9 minutes ago, F737MAX said:

Not all, but most 2D attempts certainly look worse, in my very subjective opinion.

So if clouds are volumetric but look unrealistic and do not include but a small percentage of cloud types that is better?  I prefer something that looks realistic, even if not volumetric, over what lacks realism other than volumetric.  These look like menacing creatures, something out of a video game nearing Halloween.  Time to call in Ghostbusters!

Long way to go.

3 minutes ago, fppilot said:

So if clouds are volumetric but look unrealistic and do not include but a small percentage of cloud types that is better?  I prefer something that looks realistic, even if not volumetric, over what lacks realism other than volumetric.  These look like menacing creatures, something out of a video game nearing Halloween.  Time to call in Ghostbusters!

Long way to go.

Volumetric clouds are far more important for actual simming purposes though, so that the visual experience of breaking out on approach is correctly rendered. 

I don't know where this idea comes from that cumulus clouds can't have a rigid or well-defined look.  Your screenshot just looks like flying on top of a normal cu layer, but here's a few real-world examples gleaned from a quick Google. Are they unrealistic too?

Just now, Stearmandriver said:

I don't know where this idea comes from that cumulus clouds can't have a rigid or well-defined look. 

But I was at 3,000 ft.  What you showed are images of TCUs and CBs and are much taller.  Find those in MSFS.  Still among the missing.

I think cloud depiction has improved at low altitudes as per the release notes.

Been flying over NZ South Island for the last few days, and the weather has been fair all along - mostly clear skies, few clouds. But approaching Christchurch, the METAR reported "Visibility 7000m. Clouds overcast 300ft". I was curious to see how this turned out, as I was about 30mins out and the METAR also noted "Becoming: Visibility 10km or more. Clouds broken 800ft". 

Now, I've no idea how it actually looks in RL Christchurch. But I think it looked convincing and seemed to correspond quite well with the METAR. Some of the clouds are still a bit grainy looking, but overall I think the depiction is fairly good. 

High altitude clouds are a different matter though as they look quite low-res. Some cirrus type clouds at some stage would be awesome!

EDIT: I don't really mind the blend between METAR and "global" weather. I prefer having accurate weather at the departure and destination airports so I can plan my flights properly, using real-world weather info (I'm using windy.com). In the situation above, I didn't notice any abrupt weather changes. It was like flying from an area with clear skies (Queenstown) into an area with low clouds. This is handled very differently with REX, as they have a "global" type of weather with gradual transitions that IMO are not handled very well. I much prefer the way Asobo have done it. Also, it seems they are constantly trying to improve the transitions between METAR and non-METAR areas ("Added interpolation out of METAR data when getting away from the METAR data (distance, altitude or time" - SU10 release notes). 

Edited September 23, 20223 yr by Cpt_Piett

1 hour ago, fppilot said:

So if clouds are volumetric but look unrealistic and do not include but a small percentage of cloud types that is better?  I prefer something that looks realistic, even if not volumetric, over what lacks realism other than volumetric.  These look like menacing creatures, something out of a video game nearing Halloween.  Time to call in Ghostbusters!

Long way to go.

Volumetric Clouds is a newborn Weather Baby. Asobo are the 1st  that created a "professional" Multi-layer cloud system with great performance. And i used the "professional" word as Flight Simulation urgently needed a Pro Gaming company to create a High-end Visual environment for Aircrafts. Needs patience, as MSFS has potentials for a great future here and nobody wants to return to 2d Billboard photos 

 

 

I'm not gonna waste my time arguing with someone that wants to go back to 2D cardboard clouds........

2 hours ago, fppilot said:

But I was at 3,000 ft

Yes, and your screenshot looks like it. You're flying over a simple field of developing fair-weather cu.  It looks completely normal. 

1 hour ago, Krakin said:

I'm not gonna waste my time arguing with someone that wants to go back to 2D cardboard clouds........

That is a lightyear from what I have said. I said nothing about going back. 

Mentioning a successful developer does not justify such twisting.  I badly want volumetric clouds as well.  But I want them to be realistic.  Volumetric for the sake of bragging volumetric is nothing until all cloud types are rendered, in realistic color, shape and with each type rendered at reported and appropriate altitudes.  That is clearly not the current state and Silicus summarized that very well a couple of pages back in this topic.  Until then I would take realistic  2D over unrealistic 3D, but I do not have that choice. I would welcome that choice in the interim.

 SU10 showed me some significant improvement during my first two SU10 flights.  The improvements I observed were with some but not all of the clouds being rendered.

The developer I mentioned, REX, developed a full assortment of cloud types and rendered them in a realistic manner with all cloud types at appropriate altitudes, though in 2D.  They understand realistic.  Asobo/MB appear to understand volumetric.

 

Edited September 24, 20223 yr by fppilot

1 hour ago, Krakin said:

I'm not gonna waste my time arguing with someone that wants to go back to 2D cardboard clouds........

You do realize that the images you posted are 2D......., and your monitor displays 2D?  The 3D illusion is likely created by coloring and shading. I would expect that someone with a full compliment of existing 2D textures and an understanding of where and when they belong would quickly adapt. 

3 hours ago, Cpt_Piett said:

I think cloud depiction has improved at low altitudes as per the release notes.

 

Agree. Thank you. Now lets see them find an avenue or avenues to progress more rapidly.  This is more than 2 year in!

10 hours ago, fppilot said:

100% spot on with that post.  What is there in MSFS shows some significant improvements! But so much is not there.  "Yet" is my concern.  I just sincerely hope "Yet" is real.

 

Rex gets pretty close 🙂

7 hours ago, lwt1971 said:

current alternative sims are positively cartoonish (even outside of that standard, clouds rendering in a certain new sim is cartoonish but I digress lol)

The other sim you speak off is just a few weeks into early access, so I think it fair to give it some time - MSFS has been in the wild for two years and some people don't seem to appreciate what has been achieved so far.  If you are waiting for skies that look exactly like what you see outside your window, you will still be complaining years from now.  I have posted a lot of cloud photos, both positive and negative, but the trend in MSFS is steady progress.  All the way through SU10 I was seeing good progress on the clouds.

If I wanted to (like we all could) I could post good and bad images from any sim - as a FLIGHT SIMULATOR enthusiast, I'll take the good where I can find it.  Have a look at this video.  I had just passed through a low pressure system, just clearing the rain at the warm front.  Behind the aircraft is the low cloud at the warm front.  Ahead the cloud base can be seen rising to a medium overcast and then to a high overcast.  In the distance can be seen clear skies ahead of the low pressure.  This is an example where progress in the weather can be seen, despite the fact you could post an image of poor clouds.

 

26 minutes ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

Rex gets pretty close 🙂

Are these with presets or actually though MSFS realtime live weather?. I'm still figuring out how they managed this.

Edited September 24, 20223 yr by jbdbow1970

Just now, jbdbow1970 said:

Are these with presets or actually though or MSFS live weather?. I'm still figuring out how they managed this.

I was using live weather.  Very impressive what REX has achieved!

5 minutes ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

I was using live weather.  Very impressive what REX has achieved!

Well the weather api is locked out, thats the part i'm trying to figure out and why is Active Sky not on this. They  must have an outside source for metar.

Edited September 24, 20223 yr by jbdbow1970