MercuryMat

I got version 1 to 4. All of them promised something (a lot) that was simply not feasable and very, very, very heavy on system resources. I'm not expecting this version to be different and not meet the expectations, again. With SMP i always spent so much time trying to optimize it, because there is always something wrong, that in the end I just remove it forever...

Actually I had some random crashes during flying, even in the middle of the sea with no dsf loading etc...so i tried reinstalling the software (and I suppose also the latest plugin) and nothing changed. Then I tried your plugin and everything seems to work normally now. Seems that the problem is still present with their plugin. Thanks for the solution

Hi, Is this plugin still needed or the latest projectFLY plugin (5) works correctly?

It is not exactly "correct"...even if all type of clouds are heavy on fps, with default clouds (or any manipulation of them) you can see clouds all over the horizon and on multiple layers but with less impact than with SMP. With SMP is practically impossible to extend the visual till the horizon. 10000sq is a good value, but is really really close to the aircraft. The trade-off is the visual appearance of the clouds and the distance you want to see them, depends what you like. What also hits a lot are the shadows and the reflections over water.

I did not experience an improvement changing the clouds type (I think the fast are better than the crisp by the way). I experience better performances only after a system restart. My fps counter went back to original one...Not real-life better but at least the same.

Yes...Strange. same for me. Performances becomes better after PC restart, but at the same level of smp3, not really improved. For the rest I agree, but SMP it is the only way to have decent weather representation in X-Plane without losing hours tweaking settings and other parameters...Scripts...Etc...

OK, seems FSrealWX writes the METAR.rwx after some time. I tried RWC in always mode and seems that it reads the most recent metar it finds in the 2 files (metar.rwx and maxx_metar.rwx) and apply it to clouds. Is this correct? What is strange between the two files is the maxx_metar data are all one hour back compared to FSrealWX metar file, so I'm expecting RWC will read metar.rwx all the time instead maxx_metar.rwx. By the way it works in both modes. For future development you could consider to put different metar sources in RWC, like IVAO and VATSIM, for use in online flying.

Ok thanks, I'll try more deeply the two configurations.

Seems that FSrealWX does not write any METAR file in X-Plane folder so I suppose it injects weather using datarefs. But using it flying online in IVAO I think the solution is to put RWC in auto mode even in this case. Am I correct?

Sorry to say...big performance hit also for me...even with little coverage and same settings as SMP 3...I'm losing at least 10/15 FPS...and big graphic memory usage.

Hi, Did you test RWC with FSrealWX plugin? For me it is not clear what option should be better to use. Auto or Always? Any advice?

It is buggy...I bought on .org store (my first purchase years ago) so now I have the v1.7 available. I was unable to switch it on...may be I miss some library..but for sure the plane it is not perfectly tuned yet. I think developers will wait some days before releasing on all stores worldwide.

Nice price policy. Thanks.

Haha, in the screenshots the rain seems a nuclear fallout, but I suppose this are only sun reflections, may be too many?!?! By the way, after xEnviro big fail on pricing and not clear policies for future development I'll look forward this new version of SMP. Hope to see sparks in stable configurations of XP10. I'ts nice for XP11, but I suppose it will need some time to be really stable for this new platform.

What a pity! May be it needed just a little tuning work.

XP11 seems to have not this limit. But, about fps...I had many problems with SMP and multiple layers. That killed the performances. OK, I use complex planes and complex sceneries, but if I disable SMP in this situations the fps return to an acceptable rate. This is what bother me. If SMP cannot scale dinamically, in some way, quality & performances, I think the problem will be still there with any version. It would be very annoying to work with the settings or disable SMP during a flight to gain fps. I think the clouds are one, if not the only, of the things that could be adjusted dynamically to maintain constant performances, even if this means to temporarily reduce the quality.

Is possibile to see a video or screenshots WITH actual framerate?

