I read these posts about low rez MSFS clouds but at the high setting at FL 280 they look SO good.  These are the best looking clouds that I've seen in any sim.   Please tell me what I am missing.  

Ok the Cirrus clouds are MIA but this post is not about that.

Cheers

sp

 

Edited April 2, 20233 yr by Sky_Pilot071

The clouds are acceptable at 'high' setting, but really shine on 'ultra'. The overall weather depiction has really improved over the last year or so, so kudos to Microsoboblue for that.

I'm still hoping we get cirrus someday, though. 😇

I get that not everyone has an AMD 5900X or a 3060TI but complaining about High textures for volumetric clouds is just not happening for me.

sp

Hmm, I dunno, msfs clouds can look absolutely great sometimes, and also sometimes absolutely awful.

37 minutes ago, Sky_Pilot071 said:

I read these posts about low rez MSFS clouds but at the high setting at FL 280 they look SO good.  These are the best looking clouds that I've seen in any sim.   Please tell me what I am missing.  

Cumulonimbus clouds, Tornado clouds and Cirrus clouds.

1 hour ago, Sky_Pilot071 said:

I read these posts about low rez MSFS clouds but at the high setting at FL 280 they look SO good.  These are the best looking clouds that I've seen in any sim.   Please tell me what I am missing.  

Ok the Cirrus clouds are MIA but this post is not about that.

Cheers

sp

 

Do you ever pay close attention to clouds, and particulary at altitude? What is your locaton in the world?

 

 

Edited April 2, 20233 yr by fppilot

IMHO the "ultra" clouds look too grey and have too much of an ash effect. "high" is the best you currently can get.

Are cirrus on the wishlist btw?

Edited April 2, 20233 yr by Soulflight

10 minutes ago, fppilot said:

Do you ever pay close attention to clouds, and particulary at altitude? What is your locaton in the world?

 

 

I fly in the Pacific Northwest and know what voxels are and these clouds definitaly don't need them.  If I have to pay any more attention to them then the really don't need help IMO.

sp

 

Edited April 2, 20233 yr by Sky_Pilot071

I agree, on high the clouds usually look excellent. Not always. And I wish for more variety. Also, I prefer to enjoy what the sim has to offer and don't examine every cloud with a microscope. 

Performance on high is also great. This is with Live Weather. I never use "presets".

3 hours ago, Soulflight said:

IMHO the "ultra" clouds look too grey and have too much of an ash effect. "high" is the best you currently can get.

Are cirrus on the wishlist btw?

Agree on that.

On a 55” display the ash effect shows a lot while on a 27” display it looks way better.

Also the use of DLSS 3 / balanced is not the most optimal way to see the best looking clouds. Although it depends on how high you fly over the clouds….

I can't really tell the difference between clouds @ high and ultra. Which is lucky for me, cus Ultra clouds really tank fps. They definitely look a lot worse @ medium though.

Edited April 2, 20233 yr by s0cks

19 hours ago, Greazer said:

Cumulonimbus clouds, Tornado clouds and Cirrus clouds.

They had realistic looking cumulonimbus in the past - at least occasionally. Accurate, highly detailed cirrus (especially cirrocumulus) will probably require some kind of hybrid cloud system using textures. I don’t think it is possible to create detailed thin clouds using purely volumetric techniques.

I have my clouds set to high too and they look amazing IMO. If I set them to ultra, I do start to get frame drops with my 3070TI. Otherwise, I get a solid 60fps no matter what the cloud coverage is with them set to high.

I find high looks same as ultra. The extra performance also helps.

Those using high vs ultra thanks for mentioning. Using ultra almost since ever and will dial it back a notch to see whether it’ll give me some more cpu/gpu power for other stuff