Jump to content

Skymaxx V4.0 Beta High Altitude Shots

Yidahoo

By Yidahoo
in General Discussion

 Share

Recommended Posts

JoseCFII Newbie

JoseCFII

Posted
Posted

Can you please post a pic in the VC at high altitude just to see how far the clouds extend to the horizon.

I'd also appreciate a video showcasing transition from one front to another.

Thanks.

3saul Newbie

3saul

Posted
Posted

The clouds look fantastic - nice and thick. Can you post a video showing the plane going through these thick clouds to give us a sense of how the clouds are modeled on the inside? There are times with SMP1,2,3 where the cloud looks big, voluminous and thick but once you get inside it that sense is lost and it feels more like the plane is static until you pass out the other side.

Again, looking great in the pics.

HamSammich Newbie

HamSammich

Posted
Posted

Sorry to play house skeptic but.  I dunno. Pictures 1, 3, and 5 seem to suggest unnatural "edges" of cloud coverage. I might be mistaken, but picture 1 shows signs of it in the distance, while 3 and 5 have evidence of the old "No clouds here, tons there" problem in the foreground.

Hope I'm wrong, but looks no different from past releases. Can someone from SkyMaxx give me reason to believe this is not the case, and this time will be different?

Cameron Mentor

Cameron

Posted
Posted
Sorry to play house skeptic but.  I dunno. Pictures 1, 3, and 5 seem to suggest unnatural "edges" of cloud coverage. I might be mistaken, but picture 1 shows signs of it in the distance, while 3 and 5 have evidence of the old "No clouds here, tons there" problem in the foreground.

Hope I'm wrong, but looks no different from past releases. Can someone from SkyMaxx give me reason to believe this is not the case, and this time will be different?

You're wrong.

Distance has been increased to an insane degree. These images depict use of RWC, so it's possible for edges TO exist...just like they would eventually end in real life too.

Of course, that's assuming you ramp up the new draw distance coverage. I've been running it with satisfactory results here.

HamSammich Newbie

HamSammich

Posted
Posted

Cameron,

I'd like to be wrong. I'd really, really, really like to be wrong. When it comes to this, though, I'm always feeling like Charlie Brown, with my best friend's sister on the grass in front of me, holding a football. How long, approximately, before this thing comes out and I'm gloriously proven wrong? And if I can gently administer a little internet truth serum and ask, Cameron, do you benchmark against Active Sky, and in what ways do you see it as better or worse than SkyMaxx?

Best,

Marshall

 

 

Cameron Mentor

Cameron

Posted
Posted
Cameron,

I'd like to be wrong. I'd really, really, really like to be wrong. When it comes to this, though, I'm always feeling like Charlie Brown, with my best friend's sister on the grass in front of me, holding a football. How long, approximately, before this thing comes out and I'm gloriously proven wrong? And if I can gently administer a little internet truth serum and ask, Cameron, do you benchmark against Active Sky, and in what ways do you see it as better or worse than SkyMaxx?

Best,

Marshall

 

 

I do not use MSFS or P3D. My interest in that platform stopped at FS9, so I'm not going to be the guy to answer that question for you reliably.

HamSammich Newbie

HamSammich

Posted
Posted

Cameron,

You misunderstand. I wasn't asking whether you're interested in the platform. I was asking whether you, or the rest of the SkyMaxx people, look at a competing product, one that is widely seen as being state-of-the-art, and benchmark against it. Do you look at it, see how it renders a given METAR, how it draws and manages transitions, how it depicts clouds? It's like Mercedes buying BMWs, Lexuses, Cadillacs, etc., tearing them down, and using the knowledge to make better Benzes.

They do it all the time. I guess I'm a little surprised that you don't. I was happy to help you fix a problem with low clouds and fog recently. Had you been benchmarking other weather apps that do it right, you wouldn't have needed me to bring it to your attention, and you'd probably have a better shot of finding other shortcomings sooner, fixing them and delighting your customers.

