[SOLVED] Mountains displayed through volumetric clouds when between certain altitudes

[rawdmon]

See video below.  It seems to happen when the camera is between the distortion layers below and above the clouds.  You probably need some sort of blue-noise dithering or something to prevent them from sneaking through the cloud layers like that.

 

[Cameron]

Hi there,

It's an unavoidable issue with "volumetric" clouds that there is no depth to the clouds themselves, only to the volume they are drawn within. That's why you're seeing terrain artifacts like that. It is another thing that is less of an issue with RWC because the volumes are smaller.

Thus far we have not found a way around this. Luckily it is not "always" happening.

[rawdmon]

1 hour ago, Cameron said:

Hi there,

It's an unavoidable issue with "volumetric" clouds that there is no depth to the clouds themselves, only to the volume they are drawn within. That's why you're seeing terrain artifacts like that. It is another thing that is less of an issue with RWC because the volumes are smaller.

Thus far we have not found a way around this. Luckily it is not "always" happening.

Your developers might consider having a look over the code for these: https://github.com/FarukEroglu2048/Enhanced-Cloudscapes

You might pick up some useful shader tricks from them.  They don't have this problem of objects appearing through them in the distance and they also have cloud shadows that don't wander in VR (though their shadows are slightly buggy in other ways at the moment).  They are truly volumetric as well and likely using the same type of drawing as you are as they have the same visible distortion layer just below or above the cloud layers (unless blue-noise dithering is enabled for them).  I find they look better than these new ones with SkyMaxx and just reviewing the code may give you guys some ideas of how to possibly improve on yours in the future.  The SkyMaxx ones are probably nice for high altitude flying but when flying under the clouds in GA flight they aren't very good at the moment.  I understand that they are beta and that it's something you'll need to work on and improve on over time.  I just wanted to provide this feedback in case it's useful to you.  SkyMaxx is still my go-to plugin despite the various problems with it.  Hopefully these can be ironed out over time.

Edited January 22, 2021 by rawdmon

[Cameron]

Not all things are equal, @rawdmon. This isn't our first rodeo.

Enhanced Cloudscapes uses a different method with more impact of drawing. It has it's moments, but even its developer acknowledges our approach is more sound in performance.

@sundog has been at this for many years now, and we have a pretty tight relationship with Laminar. When it comes to things like these, there's reasons and trade-offs for why they exist. We will continue to poke at it though!

[rawdmon]

Just now, Cameron said:

Not all things are equal, @rawdmon. This isn't our first rodeo.

Enhanced Cloudscapes uses a different method with more impact of drawing. It has it's moments, but even its developer acknowledges our approach is more sound in performance.

Fair enough, the performance is very good I'll give you that.  Mainly just needs some work with the way the edges of the clouds are formed, there is discernible blockiness which can hopefully be smoothed out eventually.

[Cameron]

One things for certain...we've never been known to let SkyMaxx just sit stagnant.

[FlyAgi]

12 minutes ago, rawdmon said:

The SkyMaxx ones are probably nice for high altitude flying but when flying under the clouds in GA flight they aren't very good at the moment.

That's funny... for me it's the other way around, I like the clouds seen from below but for me personally they seem a bit weak when flying just above them, higher altitudes then again look good.

Sadly my gtx 1070 ist slightly to weak to get SMP volumetric clouds running at 60 FPS, I need some 25-30% more GPU power and currently new graphics cards are barely available and if they call crazy prices for them...

[Cameron]

1 minute ago, FlyAgi said:

and currently new graphics cards are barely available and if they call crazy prices for them...

That's definitely been a long running bummer!

[FlyAgi]

I found a way to use the volumetric clouds now, going to FXAA creates some flickering but then the 1070 seems to do a good job and I'm CPU bound again. Seems as if I really have to do some time traveling stuff and come back with a proper machine...

[mjrhealth]

4 hours ago, FlyAgi said:

That's funny... for me it's the other way around, I like the clouds seen from below but for me personally they seem a bit weak when flying just above them, higher altitudes then again look good.

Sadly my gtx 1070 ist slightly to weak to get SMP volumetric clouds running at 60 FPS, I need some 25-30% more GPU power and currently new graphics cards are barely available and if they call crazy prices for them...

I went to a 2070 from a 1070, wasnt expecting much but I pretty much run AA 1 notch below max, these clouds do make your card work hard thats for sure.

 

[Cameron]

@rawdmon We've discussed the mountain issue more and may have a potential path forward. I can't make full promises yet, but it's on our minds on how to tackle it.

We are going to await feedback on performance of the 5.0.1 build before experimenting with the route I'm speaking of.

[Cameron]

This has now been resolved in the released 5.0.4 update.