boeingornotgoing Posted January 20, 2016 Report Posted January 20, 2016 Not yet. I wuld caution you release is also not going to happen till testing is done, and that will take however long it needs to, Chris. well when it arrives, it will be great, even some news on smp 3.1 would be cool, totally your call and this sites model, but it seems you guys like to announce stuff quite a while ahead of time before release is either known and or "soon" means within a few weeks most- may I ask why the gap between announcements and releases tend to be extended? its cool to have info but just curious.
Cameron Posted January 20, 2016 Author Report Posted January 20, 2016 may I ask why the gap between announcements and releases tend to be extended? its cool to have info but just curious. Yes. It's called marketing. This is common in a business of selling product.For example...JetBlue announced service from New York to Daytona Beach 13 months ago. They started the route two weeks ago. They put it in people's head to be expecting ticket sales at some point (7 months later than the initial announcement, 6 months prior to commencement of service).Apple does this too. They tend to announce product and there is a several month waiting period. I would encourage you to read the original post again where it is very clear this product is not on any timeline."Soon" is subjective. On that note, consider not contradicting yourself. We have not released news on version 3.1, yet you want it; you're asking for it in this last post. Will you then do your continual posting that it's not released in any reasonable timeframe according to your standard as you so often do?Thanks for your interest. 1
FloB Posted January 25, 2016 Report Posted January 25, 2016 Hi Cameron, I'm not questioning the hard work that went into this, but to me it seems a little bit odd to pay for a plugin for skymaxx that (if I understood correctly) basically "fixes" a limitation that only exists when using skymaxx itself.It's a different story when using 3rd party weather plugins like NOAA or FSGRW together with skymaxx, but such an additional payware plugin should not be needed if you want to bring XP's default RWW functionality to Skymaxx.I can see the dilemma, though. And at least I appreciate the opportunities. RegardsFlo
sundog Posted January 25, 2016 Report Posted January 25, 2016 an additional payware plugin should not be needed if you want to bring XP's default RWW functionality to Skymaxx I understand that's what it sounds like. But, we're not bringing XP's default real-world weather functionality to SkyMaxx; we're inventing our own. We're parsing and interpolating raw METAR information, and using it to position cloud formations and storm clouds in ways X-Plane's built-in weather cannot. For example, we can have hundreds of distinct cloud layers in view at once, all at different altitudes - and we offer cloud types like cumulonimbus and towering cumulus that the default engine doesn't have. We didn't replicate what X-Plane's default clouds can do, we went beyond that. I think once folks start to get their hands on it and spread the word, folks will understand why it's a product in its own right. For now, stay tuned while we get through beta testing. 1
FloB Posted January 25, 2016 Report Posted January 25, 2016 (edited) Thanks Frank, I wasn't aware of that. My impression was that IF using XP's default RW weather the connector would just allow skymaxx to represent it accordingly. If you do your own parsing and interpolation of metars and own cloud placing - it's something different entirely. "Real Weather Connector" might be a little missleading in this regard, don't you think?I'll safe the dozen of new questions that your post brought to my mind. Looking forward to the release. BestFlo Edited January 25, 2016 by FloB
sundog Posted January 25, 2016 Report Posted January 25, 2016 It's a tough thing to describe, since Real Weather Connector isn't really like any existing product I've seen. It sits between X-Plane's real weather system, or an external weather engine (whatever produces METAR files for X-Plane) and SkyMaxx Pro. It works to enhance the weather data and how it is depicted. What matters is the end result, which is pretty darn immersive once you've experienced it.
Cameron Posted January 25, 2016 Author Report Posted January 25, 2016 If you do your own parsing and interpolation of metars and own cloud placing - it's something different entirely. "Real Weather Connector" might be a little missleading in this regard, don't you think? All of these things you just repeated were explained in the original post, Flo!
jailer Posted January 25, 2016 Report Posted January 25, 2016 I'm really excited about this product, but judging from all the confusion it seems you have your work cut out for you marketing it.
FloB Posted January 25, 2016 Report Posted January 25, 2016 All of these things you just repeated were explained in the original post, Flo! Maybe. Maybe not.
