8 hours ago, Gulfstream said:

[...] and we're only going up from here!

Knock knock...

Who's there?

The next sim update...

 

jk

2 hours ago, Stearmandriver said:

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with wanting pretty clouds, we all do.

I believe there are those of us who do not dwell on the term "pretty" but instead on "realistic".  And realistic not just in terms of straight out appearance, but in terms of including all cloud types at appropriate altitudes.  How about some volumeteric cumulus and altocumulus and some good old fasion 2D stratus, stratacumulus,  and cirrus, at their respective altitude levels?  Silicus said it very well back on the first page of this topic.

9 hours ago, fppilot said:

I believe there are those of us who do not dwell on the term "pretty" but instead on "realistic".  And realistic not just in terms of straight out appearance, but in terms of including all cloud types at appropriate altitudes.  How about some volumeteric cumulus and altocumulus and some good old fasion 2D stratus, stratacumulus,  and cirrus, at their respective altitude levels?  Silicus said it very well back on the first page of this topic.

This is a very important distinction and other simulators make sure to get correct, 100% of the time.  Understandbly when your customers include professional training.

It's not enough to feel convincing, you need to make sure you have the "runway environment in sight" at precise distances if you are going to toss it in front of professional pilots for training, even as simply the visuals.

That final visible strobe on the "rabbit" better be visible only when it's supposed to be.

I'm sure the teams behind these various simulators (who intend to market to this demogrpahic) have this in mind while they read us rant about "billboard clouds" what whatnot.

MSFS is missing a lot of the upper atmoshpehere. 

Lacking?  Yes and you can tell.

Critical?  Not exactly.

Edited September 27, 20223 yr by Gulfstream

On 9/27/2022 at 6:32 AM, fppilot said:

I believe there are those of us who do not dwell on the term "pretty" but instead on "realistic".  And realistic not just in terms of straight out appearance, but in terms of including all cloud types at appropriate altitudes.  How about some volumeteric cumulus and altocumulus and some good old fasion 2D stratus, stratacumulus,  and cirrus, at their respective altitude levels?  Silicus said it very well back on the first page of this topic.

Sure, all those clouds would be nice and they are slowly reappearing. I was just responding to the seeming claim that cloud appearance is more important to realism than the clouds being volumetric. It isn't. Cloud appearance is a nice to have, but doesn't actually affect how someone would fly an airplane (excepting deviations around convection of course, but that will always be contrived in a sim.)  Volumetric clouds are important for operational reasons, not just "immersion" reasons. 

If only the lighting on the terrain was decent.

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate very much that FS2020 exists, but every time I fire it up (3080 and 4k and ultra settings), the lighting that hits the terrain, especially around noon, is just 'cartoony'.  I've done split-screen youtube videos of people flying in the same area I have the sim going and it is just....meh.  I don't know what it is.     And don't say adjust my contract/saturation, because the youtube videos don't lie.   Again, trying not to nitpick but it's the only thing holding me back from immersion in the sim.

23 minutes ago, nehuge6348 said:

If only the lighting on the terrain was decent.

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate very much that FS2020 exists, but every time I fire it up (3080 and 4k and ultra settings), the lighting that hits the terrain, especially around noon, is just 'cartoony'.  I've done split-screen youtube videos of people flying in the same area I have the sim going and it is just....meh.  I don't know what it is.     And don't say adjust my contract/saturation, because the youtube videos don't lie.   Again, trying not to nitpick but it's the only thing holding me back from immersion in the sim.

I'm reading your post LMAO imagining you throwing a TRS-80 out the window. 😏

6 hours ago, nehuge6348 said:

the lighting that hits the terrain, especially around noon, is just 'cartoony'. 

Agreed and I've used the same word for it. My solution is easy - I just don't use a time around noon. I'll bet in 95% of my simming in MSFS, I have the time set to within 2 hours of sunrise or sunset. Things look much better then, and at night!

2 hours ago, Stearmandriver said:

Agreed and I've used the same word for it. My solution is easy - I just don't use a time around noon. I'll bet in 95% of my simming in MSFS, I have the time set to within 2 hours of sunrise or sunset. Things look much better then, and at night!

Absolutely. That extra bit of darkness and reduction of visual terrain detail puts the sim to max realism.

Hi, I am quite disappointed with live weather after SU10... I always have haze even if the metar reports visibility 9999 and, on landing, I see the runway only 1-2 miles before touch down.

Is there anything I can do?

Thanks.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/6we4cfhipkkwb9o/308747815_10227534674303273_1709790243325935280_n.jpg?dl=0