Question:  For me in the weeks past the release of SU12 I’ve noticed a very obvious increase in cloud density, layers and even types. Clouds are clearly defined without the popcorn noise so often seen in the past. So for me, great, but I have noticed a 10-20% penalty in frames for all this new cloud goodness. I’m ok with that because my machine tends to run at a solid 60 frames, now it’s a solid 50 frames (LOD 100, most settings ultra, 1440p).

So what am I bellyaching about?  NOTHING, just asking if other folks experiences of late align with mine. 

TIA,

-B

I haven't really noticed a change in types or density.

Nope same fps.

I haven't noticed a change in the clouds nor a change in FPS.

Haven't noticed a change, clouds still poor.

Clouds are great, I just miss some cirrus. Didn't notice any FPS hit.

I haven't noticed any frame hit either.

Jase

Thanks to everyone.  I still like my clouds but I won’t look to them for recent fps hit. Crowd source says “look elsewhere”!
-B

Edited April 6, 20233 yr by btacon

No hit here on high and the fluffies are looking good.  Stay away from ultra however.

sp

1 hour ago, Sky_Pilot071 said:

No hit here on high and the fluffies are looking good.  Stay away from ultra however.

sp

I gave the High setting a go on a flight from Stansted into a rainy Cork and I have to say the clouds looked fantastic, however, I didn't notice the performance increase that was mentioned in another thread. I'll probably stick with High for now. For me performance seems to be based on where I'm flying. I always get maximum performance when flying in Japan for some reason and I always take a hit when flying in the US. Don't know if anyone else notices changes like that.

13 hours ago, btacon said:

Question:  For me in the weeks past the release of SU12 I’ve noticed a very obvious increase in cloud density, layers and even types. Clouds are clearly defined without the popcorn noise so often seen in the past. So for me, great, but I have noticed a 10-20% penalty in frames for all this new cloud goodness. I’m ok with that because my machine tends to run at a solid 60 frames, now it’s a solid 50 frames (LOD 100, most settings ultra, 1440p).

So what am I bellyaching about?  NOTHING, just asking if other folks experiences of late align with mine. 

TIA,

-B

I've had exactly the same experience. The clouds seem a definite step up on pre-SU12, and more dense. I'm also seeing a slight FPS penalty as a result.

Previously an overcast sky wouldn't make any difference in FPS for me, but now that same overcast sky is looking a lot more believable but with a noticeable drop in frames (sorry I don't have the exact numbers). I'm personally very happy with the tradeoff.

FWIW I'm running on a 10700K with RTX 3080 on a 3440x1440 display, with almost all settings on Ultra.

 

Edited April 6, 20233 yr by Redge

Definitely no change that I could tell but who knows.. same cumulus puffs everywhere. Clouds are stale and since they changed them a couple updates after release they have been sub par IMO. It is nice though that the accuracy of where they should be has improved a lot recently - compare to satellite on windy.com for example and clouds are mostly where they should be. Just need a super-update on the looks, types, and more varying cloud heights/thickness, fix overcast, etc.

To me clouds looks better in High settings than before, I don't use Ultra because of the noticeable drop in frames, especial in fog.

8 hours ago, Sky_Pilot071 said:

No hit here on high and the fluffies are looking good.  Stay away from ultra however.

sp

I only use ultra. I can definitely see a difference in quality from high to ultra, and only lose a couple FPS. 

6 hours ago, KERNEL32 said:

Just need a super-update on the looks, types, and more varying cloud heights/thickness, fix overcast, etc.

This!

They are trying to 'morph' cumulus clouds into everything else. There are at least a dozen cloud types missing. Yes, they clouds look ok, but there is the same type everywhere.....