Two visual issues with SMP 3.3

[frontendrob]

Been testing 3.3 extensively over the weekend. It's a solid release and there's little to complain about.

Two things though I believe need some attention. First thing is the way cloud shadows look in visibilities below 25nm. There's two issues: first, the shadows aren't influenced by X-Plane's haze / scattering (same is true for clouds, but usually it doesn't disturb much), making them look out of place (almost hovering) in the distance. Second, they somehow get cut off in the distance. Both issues are clearly visible in this shot below. I suspect this is an issue with the way SMP handles the shadows and probably not easy to fix - but could you provide a work-around, for example a lowered radius the shadows are drawn? Right know, the only option is to turn them off...

The other thing has been discussed before and I am happy you're still working on "it". The Cumolonimbus. Well, to say that this fella below sticks out like  a sore thumb would be an understatement. And then it bleeds oil. On top if that, it was flickering. Really, no. How about just using a large, darker cumulus, that blends in better with the rest of the clouds and doesn't make people scratch their heads. 

Keep the target hot guys.

Edited August 31, 2016 by frontendrob

[Cameron]

Frank can answer the shadow issue.

The second photo is as intended and is a matter of computing tradeoff. It's also not unrealistic in nature, though I'll concede that such shapes are not prevelant in every area of the world, so to you it may feel entirely unrealistic depending on where you're from. In Florida we see shapes like this quite often.

[mmerelles]

google cumulonimbus on the images section. you will see tons of them. We do have them here as well.

[sundog]

Our cloud shadows are drawn as overlays on top of X-Plane's terrain, which means we need to try and reverse-engineer how X-Plane applies visibility to the terrain in order to get the shadows to match. We don't always get it exactly right, but it's something that we're often tweaking in new releases.

I've actually hired a couple of people to build a new system for creating cumulonimbus clouds for a future release, in order to give us finer control over their shapes. As Cameron said though, these clouds come in a very wide variety and a lot depends on where you live. It's very hard to make everyone happy with them, and even harder to find an acceptable trade-off between their visual quality, volumetric nature, and performance given how massive these clouds are. But we're working on it.

 

 

[frontendrob]

Great to hear you're still at it. As I tried to convey above, it's a great product, these are just the two areas where it could gain some. I am aware that the cloud shadows are tricky to inject... having a smaller radius could be a short term solution.

Funny thing is, my test flight for SkyMaxx is an afternoon flight from KATL to KMCO. You have certainly nailed these low but big, puffy cumulus that are scattared in central FL. The problem with the cumolonimbus is that they're so seperated. I'd expect larger, darker areas of heavier clouds to surround them, Right now flying in FL's current weather (in X-Plane with SMP & RWC), you have rather standard cumulus, and then these killer clouds here and there. In these situations, I would expect a larger thunderstorm area.

[Cameron]

Great to hear you're still at it. As I tried to convey above, it's a great product, these are just the two areas where it could gain some. I am aware that the cloud shadows are tricky to inject... having a smaller radius could be a short term solution.

Funny thing is, my test flight for SkyMaxx is an afternoon flight from KATL to KMCO. You have certainly nailed these low but big, puffy cumulus that are scattared in central FL. The problem with the cumolonimbus is that they're so seperated. I'd expect larger, darker areas of heavier clouds to surround them, Right now flying in FL's current weather (in X-Plane with SMP & RWC), you have rather standard cumulus, and then these killer clouds here and there. In these situations, I would expect a larger thunderstorm area.

Believe it or not, what you expect is not necessarily realistic. Quite often these clouds will be on their own here. Florida (and much of the southeast) has some very interesting weather, especially in the summer and later parts of the year.

[sundog]

It's true, sometimes those CB's just suck up all the surrounding moisture in Florida. But you're right that they are usually surrounded by cumulus congestus, towering cumulus, and other clouds in various stages of development. Right now RWC just honors what's in the METAR report, so if METAR says there are thunderstorms but little cloud coverage accompanying them, we dutifully create a lonely cumulonimbus cloud. For example, right now Tampa is reporting cumulonimbus clouds but only "FEW" coverage (in addition to a higher overcast layer.)

If you look at other parts of the world, CB clouds are usually accompanied by lots of other clouds in the METAR, which looks a lot more natural to most people. Kathmandu is having a pretty bad day, for example:

VNKT 311750Z 28004KT 6000 TS FEW010 FEW025CB SCT030 BKN100 22/21 Q1014 NOSIG CB TO SE S SW W NW N NE AND E

This results in a much nicer looking scene, where the CB cloud itself just sort of gets lost in amongst the surrounding clouds:

I've considered fabricating a cumulus congestus cloud area surrounding all cumulonimbus clouds no matter what the METAR says. But then I think we'd get dinged for not being faithful to the reported conditions. 

Anyhow, there is room for improvement in the representation of the CB clouds themselves, so we're starting there.