height would be a stratus form cloud type.

Any takers on the need for a Hot Fix? 😛

6 minutes ago, fppilot said:

Sorry, but those as cumuliform do not at all look realistic to me.  Looks more like blown-in attic insulation.  Any cloud layer that consistent in altitude and vertical height would be a stratus form cloud type.

I thought dialog was clouds are “not detailed enough”. I know MSFS suffers from lack of verity of clouds . I think that is major problem

Just now, sd_flyer said:

I thought dialog was clouds are “not detailed enough”. I know MSFS suffers from lack of verity of clouds . I think that is major problem

But some clouds types rendered are not truly representative of those cloud types IRL.  So it is not just an issue of variety.

So, install Win11 22h2 first?

 

scott s.

.

 

 

The "detail" or definition of real life clouds varies infinitely; not just by cloud type, but by individual clouds in a given parcel of atmosphere.  Cumulus clouds can be rigid and chiseled looking like a head of cauliflower, or so soft you can barely see more than an amorphous blob of vaguely vertical development, depending on updraft strength.  

Stratiform clouds can have hard detail in their tops and bases, or can be so soft and diffuse that it's difficult to tell when you're really in them vs out of them. 

Cirrus-based clouds are always wispy but can exhibit a wide range of density and vertical precipitating ("mare's tails".)  

There is no single "right" type of cloud definition.  While the sim can certainly benefit from more variety, it cannot fairly be said that the clouds it contains are "wrong" either (excepting the voxelization you see in some lighting).  It seems like a lot of the loudest complainers about weather in MSFS are trying to compare the cloud appearance to the specific clouds they saw on a specific experience with flight. It doesn't work that way. The clouds are different every day. 

Edited September 21, 20223 yr by Stearmandriver

Can't wait hopefully this leads to updates from Fenix etc and new releases like the King Air.

7 minutes ago, scott967 said:

So, install Win11 22h2 first?

 

scott s.

.

 

 

Yeah, I just got hit with that update. So far I've noticed nothing as being "broke".