Cameron Posted January 25, 2016 Author Report Posted January 25, 2016 I'm really excited about this product, but judging from all the confusion it seems you have your work cut out for you marketing it. We'll get there. It's not our first time around this block!
cmbaviator Posted January 25, 2016 Report Posted January 25, 2016 Will this product get rid of the freezing, because it seems that every 2 minutes, XP freezes for 2-4 second to load the weather. I have skymax pro v3 and cloud draw distance set to 3/5 CMB Sent from Tapatalk
Cameron Posted January 25, 2016 Author Report Posted January 25, 2016 Will this product get rid of the freezing, because it seems that every 2 minutes, XP freezes for 2-4 second to load the weather. I have skymax pro v3 and cloud draw distance set to 3/5 In theory the combination of this and SkyMaxx Pro 3 should significantly help with this, yes. That said, we have made some optimizations to version 3.1 of SkyMaxx Pro which should also yield some better performance as a whole. We haven't really announced much of SkyMaxx Pro v3.1, but we will in due course. It's got some nice enhancements! 1
MadMckMax Posted February 2, 2016 Report Posted February 2, 2016 (edited) On 11/01/2016 at 5:47 PM, BeachAV8R said: Well, my expectations are that the Weather Connector will further improve the graphics and realism of X-Plane and SkyMaxx Pro. The images you've posted do not demonstrate that in my opinion. Comparing the images you've posted to the default X-Plane clouds - umm..I think I'll take the slab of uniform weather since it is more realistic looking than your images. All these images are default XP weather read from the in-game weather downloading.. I mean, even the SkyMaxx Pro v2 and v3 clouds I've been seeing far surpass what you are showing - I think you are underselling what you have created if it is an improvement on what "default" SkyMaxx will do. I'm just saying if you are promo-ing an improved product..post some screens that demonstrate it. Just trying to be helpful.. BeachAV8R On 11/01/2016 at 5:49 PM, Cameron said: Except the "slab" was not in any way in reference to X-Plane's default weather. Again, if you read the original post which started this thread you would understand (I would hope) what this achieves, why, and how. Posting screenshots of default weather directly implies you still don't understand. I understand you are not impressed and perhaps even don't fully understand the whole picture. That said, I'm quite happy most people do "get it" and are excited by the possibilities. Vote with your wallet, Chris. No hand twisting here! I'm a bit late to the party, but I just wanted to say I agree with BeachAV8R. In my opinion default X-Plane 10 + freeware cloud textures + a weather injector like NOAA offers amazing results such as clouds and/or thunderstorms at range, and in general a very organic and random image, like it would be in the real world. I bought SkyMaxx 3 and was slightly disappointed, the transitions are abrupt and the clouds all look more or less the same, not very organic. Overcast going all the way to the horizon with no holes or patches... So in terms of texturing I prefer the freeware stuff. I'm doubting if I should buy weather injector when it comes out, but if all it will be doing is producing weather at longer range and stopping the whole "one weather scenario at a time" issue, then I think I'll stick to default because it's already compatible with NOAA, and the texturing is in my opinion better. Edited February 2, 2016 by MadMckMax
Morrigan Posted February 2, 2016 Report Posted February 2, 2016 2 hours ago, MadMckMax said: I bought SkyMaxx 3 and was slightly disappointed, the transitions are abrupt Yes, they are. The connector is meant to help with that. But that specific issue isn't exclusive to Skymaxx. The default coulds do EXACTLY the same thing. Once new weather situation is injected by the default engine or the plugin like NOAA, clouds are rebaked and everything pops, regardless if you use SkyMaxx or not. Ergo, I see no reason to blame the addon. As for visuals, it's matter of taste, but I have hard time believing someone actually prefers default clouds models. Though I agree on the overcast, I wish it would be much more "puffy". 2
