Move over MSFS and XP12...! These volumetric clouds (and cloud lighting) in, of all places, Kerbal Space Program, are how to render clouds convincingly:

 

26 minutes ago, Redge said:

Move over MSFS and XP12...! These volumetric clouds (and cloud lighting) in, of all places, Kerbal Space Program, are how to render clouds convincingly:

The clouds look decent, but I don't think they are better than MSFS 2024 clouds, for two reasons.  At the 1:50 mark, the lighting looks a bit off, it doesn't look as natural as it could be. The second reason is, up close, the clouds look more blurry than MSFS 2024 clouds.  Albeit, they are not as blurry as XP 12 clouds - XP 12 clouds are notoriously blurry, even what I have seen in XP 12.3.  So I guess from a blurriness perspective, these clouds are in between MSFS 2024 and XP 12 - the definition is not as good as MSFS 2024, but not as bad as XP 12.

Still, if these clouds are from a small team of developers, or even from an individual developer, that's really good.  They did a stellar job for a small team of developers.

One thing I would like to know is how much performance is sacrificed by adding this cloud add-on to KSP.  Clouds can reduce the FPS and performance a lot.  KSP doesn't have near as good overall graphics as MSFS 2024, so that's why I would like to know how much of an impact it has on performance on KSP (ie. if you devote all resources to making the clouds look good, they can be made to look very good at the sacrifice of all the other graphics on the screen).

And I would like to know how these clouds perform during sunrise and sunset.  This is one of the biggest strengths of MSFS 2024 clouds now, in that they look very good during sunrise and sunset, because Asobo changed how light passes through them.

Edited October 3, 2025Oct 3 by abrams_tank

Just different, not better.  The edges look weird against the sky and other clouds, and the lighting / shading is a bit off.

I’ve often wondered whether people disagree about clouds in the sun so much because it’s so subjective based on where they live and the clouds they see around them all the time. I mean, this looks 100% like what I see outside my house all the time. But I know when I’m where my wife comes from the clouds there are totally different, shaped by the surrounding mountains.

Either that, or some people see more of MSFS clouds than real ones to be able to judge properly anymore 😜

I agree with the above comments, I think getting the right lighting in all sorts of conditions at all times of the day at all seasons is not an easy task. 
 

Do I think the clouds in MSFS 2024 need work, yes they do and so does the lighting, but I think we’re on the right path… disclaimer “IMO”

1 hour ago, abrams_tank said:

At the 1:50 mark, the lighting looks a bit off, it doesn't look as natural as it could be.

Because this looks more natural? lol. I applaud the fact that other games are coming up with better looking skies, but that is a space sim. Go figure!

https://ibb.co/zWykvVGr

The clouds in SU4 look stunning. I took a bunch of screenshots the other day flying CYVR-KSFO as it was so immersive - unfortunately they were taken with GameBar, so the HDR looks off in the PNG.

Here are some from the ground on later flights out of KSFO taken via photo mode (which preserves HDR) - I think they look amazing as they are.

Yea keep dreaming.....

I've disagreed about clouds, from both sides now..... (Sings)

These clouds in KSP looks spectacular imo, well at least in those weather conditions, but no one is talking about FPS hit. Don't forget that Asobo had to find the middle ground - good looking clouds that perform great. Not an easy task. I still remember Lockheed's take on it in P3D v5. FPS hit was atrocious on my system when you push the clouds slider to the right, and honestly, max setting still doesn't look good. 

I'm quite happy with FS2024 cloud rendering and quality, no complaints on my side. 

Edited October 3, 2025Oct 3 by CarlosF

Clouds in all games are very situational with their own strengths and weaknesses. Sometimes MSFS looks better, sometimes Xplane looks better.

Are they dynamic? Are they compatible with a live weather injector? 

39 minutes ago, Krakin said:

Are they dynamic? Are they compatible with a live weather injector? 

I think a lot of people in this thread are potentially missing what I am trying to show here... Which is the way that the clouds are rendered. The lighting and realism of the rendering of the sky looks massively more realistic than any other volumetric clouds I've seen in games. Whether or not they work dynamically or their compatibility with a live-weather injector is irrelevant. First you figure out how the physics, lighting and shaders work to render the clouds in this way, then after that you decide how to generate the clouds using your underlying dynamic/live weather injectors etc.

These KSP clouds that I showed above, are a community add-on effort by a single person (who is probably the cloud rendering equivalent to the legendary, @Biology who got our MSFS2020 atmospheric lighting corrected and is behind the massive upgrade in XP12.2's weather and lighting). Take a look here to see his blog, and examples of what he has achieved.

Different game engines use different ways of handling lighting and shaders etc, but, seeing as Seb, Jörg and co said in a recent livestream, that they are considering future upgrades to the weather rendering, then I'd say they should see if they can have a word with this guy, before someone else scoops him up, like Laminar did with Biology.

https://www.patreon.com/posts/true-volumetric-139879553

As a die-hard KSP fan, yeah, those clouds are stunning. 

But, since I run a different atmospherics mod, do those clouds move, or are they static? Because a lot of clouds in KSP addons are static, and that's a whole lot easier to do than clouds that actually behave like clouds.