Best,

Marshall

  • Upvote 3
Cameron Mentor

Cameron

Posted
Posted

Cameron,

You misunderstand. I wasn't asking whether you're interested in the platform. I was asking whether you, or the rest of the SkyMaxx people, look at a competing product, one that is widely seen as being state-of-the-art, and benchmark against it. Do you look at it, see how it renders a given METAR, how it draws and manages transitions, how it depicts clouds? It's like Mercedes buying BMWs, Lexuses, Cadillacs, etc., tearing them down, and using the knowledge to make better Benzes.

They do it all the time. I guess I'm a little surprised that you don't. I was happy to help you fix a problem with low clouds and fog recently. Had you been benchmarking other weather apps that do it right, you wouldn't have needed me to bring it to your attention, and you'd probably have a better shot of finding other shortcomings sooner, fixing them and delighting your customers.

Best,

Marshall

I didn't misunderstand you at all. I said I don't use or have interest in the platform. I cannot benchmark software if I don't utilize the software it runs in to begin with.

It's rather ballsy of you to deduce I would have solved something without user feedback. After all that time, if it were truly that obvious you wouldn't have been the one to first shout and curse to fix it. In the end, thank you for your help.

We rely on users' feedback to improve the product. You offered feedback, we fixed it. Hopefully that willingness was a delight as well.

I digress...your original question was about Active Sky. The answer is no.

  • Downvote 1
HamSammich Newbie

HamSammich

Posted
Posted

Cameron,

Deduce? Sometimes I can barely find my way home at night, let alone deduce. :-)

I only was saying that anyone using AS2016 would have easily spotted the problem I did.

I mean, editors at The Times read The Washington Post. GM tears apart Hondas. Wal-Mart shadow-shops Target. That's what I was getting at.

Best,

Marshall

 

  • Upvote 2
Cameron Mentor

Cameron

Posted
Posted
I only was saying that anyone using AS2016 would have easily spotted the problem I did.

Hmmm, well, I guess that means the market we cater to doesn't seem to care as much about that product then (no matter how great it may be). Good thing you've used it I guess!

I mean, editors at The Times read The Washington Post. GM tears apart Hondas. Wal-Mart shadow-shops Target. That's what I was getting at.

I'm sure they do.

  • Downvote 1
3saul Newbie

3saul

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, HamSammich said:

Cameron,

Deduce? Sometimes I can barely find my way home at night, let alone deduce. :-)

I only was saying that anyone using AS2016 would have easily spotted the problem I did.

I mean, editors at The Times read The Washington Post. GM tears apart Hondas. Wal-Mart shadow-shops Target. That's what I was getting at.

Best,

Marshall

 

Marshall-They're not understanding what you're getting at, but I do.

Benz make better engines than Hyundai - if Hyundai recognise this and wish to improve that aspect of their product they could look at how Benz do it. But recognition and acceptance are prerequisites.

On that note it would be great to see a video of improvements in SMP4 when going through clouds - previous releases tended to not give a sense of volume as you passed through clouds.

But all is well and looking forward to a high quality release  

S

Edited by 3saul
  • Upvote 1
HamSammich Newbie

HamSammich

Posted
Posted

Appreciate it, Saul. 

Amen to recognition and acceptance. I know a news anchor who once praised a writer of his this way: "You take 'I hate it' better than anyone I know." Which, in this anchor's case, was really just extreme shorthand for saying that his writer knew how to mine criticism for ways of improving the end product.  Ah, but we're speaking in parables, now, aren't we?

And I'm looking forward to a high quality release, too.

Best,

Marshall

  • Upvote 1
HamSammich Newbie

HamSammich

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, sundog said:

We focus on what our customers tell us, not on competitors.

 

Frank,

Then I'll be very straightforward. This customer uses both and would dearly love it if your product were as good as, or better than, the competition. The Saab is. The IXEG, within their own stated limitations, is close. SkyMaxx, in my view, and with all due respect to your hard work and good intentions, simply is not. Perhaps not yet. Perhaps not ever. That's your riddle to solve.

Best,

Marshall

  • Upvote 6
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...