4 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

It’s up to Asobo to create a comprehensive SDK so Hi-Fi can produce high quality clouds just as they did for FSX and P3D

You mentioned you do not use volumetric clouds in P3D instead using the 2D sprites based clouds instead which is what HiFi worked with in FSX/P3D.  All that MSFS uses is volumetric clouds.   I mentioned in a thread w/ Damian on board that what really needs to happen to get anywhere near the kind of morphology variability that 2D clouds afford, volumetric clouds in MSFS need to ramp up in resolution, and Damian did not contest that other than to comment that processing demand goes up accordingly, of course, and that HiFi experimented w/ what sounded like a hybrid approach which I think he said they abandoned.  I really wonder what any 3rd party can bring to the table w/o addressing cloud resolution first and that, according to Damian, is in Asobo's hands.  Because of the obsession amongst many here with ultra high frame rates one might believe there isn't a lot of headroom to exploit for ramping up cloud resolution, which is very unfortunate.  So no, a comprehensive SDK will not allow HiFi to produce "high quality clouds" in MSFS.

4 minutes ago, Noel said:

You mentioned you do not use volumetric clouds in P3D instead using the 2D sprites based clouds instead which is what HiFi worked with in FSX/P3D.  All that MSFS uses is volumetric clouds.   I mentioned in a thread w/ Damian on board that what really needs to happen to get anywhere near the kind of morphology variability that 2D clouds afford, volumetric clouds in MSFS need to ramp up in resolution, and Damian did not contest that other than to comment that processing demand goes up accordingly, of course, and that HiFi experimented w/ what sounded like a hybrid approach which I think he said they abandoned.  I really wonder what any 3rd party can bring to the table w/o addressing cloud resolution first and that, according to Damian, is in Asobo's hands.  Because of the obsession amongst many here with ultra high frame rates one might believe there isn't a lot of headroom to exploit for ramping up cloud resolution, which is very unfortunate.  So no, a comprehensive SDK will not allow HiFi to produce "high quality clouds" in MSFS.

I think you're mistaken about what Active Sky is and focuses on.  We've never focused on graphics/clouds in our weather add-on/engine.  "High quality cloud graphics" is not part of Active Sky, never will be.  We focus on data, realism, experience and interaction with said data/weather conditions.  The discussion regarding our experiences was related to another product line and our development struggles (Cloud Art for XP11, which we chose not to release due to unrealized adequate performance and desire to not release a bad product).

So, yes, cloud/environment/graphics depiction is in Asobo's hands and should be, IMO, and if we had SDK/API access, we could focus on weather data/depiction/effects/interaction for our target market of discerning realism-focused pilots and simmers, like we've been hoping for, for a very long time now.  Please consider supporting our (and other 3rd parties) potential participation.

20 minutes ago, Noel said:

You mentioned you do not use volumetric clouds in P3D instead using the 2D sprites based clouds instead which is what HiFi worked with in FSX/P3D.

What I use in P3D is not relevant to this discussion. I see Damian has replied to your post so I need say no more.

8 minutes ago, Damian Clark said:

I think you're mistaken about what Active Sky is and focuses on.  We've never focused on graphics/clouds in our weather add-on/engine.  "High quality cloud graphics" is not part of Active Sky, never will be. 

Not mistaken at all Damian.  My comment was to Ray who stated "high quality clouds", which IMM involves morphology in large part, and that is very dependent on resolution, whereas that is not under HiFi's control as you stated.  "Weather, weather effects, physics, etc" HiFi can influence, but not "high quality clouds". 

3 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

What I use in P3D is not relevant to this discussion. I see Damian has replied to your post so I need say no more.

You're the guy who referenced FSX/P3D and HiFi worked its magic there with 2D sprite based cloud morphology which is entirely different from what is being used in P3D EA and in MSFS meteo blue based volumetric clouds.

5 minutes ago, Noel said:

Not mistaken at all Damian.  My comment was to Ray who stated "high quality clouds", which IMM involves morphology in large part, and that is very dependent on resolution, whereas that is not under HiFi's control as you stated.  "Weather, weather effects, physics, etc" HiFi can influence, but not "high quality clouds". 

👌

Quote

 I really wonder what any 3rd party can bring to the table w/o addressing cloud resolution first

High quality clouds obviously have different meaning for different people.  There are many aspects to this IMO, and Ray and I believe most of this is in kind of things AS can (could) do, but not entirely, as some of this is up to the core cloud graphics rendering which I think we all agree Asobo should handle.

Edited May 24, 20233 yr by Damian Clark

The guy said IF. He never said HiFi would definitely take us back to the FSXP3D days. As someone else said, let's not overreact.

8 minutes ago, Noel said:

You're the guy who referenced FSX/P3D and HiFi worked its magic there with 2D sprite based cloud morphology which is entirely different from what is being used in P3D EA and in MSFS meteo blue based volumetric clouds.

You come across as itching for an argument. I’m not biting.

8 minutes ago, Noel said:

You're the guy who referenced FSX/P3D and HiFi worked its magic there with 2D sprite based cloud morphology which is entirely different from what is being used in P3D EA and in MSFS meteo blue based volumetric clouds.

To be clear, that is our Cloud Art product/technology, not the Active Sky weather engine product/technology.  Cloud Art is indeed obsolete in relation to MSFS2020.  I believe we're all trying to talk about core weather add-on functions and capabilities that 3rd parties could offer.  This often gets mixed up, thus my attempts to clarify.

