Jump to content

cumulus needs to improve!


widows 98
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • 3 months later...
12 minutes ago, JohnMAXX said:

@sundog

At 5.51 it looks like some geometry issues, this post was made Feb 1st, didn’t we tackle this? 

No, I think he just plain doesn't like the look of our clouds and prefers more detailed, yet 2D clouds. In whatever he's comparing us to, every cloud is an individual 2D billboard. To each their own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, sundog said:

No, I think he just plain doesn't like the look of our clouds and prefers more detailed, yet 2D clouds. In whatever he's comparing us to, every cloud is an individual 2D billboard. To each their own.

nono i really like your clouds! really the best, non-volumetric, out there, and this is an old post, however, i stopped using SkymaxxPro (i'm sorry) but after volumetric clouds i'll never step back

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, widows 98 said:

nono i really like your clouds! really the best, non-volumetric, out there, and this is an old post, however, i stopped using SkymaxxPro (i'm sorry) but after volumetric clouds i'll never step back

Again, to each their own. Minor point: technically, our clouds are "volumetric" in that they are 3D objects and not just flat 2D billboards. Ours is a volume rendering technique, just not the same one used by one of our competitors. I think you're comparing us to GPU ray-casted clouds - and they can look good under certain conditions. We actually have the ability to render clouds in that manner, but we just don't like the looks of them up-close ourselves - or their performance and memory requirements when applied over a large area.

Edited by sundog
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, xZone said:

I understand you perfectly, but people have different computers

We always can play with the settings..... 

 

Again, this comes down to a misunderstanding on your part on how the backend things of this all works. It's not always as simple as a preference. There is a lot of background caching going on, and things get loaded into memory.

SkyMaxx Pro has now been on the market for a very long time (since v1). There's a lot of experience behind what does and doesn't work when it comes to optimizations. Sometimes we just have to accept the limitations of our own hardware vs. what X-Plane is capable of giving us. For now, we've found the best medium we can get, regardless of whether someone has a beefy system or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to add something constructive, you might find the "fast" option for cumulus clouds more to your liking. Counter-intuitively, it can provide the illusion of more detail even though it uses much smaller, simpler textures. Based on that video you're using a different setting.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

from what X-Plane could give us  right now in weather ( including all restrictions and bad weather engine ) i think SkyMaxx is the only honest addon that works with X-Plane. And i used the word "honest" as makes exactly what represents, no volumetric fake promises, bad optimizations,Impressive clouds with huge fps traps behind  etc...  Cloud art is very good freeware alternative 2d cloud addon but has nothing to do with Skymaxx.  My main issue right now  is that is not working 100% with Active Sky (compared with Fsgrw.).

 

 

A320---2020-02-23-9.47.jpg

A320---2020-02-23-9.47_v3.jpg

A320---2020-02-23-9.47_v2.jpg

A320---2020-02-22-15.51.jpg

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for your kind words Seth!

As far as ASXP is concerned, we’re willing to collaborate. Working with the guys at FSGRW we were able to provide them what they needed for a deep integration with SMP....

Without the collaboration we are stuck unfortunately....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, JohnMAXX said:

Thanks for your kind words Seth!

As far as ASXP is concerned, we’re willing to collaborate. Working with the guys at FSGRW we were able to provide them what they needed for a deep integration with SMP....

Without the collaboration we are stuck unfortunately....

Hi John, knowing that there is full integration between SMP and FSGRW, could you say if integration between SMP and default XP real weather is better than SMP and ASXP?

BTW I don't have FSGRW but I'm curious to know, thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, alexcolka said:

Hi John, knowing that there is full integration between SMP and FSGRW, could you say if integration between SMP and default XP real weather is better than SMP and ASXP?

BTW I don't have FSGRW but I'm curious to know, thanks.

It’s tough to say, I think turbulence is modeled a bit better in ASXP, other than that it’s probably similar to default weather....

But both should present more than three layers when used in conjunction with Real Weather Connector....

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, JohnMAXX said:

Thanks for your kind words Seth!

As far as ASXP is concerned, we’re willing to collaborate. Working with the guys at FSGRW we were able to provide them what they needed for a deep integration with SMP....

Without the collaboration we are stuck unfortunately....

Already sent those previews to Active Sky, its clear that Fsgrw works much better with SMP+RWC.For sure they must cooperate but is it possible? especially if they are working on their own visual addon

 

asxp.jpg

smp+asxp.jpg

smp+fsgrw.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, xZone said:

Seth, I do like SMP, as well. 

But I just wish I could improve the few cumulus / scattered cumulus clouds, a bit

Something like this, for example

 

 

1.jpg

2.jpg

Got your point, this looks like cloud art?  Nice details but as aways repeatable. Check also those Smp photos looks more real even with less details

767-300ER_xp11---2020-02-26-5.57.jpg

a321---2020-04-20-6.jpg

TBM900---2020-02-05-17.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, xZone said:

my second printscreen look great, imo

that was a " mixture" between ASXP high resolution clouds, and another X-Plane 11 weather engine 

The cloud to the right, look amazing. 

 

Honestly I think SMP looks way better than those 2 screen shots.....

Of course you can say I am biased, but that looks like early FSX clouds....

1 hour ago, seth said:

Already sent those previews to Active Sky, its clear that Fsgrw works much better with SMP+RWC.For sure they must cooperate but is it possible? especially if they are working on their own visual addon

 

asxp.jpg

smp+asxp.jpg

smp+fsgrw.jpg

Cooperation is totally up to them, any cloud add on of their own is still vaporware as far as I’m concerned....

We are open arms here, and it would only benefit them to work with us.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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