Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

While the overcast model is a lot better than in standard XP I noticed it struggles in situations where it's intersecting with the ground.e.g. mountains.
 
I made a short video that illustrates the problem:
 


 
I used all default settings, except overcast quality=high and god rays=off.
 
It seems like when I'm inside the overcast layer any portion of the terrain that is intersecting the layer suddenly becomes visible while it remains invisible from outside the layer.

My weather and rendering settings were as follows:
  
raimP8Sl.jpgLTzvuBEl.jpg

 

Also, when I select "stratus" instead of "cumulus ocast (bumpy)" for the lowest layer I don't see any difference between overcast quality "low", "medium" and "high". All just create a zero-thickness layer at the base which looks rather unrealistic, especially during transitions.

 

Apart from this, it is a *HUGE* accomplishment, congratulations! Finally getting rid of the dreaded "grey screen of death" was well worth the money in itself ;-)

Edited by Daikan
Posted (edited)

With HDR off it is the same, except that the terrain is rendered "clearer" (e.g. doesn't gradually fade into the background as much, especially when seen from above the layer).

 

Selecting overcast quality "Low" or "Medium" completely removes the opaque overcast layer (I can clearly see far away mountain tops during the same ascent as in the video) and only a few sparse cloud puffs remain at the layer altitude. Although I noticed the sky changes from grey to blue when I pass through it.

Edited by Daikan
Posted

Ok here is what I am seeing, it appears there may be an issue with the ray-casting overcast layer just buy looking at your video (setting high...from the SkyMAXX UI)  it almost looks like a draw order issue but to be honest I cannot replicate the exact problem.....

 

With the overcast layer set to "mid" and by using the same settings you provided I replicated this screenshot.   Are you seeing something similar:

 

jM67sm1.jpg

 

 

The reason I ask is because I am completely puzzled by your last post..... 

Posted (edited)

Yes, it definitely looks similar, e.g. no actual overcast, only cloud puffs.

 

What's weird is that "Low" re-introduces the overcast layer, albeit only as a simple white, zero-thickness layer. Seems like "Med" completely does away with the overcast in this situation...

 

EDIT: Looks like I wrongly assumed that "Low" had no opaque layer in my earlier post... sorry.

Edited by Daikan
Posted

Just a brief explanation as to what you are seeing here with the different overcast options...

 

1. Low --Uses a flat overcast layer which is frame-rate friendly..

2. Med --A heavy dose of cloud puffs...

3. High --Ray-Casting clouds  FPS eaters for those with high end hardware....

 

The Medium layer is affected by the view distance in the X-Plane weather dialog, so with less visibility you will have less cloud puffs, but as you can see from my screenshot there is a haze that thickens the atmosphere and in many situations you will be flying through some serious cloud cover.....

Posted

In that case I guess we will have to live with "Med" not being true overcast in the sense that it provides a 100% opaque layer... fair enough.

 

But what about the High setting then? You said you couldn't reproduce it on your end? Would you care to post a video of a layer transition with some intersecting terrain nearby?

 

Who knows, maybe its a driver issue or something else interfering with the draw order...

Posted

In that case I guess we will have to live with "Med" not being true overcast in the sense that it provides a 100% opaque layer... fair enough.

 

But what about the High setting then? You said you couldn't reproduce it on your end? Would you care to post a video of a layer transition with some intersecting terrain nearby?

 

Who knows, maybe its a driver issue or something else interfering with the draw order...

 

 

No consider high to be an experimental option, in hindsight we should of labeled it as such.....I can see a few things to improve upon with this option in the future.....

  • Upvote 1
Posted

So in the end...what we have to do to fly in an overcast cover??? I put all to low cause I have heavy performance issues with HDR (that I do not want to disable expecially at night)...and my PC it's not a low end one...

Posted (edited)

What are your default rendering settings, lets start there Mad.....

 

What kind of scenery, what location, are you using HD mesh......

 

What aircraft are you flying also this has something to do with performance....

 

A list of plugins running would be nice....

 

Do you have an optomized OS?  Cut of unwanted processes, programs to help performance....