Specifically in relation to this thread, we could most likely significantly improve the experience of lightning, thunderstorms, CBs, and related experiences, for a large portion of the user base, and it seems lots are hoping for that.  We would not intend to do this through some kind of graphics/shader interface.  We are hoping for core weather interfacing capability that influences/curates the internal sim graphics depiction accordingly.  To get more technical, I think controlling/populating specific layer/area/theme/cloud state conditional data and potentially the upper air conditions and related CB cloud depiction/effects would result in more realistic and appropriate lightning (for those who want that, anyway).  We could even provide sliders and controls to alter this per user preference.  There are many, many things very similar to this we'd be able to do with basic weather API/SDK access.

3 hours ago, B777ER said:

I would very much like to see a Weather & Atmospheric dedicated update.

After testing by some weather qualified beta testers.  Or at least have developers study cloud types, cloud type appearance, and appropriate cloud type altitudes first.

6 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

You come across as itching for an argument. I’m not biting.

Good idea Ray.

1 hour ago, Nixoq said:

even if they have taken away some of the features since release for whatever reason

That is in a nutshell what Asobo continually do wrong, two steps forward but always a least one step back. The weather took a major step back with SU7 and METAR integration, even now there's still issues and (IMO) it's still not as good as it was pre-SU7.

Which is why opening up the API to dedicated development teams would be a great move, but as discussed here before there could be licensing issues with meteoblue perhaps.

Edited May 24, 20233 yr by MarcG

1 hour ago, evaamo said:

This same argument has come twice in this thread, and I can't for the life of me understand what you mean by that. Have you guys been using the same Active Sky version I've been using in P3D (version 4 or 5)? Because save for MSFS graphics, weather simulation using P3D+AS combo is miles and miles beyond what MSFS has to offer today.  If by "really good" you mean somewhat accurate METARs and a few beautiful clouds when flying your Piper Cub around your home airfield in VMC, then we have different expectations or case-uses regarding flight simulation.

What I'm thinking about is using 2D textures for clouds, which always looked horribly out of place to me and just don't cut it in VR. Then came volumetric clouds/EA in P3D v5, but that was a complete step back to yesteryear with limitations such as only one layer, abrupt weather changes, same weather globally, etc. So while there was a good solution with AS, it required using 2D textures which screams 2006 to me.

In MSFS, there is a whole dynamic weather system that lets you see storms, rain shafts, etc. in the distance as you approach them and the volumetric clouds are far better than EA in P3D to the point I once got spatially disoriented in VR flying through thick clouds. While there are limitations like lack of turbulence in clouds or turbulence still too strong in many cases, I find the overall flight experience through airmasses and gusts way more 'fluent' and dynamic and for me, the weather is almost always spot on with regards to METARs. I get this with very good volumetric clouds vs. 2D textures in P3D and without purchasing any third party software too, so I find this pretty good even if flawed in some aspects.

That said, I'm pretty sure I recall MS saying in one of the last Q&As they are actually considering working with third parties on weather. Correct me if I'm wrong.

This debate will probably keep raging on, and multiple things can be true at once:
1) MS/Asobo can and should keep improving the default weather, and properly make use of all the data they have available via Meteoblue and other sources, and keep fixing the SU7 METAR integration issues and/or also provide pre-SU7 global weather modelling via user selectable options if that's at all feasible, etc
2) Regardless of 1), it also goodness to open up API/SDK access to much of the weather (and other) internals as possible, since whatever extra value/features a 3rd party add-on could bring would be there for whichever users to buy.  That said, personally I wouldn't want 2) at the expense of 1), since like many others I'd prefer to have weather simulation nailed down to fairly acceptable or better levels in the core sim.

Someone above said that "weather is an afterthought to Asobo" ... Now this is just my personal opinion: that is a most ridiculous statement given what we've gotten in the sim. And re:some forum members not wanting to have to install/maintain 3rd party add-ons in the sim to get realistic weather since they'd rather have it in the core sim, that is also a valid wish surely. Those sorts of opinions, and even others' who might be against 3rd party add-ons for whatever reasons, are not the reasons I think MS/Asobo haven't opened up weather to 3rd party devs yet... to think avsim forum members' opinions are somehow influencing their dev prioritization is a bit much IMO, and so is expecting us to lobby MS/Asobo to open up access.

I realize a lot of long time simmers are of the mindset that only add-ons can make the sim experience complete, but MS/Asobo have shown otherwise with MSFS in the last 2+ years. But they can't do it all speedily so yes, definitely there is a case to be made for opening up 3rd party access, as they themselves are now coming around to thinking.
 

Edited May 24, 20233 yr by lwt1971

9 minutes ago, lwt1971 said:

I realize a lot of long time simmers are of the mindset that only add-ons can make the sim experience complete, but MS/Asobo have shown otherwise with MSFS in the last 2+ years. But they can't do it all speedily so yes, definitely there is a case to be made for opening up 3rd party access, as they themselves are now coming around to thinking.
 

I for one am glad I don't have to do weather settings in the sim, like I had to do in P3D. I just start a flight, and fly, and get weather that is pretty close to what the metar is is calling for. 

Edited May 24, 20233 yr by Bobsk8