Jump to content

Purr

Members
  • Content Count

    242
  • Donations

    $0.00 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

27 Neutral

About Purr

  • Rank
    Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Flight Sim Profile

  • Commercial Member
    No
  • Online Flight Organization Membership
    Other
  • Virtual Airlines
    No

Recent Profile Visitors

2,167 profile views
  1. Great news but They must also be waiting on the LM patch first with the wind shift problems that’s people have been reporting, don’t they? Or will that be taken care of by activesky’s own weather engine?
  2. And it would be great to have the airlines listed by home country or even continent...that way if I just want to install euro or North America traffic I can do so without guessing each airline.
  3. Got it—Thanks for clarifying Jason!
  4. Hm interesting thanks for clarifying this. I’ll have to give it a try. I’ve just never seen any of the true sky pics depicting anything other than basic cumulus puffs or a bit of stratus.
  5. Oh, but aren’t the clouds you install from skyforce the 2d sprite textures? Are you saying that they are depicted as volumetric clouds?
  6. So although you can use sf for the weather engine, the clouds are all still 2d sprites, is that right? meaning that you can’t display volumetric clouds with it yet?
  7. I saw this exact thing in my Orbx Norway airports right after installing envtex and envshade. I notice they installed above everything g else in scenery library, wonder if they need to go below Orbx? But looks just like mine. edit: just read that this is a big in envtex
  8. Yes, I tried a variety of settings with the slider and checkbox...maybe somehow I didn't have decent cloud formations but it was either super fuzzed out or looked like fsx clouds. How are your clouds looking? Maybe I have missed something.
  9. Hey guys, Okay, I'll Installed w/orbx, and... Ugh colours and lighting is just...weird all the time. It's like having elements that do enhance the realism in lighting but mixed in with a seriously messed up colour / contrast palette which just confuses the brain...about the time of day and the colour of the sky. I'm hopeful as we get more addons things will help, but I seriously don't know how they could look at this as a release candidate. It needs a lot of fine tuning. Has there been a leadership change on the team or something? This just seems a strangely unpolished or lacking standard for a new version. Also the clouds are just fuzzed out blobs with no definition. There is not really any sense of volumetric anything in flying through them. Could be I need to tinker more with settings... Sorry to say but it feels like they needed another month or two of work on it before releasing. Hope that 5.1 is coming sooner rather than later (yikes!).
  10. Okay, so P3d v5 now has a new lighting engine among other fixes / amendments. But lots of people (myself included) on this forum have expressed some doubt in terms of comparing it to MSFS, so far in Alpha. But I was thinking, if P3d subsequently incorporated Google (not Bing, since they are owned by Microsoft) data for mapping the globe, that might bring it substantially closer as a competitor on a feature-by-feature basis. And, since it appears that google data is richer and more expansive than Bing, perhaps it might even have a bit of an edge over MSFS in this regard. I know there are lots of other aspects to consider (AI, flight modelling, weather etc) that remain differences between the two sims, but it seems that this could be a big step that would close the gap. I can't help but think that they must be looking at this, because every sim that does not draw upon this satellite and street mapped data is going to be lost in the dust without it in comparison. (Surely, the military would appreciate this from a mission perspective to have accurate depictions of the entire world for their training scenarios?) It's also a huge undertaking to use all that data and have AI to adjust but do you guys think this would close the gap if they did in a subsequent iteration (? v5.2 for example?) What do you think?
  11. Would be interested to see more cloud variations and more on what flying through them looks like pls!
  12. So wouldn’t IFR basically=atc advances? I guess if it’s the old fsx atc technically that has already existed for a long time in its flawed state. anything else that IFR would refer to for the episode?
  13. As in a public beta or internal beta...?
  14. I don’t know but there was not much variation in cloud types from the ribs video or LM’s “trailer”. Looked like some repeating clouds too. Hopefully this can be improved
×
×
  • Create New...