Cameron Posted February 2, 2016 Author Report Posted February 2, 2016 4 hours ago, MadMckMax said: I'm a bit late to the party, but I just wanted to say I agree with BeachAV8R. In my opinion default X-Plane 10 + freeware cloud textures + a weather injector like NOAA offers amazing results such as clouds and/or thunderstorms at range, and in general a very organic and random image, like it would be in the real world. It sounds like you guys are actually not in agreement. He wasn't saying anything about default being better other than the chosen shots in the initial post did not do a "job well done" to what he's even normally used to seeing with SkyMaxx Pro 3. Later shots posted in other topics have shown this off better. 4 hours ago, MadMckMax said: I bought SkyMaxx 3 and was slightly disappointed, the transitions are abrupt and the clouds all look more or less the same, not very organic. Overcast going all the way to the horizon with no holes or patches... So in terms of texturing I prefer the freeware stuff. I think you'll really enjoy what we have coming to you in your free upgrade to SkyMaxx Pro v3.1. As for overcast, you are aware there are multiple types for you to choose from, right? 1
boeingornotgoing Posted February 5, 2016 Report Posted February 5, 2016 Stop teasing smp 3.1 without cool visuals and info to share Will smp 3.1 and weather connector come out together or can we expect 3.1 SUBJECTIVE SOON before connector
M4cD Posted March 3, 2016 Report Posted March 3, 2016 (edited) How about an update ? Its to quiet here .. Regards Lawrence Edited March 3, 2016 by M4cD
Cameron Posted March 3, 2016 Author Report Posted March 3, 2016 Not much new to add other than we're still in beta with our group. I think we're getting close to the end though. 3
sundog Posted March 4, 2016 Report Posted March 4, 2016 (edited) A bit more eye candy; it's getting close, I think. Watch for more/better screenshots and videos soon. These shots are using X-Plane's built-in real weather with no external weather engine at all, around Seattle, with current beta versions of SkyMaxx Pro 3.1 and Real Weather Connector. Edited March 4, 2016 by sundog 1
Jakob Ludwig Posted March 4, 2016 Report Posted March 4, 2016 Yep.. that looks nice. Would you mind posting a set of screenshots showing first the WX-situation menu of X-Plane and than how it looks in the sim? Just to see how good SMP reflects what X-Plane want's to be there in form of clouds etc... and what SMP renders
sundog Posted March 4, 2016 Report Posted March 4, 2016 2 hours ago, Jaggo82 said: Yep.. that looks nice. Would you mind posting a set of screenshots showing first the WX-situation menu of X-Plane and than how it looks in the sim? Just to see how good SMP reflects what X-Plane want's to be there in form of clouds etc... and what SMP renders Well, OK. The more interesting conditions of this morning in Seattle are gone unfortunately, but I found a little hole in the clouds just now. You can see it represented in the weather situation and in the clouds next to the plane. Don't expect every cloud to match up perfectly, but the general features of the surrounding weather should match up pretty well - at least to the resolution of the underlying METAR data.
Jakob Ludwig Posted March 4, 2016 Report Posted March 4, 2016 It looks reasonable, comparing the wx situation. A bit thin on the extent of the cloud coverage. Could be a bit more solid or maybe the puffs to be a bit wider. Just to reflect the wx data. But in general I guess you can pump of the prefs, depending on the hardware specs. 1
poodster Posted March 4, 2016 Report Posted March 4, 2016 On 1/11/2016 at 0:10 PM, Cameron said: We'll manage the marketing when we're done with beta testing, Chris. Please don't try and turn this into a schooling topic. We have plenty of time to show work as it's progressing. You don't expect Goran to release the Citation with just one wing, or buttons missing in the cockpit when he shows progress shots, do you? There's nothing different here. Let it go. The 'Work in progress' designation for this exact forum and others exists solely for the reason of showing progression. I think chris is talking about how there isn't a photo of a plane flying to or into a severe thunderstorm.
Cameron Posted March 4, 2016 Author Report Posted March 4, 2016 I think chris is talking about how there isn't a photo of a plane flying to or into a severe thunderstorm. We already cleared up what he was saying. That wasn't it. Please keep this on current topic. You're a little late to the party with that post.
poodster Posted March 4, 2016 Report Posted March 4, 2016 1 minute ago, Cameron said: We already cleared up what he was saying. That wasn't it. Oh ok thanks, I can't wait to try this product out and fly into a thunderstorm.
Recommended Posts