I was never really able to use SMP 3 with decent performances-appearance balance, especially with mid to heavy cloud coverage. So SMP3 for me was mostly a waste of money (cause i had to remove it completely to be able to enjoy the sim) even if I bought with offer. You should give some clear performance comparison between the products, considering no-top-of-the-line PC and MAC, cause appearance could be nice, but performances are what makes the difference. The price is fair if the specification are reflected in real day use, even if in practical you are charging users with 20$ per year, for a product never perfectly working in many situations. There will ever be a way to test the product before buying it? Or may be a way to give money back if not completely satisfied? At least the first option should be considered. May be an open beta could be a good way to proceed.

Same things happen to me, and i do not fly the ixeg. i tried removing almost all plugins and enhancement (also other sim-controlled aircrafts) in x-plane and i did not have improvements, apart for a couple of fps, but it is not really measurable, it is only a sensation. I say again the cpu and gpu are not overloaded both in power and in vram usage. I cannot do more apart reporting the issues...

Ok so you want something constructive? Try this solution: http://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?/files/file/33346-lua-default-cloud-enabler-with-sky-max-pro Then look at the frame-rate with the LUA script and without it, but adjust SMP cloud-viewing distance, of course not with a couple of clouds on the screen, but with a 30% (at least) cloud coverage, may be with more than one layer of clouds, switch to external view and look around. I managed to have decent (25/32 FPS) performances with 8000 visibility in SMP and with the script (in very complex sceneries), but there is no way to achieve same performances with a higher setting in SMP and without the script. I never said SMP is a bad looking plugin, it is the opposite, but for my hardware, and it is quite powerful, stable performances are achievable only with almost all options switched off (no shadow, no lensflare, no forced cirrus etc) and with visibility around 5000, that in overcast conditions is almost useless... And there is no way to enable the cloud shadows without cutting the frame-rate in a half, for example, and this sometimes strangely happens even with no clouds on the screen! My res is fullhd and not ridiculously high, my GPU is a 980Ti with 6GB of ram...what does it need SMP to work properly with no stutters and with no strong frame-rate hit? You are saying SMP is a solid plugin, and of course is stable, but I explained why i said SMP to me seems like a beta with some problems to be still solved. What i noticed is that nor CPU nor GPU are overloaded so i cannot explain why FPS drops dramatically with SMP enabled. The fact is the plugin works well till there are not many clouds on the screen, and the cloud visibility is strongly reduced, otherwise is a frame killer, and the sim starts to stutter. I think it is impossible to say the opposite. May be most of the people will not notice this, may be they are happy with a couple of good looking clouds around the plane (I saw tons of videos that demonstrates that the "expectations" of sim-pilots are different and many times quite low, considering the potential of X-Plane), but it's not my case. I always try to push the sim to it's limit, and I did when I built the (world-unique) glider-sim at my aeroclub, and looking at it maybe you'll understand what I mean for "performance friendly"...SMP for me it is not a solution to achieve good performances AND good appearance, even with powerful hardware.

Right coiche...buy a 500€ piece of hardware to run a 30€ piece of software that promised to run even on low spec machines from the beginning. Nice idea! The fault is not your PC, but SMP that is still a "beta" from years now!!! And it promises results that are only achievable on non-existent machines! And now we have to wait for SMP 4...

Uff...same thing for me. Performaces for IFR high altitude flights are really poor even with 3.2 version, expecially when there is more than 25/30% cloud coverage, even when reducing visibility to 20000 (less is completely unuseful for IFR flights). Clouds are nice...but I had the same effects with the very first version of SMP years ago...I was expecting something more...at the moment for me SMP it is not usable. Much...MUCH better performaces with standard clouds or with free/pay upgrades...

I know. Yesterday I put the drawing distance to max and tested. I used my airport LIMC that is very heavy on ram and CPU, i put HDMesh V3 with full photoreal. I know it is really a heavy setting, but when measuring the vram i noticed a high increase in usage compared to standard clouds. and the sky was absolutely not full of clouds.

This is the problem of not having a demo version or a trial to test before buying. I agree rwc is a fps killer and vram eater, even with small numbers of clouds in the sky the vram is almost full (200/300 mb free on a 6Gb 980 ti, almost 2gb more than without SMP/RWC). ...sent from TapaTalk.

So it doesn't matter if in NOAA plugon the metar are downloaded from NOAA, IVAO or VATSIM networks? RWC overrides them in any case using NOAA metars?