Hello,I was reading the report on simHQ site about the different sims previewed at E3. They said :"Low altitude detail. Good. Not as good as LOMAC, but close. Sense of altitude and depth good. Clouds were the absolute best ever! ""Terrain and ground details too "dark"

Or FS2004 bugs contaminating CFS4 :) LOL! (I agree about dark ground)Cheers, Rolf

Hi, Still I don't see any far distance clouds in cfs3, only around the aircraft,also I want to see how is the rain, snow and lightning bolt will be, weather is not only clouds, they are still far for a good weather system, I said thats because after 6 month of playing the "boring" thing will be back because they have only implement the basic weather just hope for fs2004 they will got it right. "Volumetric" clouds has been years implemented in other sims.The major improvement in cfs3 is the Sky Colors.ThanksChris Willis[link:fsw.simflight.com/FSWMenuFsSim.html]Clouds And Addons For MsFshttp://fsw.simflight.com/fsw.jpg

Hi Chris,That's right. Actually every version of MSFS makes me frustrated that I am not part of their artistic team in order to share my little artistic "skills". But I think they will never invite me since I complain allot ;) Actually it is not complicated, they need to have an Art director with a landscape rendering experience: For exemple, what FS sky is missing is the depth. We do not feel that the sky is deep and far, it seems a wall next to the horizon. Unless we cheat by adding some fog...The illusion of depth can be done easily in a white sky near the horizon that fades smoothly into the blue as we get higher. This is a simple nature observation based on light... After making some observation I noticed that they have this white into blue factor but it is very subtle and it needs to be greater to give the illusion of light and depth. The land is dark and the sky is darkAs for the clouds I am sure that what you achieved at FSW is way beyond the default renderings. Still that the paper like clouds code in FS are not the best when seen from the side views. But I also wonder how frame rate friendly volumetric clouds are!Another critique in the weather is the precipiation. The rain and snow in FS2002 is like old Hollywood films tricks. You have a shower over the plane and that's it :) Rain and snow should create a natural haze that is formed by the huge level of drops that fall on the land. This is part of the challenge in flying into rain or snow. We get a humidity haze that is not related to the Visibility. None of that is rendered in FS and to me rain or snow do not give any challenege what so ever. They are funny showers over the plane :)Last but not least, I wonder why they do not add a code that determines the friction of the runway depending on the weather and season? Rain and snow should affect the slipery factor on the runways for the aircraft landing and taking off. It is not a matter of visual aspect, it is more in the code of the runway surface. Oh yes and the general lighting should be greater. They should reduce the contrasts in the landscape to avoid the illusion of a studio set.And the list can go on for a month hehehCheers :)Michel

Hi, Yes the FSW result is is way beyond from whats it should be, Actually Like I said in the readme in v1.10 of fs sky world, there is anomalie,the random stretch clouds by the engine (some random clouds appears flat from the original clouds created, the cloud appears worst and unrealistic they look double in honrizontal size, flat texture etc from whats is released , the new not released yet one are much better because I use different technique.. I am sure tons of people are not understand whats I am talking. this is a BIG difference for the visual and rendering. I have all thats need to have a realistic weather from realistic snow, rain, lighting bold , all world clouds etc , the problems is the capability in Msfs for fs2k2. should be alot better than fs2004. Anyway fs sky weather include all the world clouds, will be pretty cool environement. It's appears they have fixed things in cf3 clouds, random stretch, this is why the clouds appears more correct stable looking one by one etc..ThanksChris Willis[link:fsw.simflight.com/FSWMenuFsSim.html]Clouds And Addons For MsFshttp://fsw.simflight.com/fsw.jpg

Talking about wheather ...I'd also like to see a wheather generator in FS that makes sense. I don't like to be online the whole flight to get "real wheather" and offer M$ a or whomever else a chance to backup my harddisk while i'm flying, not to mention online costs outside US.Also transitions between wheather types, like going from 8/8 clouds to 1/8 clouds shouldn't be on an instant. Clouds should have an identity of themselves and they go out of sight at a certain distance. Not just boom - vanished. Wonder whether them guys at M$ will ever make a wheather engine that at least fullfills the most basic needs.Thunderstorms are plain ridiculous. Lightnings out of a mostly blue sky. LOLMy thoughts.RegardsDoc

I can't wait FS Sky Weather Chris :)Michel

Doc, you are right, and I think they will improve the engine as versions go by. Actually we can't deny the fact that FS2002 weather is better then 98 and CFS3 "looks" better then 2002. The complexity of weather variation is a very important feature in a flight simulator I agree. So I think they should forcus part of the work on a more true to life behaving weather. Maybe they are already doing thatAs for CFS3 screenshots and reports, they look beautiful but dark. They need more ambiant light in the landscape. The sun is not doing the lighting job it seems :)Michel