 

Drivers Up to date?......

 

Have you cleaned up your plugins folder?.........

 

 

I need information to help you out Mad, but as you said in a previous post you are not happy with the product.  If that is the case and you do not wish for a solution you are trolling these forums. :P

 

If you would like to continue this conversation and work through your problems we have a group here that will be more than happy to help you. :D

Edited by JohnMAXX
Posted

What are your default rendering settings, lets start there Mad..... ALL SETTINGS VERY HIGH...but I had no problems with this. Res:1920x1200 with 4gb VRAM

What kind of scenery, what location, are you using HD mesh...... ANY SCENERY THE SAME, YES HD Mesh

What aircraft are you flying also this has something to do with performance.... I TRIED Jar A320, B777, DASH-8

A list of plugins running would be nice.... (Seatraffic, Airtrack, PythonInterface, XUIPC and...well...an unofficial x-ivap 64bit. No Airport navigator that i know it is buggy)

Do you have an optomized OS? Cut of unwanted processes, programs to help performance.... YES

Drivers Up to date?...... YES, all of them

Have you cleaned up your plugins folder?......... Reply at bottom.

I need information to help you out Mad, but as you said in a previous post you are not happy with the product. If that is the case and you do not wish for a solution you are trolling these forums. :P

If you would like to continue this conversation and work through your problems we have a group here that will be more than happy to help you. :D

Ok I read the avsim post. Sincerely i did not try to remove all plugins (but i did for some). At the moment I was able to fly at 20/25 fps with setting all low except clouds size (at circa 25/30 %) but i'm still experiencing heavy fps drops almost randomly during flight, and i also lowered some x-plane settings a step down. The fact is that with HDR off or on the situation is almost the same, apart from the small fps reduction when hdr is active.

Today i tried to load my LIMC scenery (that it's quite heavy, but it's near my real home and the weather was absolutely clear today), with real weather the sky was all clear also in the sim, but suddenly the fps dropped dramatically to 5/7 without any action in the sim...only loading plane...and the sky was completely clear!!! no clouds, no cirrus, no contrails.

At that moment I started to think there was something really wrong with SMP, and not related with 3D rendering...but probably some incompatibility. I also noticed that CPU usage was really increased after SMP installation...

I'm not trolling, but i'm a bit frustrated I cannot manage to use this plugin in the right way, when in he past i solved many problems with x-plane, sometimes speaking with plugins' and sceneries' authors, sometimes alone.

For now I'll try the following procedure to reset SMP:

1) uninstall SMP

2) remove all plugins

3) clean up windows 8 a bit more (some registry and cache cleaning...)

4) fire-up x-plane and close

5) install SMP

6) fire up x-plane, activate SMP and close

7) remove GIZMO (If I understand well this is used only for activation...and it leaves a sort of taskbar at the right of the screen...that is quite annoying)

8) start x-plane and make a flight

9) start adding plugins...

I think this is the last solution I can try to make this plugin working well...

I'll report results here...

Posted

7) remove GIZMO (If I understand well this is used only for activation...and it leaves a sort of taskbar at the right of the screen...that is quite annoying)

This will not work. SkyMaxx will be disabled when this is done.

Posted

Getting back to my OP as I think nobody commented on the following:

 


Also, when I select "stratus" instead of "cumulus ocast (bumpy)" for the lowest layer I don't see any difference between overcast quality "low", "medium" and "high". All just create a zero-thickness layer at the base which looks rather unrealistic, especially during transitions.

 

Am I seeing the expected behavior? And if so, why is there no differentiation between the quality settings? I can see how having a zero-thickness layer is good for performance and therfore belongs into "Low" settings (same as with cumulus overcast), but I would expect a little bit more from "Med" and "High" (at least some representation of actual non-zero thickness would be really nice).

Posted

Daikan,

 

I get some variations from these 3 settings, some users have had to do some housekeeping on X-Plane prior to an install of SkyMAXX.  Have you given this a try yet?  And if you can provide some comparisons that would be most helpful.... 

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
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...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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