9 hours ago, Huascar said:

You don’t get the feeling you’re powering through the clouds. You don’t see the wings breaking cutting through these clouds.

Have to agree. I absolutely love MSFS2024 and think it's the best sim around, and usually I don't agree with what you say, but everytime I move through the clouds I think 'O, yes, I am flying on a computer'.

First of all I always wonder how come the clouds pass by so extremely slow while I am flying quite fast. When cutting through clouds I get the feeling I am flying at the speed of someone walking. It's as if something is wrong with the perception of distance: you SEE you are really IN the cloud but the slow speed seems to indicate the cloud is around 100 meters away... Something like that.

Secondly: I can ALWAYS clearly see the 'layer of pixels' I am moving through. It's not really volumetric as I expect it to be: it's as if the clouds are layers of pixels on top of each other and you can clearly see when you touch and move through such a layer. There always is a hard line where the cloud 'stops'. Hard to explain (specially since English isn't my native language).

Anyway, as I said, I absolutely love MSFS2024 (just as I loved MSFS2020) but those clouds always disappoint me when I am flying through them. Something seems wrong with them and I notice this almost everytime. Luckily all this doesn't spoil my enjoyment of MSFS in any way. I simply notice it and it disappoints me but I also don't register it everytime in such a way that I think 'Let's quit this hobby'. 😉

9 hours ago, HiFlyer said:

Or perhaps necessity is still the mother of invention.

It definitely is...and I've opined the same thing on this topic of cloud depiction quality:  it will take another approach and who knows a quantum leap could happen.  

8 hours ago, mistolip said:

It's not really volumetric as I expect it to be: it's as if the clouds are layers of pixels on top of each other and you can clearly see when you touch and move through such a layer

Therein lies he problem with so-called 3D pixels, voxels:  we simply do not have the particle density to work with.  Instead, we have as you point out layers of voxels w/ effects that try to simulate particle density.  This is why a completely different approach will need to happen, or a quantum computer, not sure which will come first.

I don't use P3D nor XP12 and wonder how much different their versions of volumetric clouds are.  My guess is:  very similar in terms of basic structures they have to work with.  All this is why HiFi could not come in and make beautiful cloud depictions they're hamstrung as well, of course. 

On 1/14/2025 at 11:11 PM, Huascar said:

the poor quality clouds

V1-Simulations is one of my go to Youtubers. He is a real world pilot so sees clouds each working day.  Watch this video for about 10 minutes to see his views on the 2024 clouds.

On 1/14/2025 at 11:22 PM, abennett said:

In 2024 it is super super obvious.

It must be a sim/configuration/perception issue.  @Noel has posted some images of real clouds, but technically we just haven't got the processing power to get perfect clouds.  Given that technical level, the clouds are really good in MSFS 2024, less so in 2020.  Also it has been stated it doesn't feel like you are moving through clouds, another perception I don't share.  V1-Simulations has the same perception as me. 

Watch this video for 10 minutes to get his real world airline pilot view of 2024 clouds.

1 hour ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

Also it has been stated it doesn't feel like you are moving through clouds, another perception I don't share

This is something I've never noticed.  Definitely feel like I'm moving thru clouds that is the only way I can get from one side to the other 😉. 

I postulated when 2020 launched that what needed to happen to help overcome the performance demands was to use something like DynamicLOD, but with cloud structures instead of scenery LOD.  It would for example increase voxel resolution on cloud edges, and also the closer the viewer is to the cloud voxel density would increase some to make near field clouds look much better than they can look now.  I put the question just now to ChatGPT and it spit out these approaches to improving the picture:

Yes, there are alternative methods to create volumetric clouds with lower performance demands. These techniques often focus on optimizing voxel-based rendering or employing entirely different approaches. Here are some key methods:

1. Sparse Voxel Octrees

• How it works: Instead of using a uniform grid of voxels, sparse voxel octrees divide the 3D space into a hierarchy. High-density areas (like cloud edges) use smaller voxels, while less-detailed regions use larger ones.
• Performance Gain: Reduces memory usage and processing demand by focusing detail only where needed.

2. Impostor Textures and Billboards

• How it works: Render clouds as flat or slightly curved 2D textures (billboards) that always face the camera. Layers of impostors can give the illusion of depth.
• Performance Gain: Reduces computation to basic texture mapping rather than full 3D volume rendering.
• Limitations: This can look less realistic when viewed from oblique angles or when flying through clouds.

---

3. Precomputed Volume Textures

• How it works: Use precomputed, static 3D textures (volume textures) to represent clouds. These can be combined or blended in real time to simulate movement and dynamic weather.
• Performance Gain: Offloads most of the heavy computation to pre-rendering.
• Limitations: Lacks flexibility for dynamically changing clouds, though blending and interpolation can mitigate this.

