New clouds for FU3...

[Naji 5]

Chris, what a fantastic endeavour! I'm a weather nut myself and if you can succeed in improving FU3 skies as discussed above, then to me this will be the most important addon work for FU3.FU3 has almost perfect skies for bad weathers, meaning those dark cloud stretches that cover the sky in bad weather really look good. Where in my opinion FU3 has shortcomings is in the good weather skies, where the clouds aren't that good and are repetitive.Maybe we could ask the FSW team (of FS2002 cloud fame, Chris Willis and co) if we could use some of the many fine textures that they have so successfully implemented for FS2002; if we could somehow include the general shapes of them in FU3, then this will cut down on the work required. Just a thought.Thank you Chris for such initiative.And by the way, I got back the ATI Radeon 9800 Pro; its speed compared to the FX 5800 was starting to make a difference ;-), so thanks for your wake-up post.

[Guest]

>>To alter this behaviour would require the source code I'm affraid. But, I've already been experimenting with the weather settings for the UK region (min/max temperatures, average temperatures etc) and I have changed them somewhat. Although Seattle has similar weather to the UK, it is not identical. I've used data from the met office to get these values right.<

[Hans_Petter 1]

Replying to Noel, I don't think that "open code" will sound good to anyone owning the rights to a product. Even though they've shelved the product years ago there's nothing to be gained by giving it away. They might possibly use some of in another product and in any event, interest in an open code sim will compete with other products that they market today. Even though the success of MS Flight Simulator relies heavily on freeware and payware addons the company doesn't share much info. A more pleasing idea from EA's point of view would be to use the FU code to develop a new commercial product. If Ansgar, Agtim, the Aussies, the Brits and all the rest got on EAs payroll and developed FU IV I would certainly be ready to pay for it :-)Another way of putting this, it takes a current payware product to keep any company interested. Then, if a freeware community adds to its popularity that's an added bonus. The way it is now our interest in this old sim is really unproductive to EA, MS and all the commercial interests. Why? Because as we keep tweaking this old product we may not be too keen on buying their current and upcoming products. Thus, the thing would be to make them interested in turning this into payware rather than asking them to give it away.Hans Petter

[Guest Ansgar]

Hello Chris E.any news about the status of the new cloud models?It would be very interested if you had developed something which we could use already. ;-)May it be possible you show some more details, or even better make an first upload to show what is possible?Thanks in advance and kind regardsAnsgar

[Guest effyouthree]

Did we ever get anywhere with this? After my recent foray into MSFS ( :-badteeth ), I have to admit that I like the clouds. A lot. I DON'T like the haze, and the way you get that strange 'halo' of haze receding away from you as you fly. Actually, there's a lot of things I don't like - let's get back to FU3 ;-)If Chris E. or anyone knows about this cloud extraction/reinsertion business, it would certainly perk-up my interest in FU3 ;-)I accept the limitations of the palettes but it would be nice to see some more lifelike clouds - even at a distance. The haze in FU3 can be very realistic - but those silly clouds peek through at the horizon. I know you can 'haze them out' but I am sick of crap weather!! Nice clouds for a nice day!http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/155081.jpgHeavy duty "the weather's a changin" style - with a killer sunset.http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/155082.jpgThe 'haze out' method. Note the 'stupid' ones still peering through behind the plane.http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/155083.jpgAny ideas? :-waveRegards,**************Jonathan Point**************"I'd rather be down here wishing I was up there than up there wishing I was down here"

[Roger Over 0]

Speaking of clouds.....Did anything ever come of this posting? :-luke CheersBruce H

[Guest fu3]

Bruce,Not one email...It seems that the 'other' models found in the resfile couldn't be decoded after all. I dunno. I certainly would like to do something with them though. RobD suggested that the problem was the 'new' FU3 clouds and that the binfiles and textures we see in the resfile are the older FU2 clouds. If that's true, then we really need someone with code-level knowledge to identify what format they are. Resviewer can still export a file if it doesn't what format it is.I tried exporting a couple of what look to be model files but I can't open them with any extension I can use :-rollMaybe you could have a look (in between night light work of course!), or Agtim if he spare an evening or 2? Whatever format they are in, we should be able to convert them to something useful. Structure-wise, they seem to take on the structure of an onion(!) with successively smaller versions of the cloud inside itself. I have noticed this effect when flying slowly through large clouds in the "Butcher". This may be the software itself and in fact the cloud models are just shells. Likewise, textures don't appear to be mapped, as though they are affected purely light levels according to cloud structure. This explains the ability to change sooooo many characteristics in the cfg file. I mean, with THAT much variability available, the actual cloud model file could only really contain basic shape info - FU3 must do the rest. Maybe we just need some gruesome editing* of cloud shape in the cfg file?I think. One week back in Sydney and I thought it was Saturday this morning - sheesh :-wave* Gruesome editing - Some years ago, I tried putting HUGE numbers into various sections of the cfg file. Mostly nothing happened (except a lot of CTDs), but ONE setting worked: opt_terrain_detail 999 Standard maximum setting is 103. 999 renders Mt Rainier properly from Coupville! Above 499 makes little or no difference. I usually run it at 199 for a subtle improvement without too much frame rate hit - you can see why LGS restricted the range. And its useless in UKS :-lolRegards,Jon Point