Trade some FPS in for increased Cloud Voxel Density?

[cianpars 1,165]

20 minutes ago, abennett said:

I have to say, that I do find the clouds to be awful in MSFS sometimes even on ULTRA. Just landed at Heathrow with this, I have to say, to me it looks pretty horrific and totally unrealistic.

https://imgur.com/a/zDMCuYS

They were brilliant at launch and seem to have been cumulatively downgraded ever since.  I suspect this may have something to do with the fact that they may have been a performance hog.

[scotchegg 4,186]

Some further signs the engine can produce something cirrusesque, but the current meteoblue data may be insufficient or just not integrated well (about the 6:00 mark, as the plane breaks through the clouds).

 

[ThomseN_inc 1,128]

1 hour ago, scotchegg said:

Some further signs the engine can produce something cirrusesque, but the current meteoblue data may be insufficient or just not integrated well (about the 6:00 mark, as the plane breaks through the clouds).

That looks more like something stratocumuluesque.^^

[bvdboomen 256]

12 hours ago, cianpars said:

I suspect this may have something to do with the fact that they may have been a performance hog.

This I guess. I remember people were complaining about it.
But I do not complain about the current status of the clouds. I always remember what I've had in previous sims. That not only goes for clouds BTW.

 

Edited April 2, 2023 by bvdboomen

[Mark1616 47]

A different paradigm may be explored. Instead of increasing the voxel resolution, the clouds could be represented with shapes. There’s enough data in the MB weather model to support a post-processing system which calculates the extent (area and thickness), density, species (Cu, St, Ci, …) and precipitation, consistently. I suspect such a system was actually implemented in MSFS initially. (Btw have you noticed there’s no longer the weather topic group available in the General discussion, in the official MSFS forum?)