---

4. Raymarching with Optimizations

• How it works: Instead of calculating every point in a cloud, raymarching steps through the volume, skipping empty regions or using early-exit techniques.
• Performance Gain: Reduces the number of calculations needed per pixel, particularly in sparse clouds.
• Limitations: Still computationally intensive for dense volumes.

---

5. Particle-Based Systems

• How it works: Represent clouds as clusters of particles or points that collectively approximate a volumetric look.
• Performance Gain: Simplifies rendering by using point sprites instead of complex voxel grids.
• Limitations: Difficult to achieve realistic cloud self-shadowing or density transitions.

---

6. Deep Learning-Based Procedural Generation

• How it works: Use neural networks or procedural algorithms to generate clouds in real-time. The neural network can approximate physical simulations, reducing computational demands.
• Performance Gain: Offloads computations to a lightweight, pre-trained model instead of rendering every detail physically.
• Limitations: Requires training data and can struggle with highly dynamic scenarios.

---

7. Hybrid Methods

• How it works: Combine techniques like impostors for distant clouds, raymarching for nearby clouds, and particle systems for fly-throughs.
• Performance Gain: Allows optimization for different distances and use cases.
• Limitations: Complexity in managing transitions between techniques.

---

Why MSFS Clouds Use Voxels

Microsoft Flight Simulator likely uses voxel-based rendering for its volumetric clouds because it enables realistic lighting, self-shadowing, and dynamic weather effects. While this method is demanding, its realism aligns with the simulator's high fidelity goals. Alternative methods might trade some visual quality for performance, which might not meet MSFS's standards.

Emerging Techniques

• Real-Time NeRFs (Neural Radiance Fields): Use machine learning to represent and render 3D volumes efficiently. These are still experimental but show promise for gaming.
• Adaptive Grid Sampling: Dynamically adjust the voxel resolution based on the viewer’s position and direction, optimizing resources for visible areas.

 

#6 is why I mentioned new cards and their AI training perhaps coming to the rescue one day.....

I threw the idea out there as a WAG. Interesting to see people are actually thinking about it.

Sorry, since starting this thread I have been away for work.

It has been interesting reading the replies, and I am genuinely fascinated by the different views and experiences we have.

A lot of the shots and videos posted, don't really address the issue because the view of the clouds is taken from below, from where, (generally), the clouds look better. Or there are clouds all the way out to the horizon, which block the view of the clouds in the distance.

Here are some shots that demonstrate the issue.

Here you can see the clouds on the horizon (not above it) look very low quality, just blobs really.
 

 

Again, here, the clouds in the middle distance just look like blobs, very low quality. They look like LOW setting clouds on MSFS 2020 not ULTRA on 2024.





Again here, very low quality clouds on the horizon, look nothing like cloud shapes.








Yet again, just look terrible, like something from a really old game.




These look really bad even in the middle distance, so much worse than 2020. When they are close they do not look quite as bad as this most of the time.




Again, taken just now, as the clouds get further away you can clearly see the reduction in quality.

 

And of course, with the clouds generally, we still get these totally unrealistic cauliflower/volcanic ash clouds, that are the wrong colour, shape, texture etc. 



 

I hope we can have an interesting discussion about this, being respectful of each other if we hold different views.

Best,

AB

It could be a performance saving measure, even at Ultra settings, but yes they do look a bit odd in those pictures.

I would just say, that if you take enough pictures of even the most beautiful woman in the world, some are going to catch her looking goofy.

Perfection doesn't exist.

26 minutes ago, MarcG said:

It could be a performance saving measure, even at Ultra settings, but yes they do look a bit odd in those pictures.

Yep, I see these same clouds when I watch the streamers etc as well.

Yes, it looks like they are trying to save performance by using simplified clouds, almost like how they used 'imposters' in FSX for the same reason if you remember. 
It isn't quite cutting it in terms of the visuals though.  I not sure I saw them looking that bad in MSFS2020, does anyone else?

If you want to see how 2024 clouds are built just play around in the non-live presets.

dd

I've definitely seen those stupid semi transparent clouds like AB has at the horizon during live weather.  In my opinion that's some sort of error in meteoblue or whoever is doing the weather these days...  I see it all the time... these random "barely there" puffs...  And they look awful!

But I've also seen clouds like this!

A lovely stratus layer (caked with ice) from above - live wx

God Rays (live wx!)

And my absolute favorite from above!

 

I do still see steamy puffs which are not ideal, but overall the clouds in 2024 are a world apart from 2020s, and much improved. Frankly, 2020's clouds are often nothing but the steamy puffs and have been ever since the SU5/7 devastation. I'm fine to accept some anomalies at horizon-level distances for such improved quality in the overall cloud depiction.