Cameron

Sounds like you had a license check happen (6 months). Sorry, but it's a necessary evil.

Define "a lot" please.

The answer is not going to be any different than last time and the discrepancy between fog.

There will be no issue with this.

That's peculiar. I think this is the first time I've seen this on an Nvidia card. Can you double check your Nvidia drivers are up to date?

NOAA is obsolete now with 10.5. FSGRW is a matter of personal preference.

What's your graphics card?

SkyMaxx Pro already does this.

He does not have a TI variant.

Post a screenshot of your X-Plane rendering settings. Fill-rate can absolutely be a factor regardless of available VRAM!

It varies. Right now we are considering some things so it will be out when it is out.

Hi there, Can you also attach your log.txt file from the X-Plane folder? Thanks!

You and I have the exact same GPU. I can load up SMP without much of any consequence. Sounds to me like you're overloading your GPU with other things. That's not OUR fault. There are consequences to every action, Mat.

No, this was based on the assumption the Intel CPU was in use. I missed the Radeon card part (based on Jan's initial response).

No sir. It means the graphics chip inside of your laptop is incapable of properly rendering.

Frank is correct. It's located at the path he specified!

To you, but not to thousands of others. It's not a beta. You're just making a life decision to be an ass in this given moment. Not one thing constructive in your post, so don't bother defending that angle. Remember this moment the next time you're called out and act clueless about your history of responses. In other news, I'm at a flight sim conference right now. I've been approached countless times by people this weekend with people raving about SkyMaxx Pro 3 and IXEG.

This has been covered numerous times now in the forums. You need to re-download RWC.

No need to purchase twice, Andy. I've processed a refund for you.

You're still within the scope of reply time. Thank you for your patience.

Wait...SMP 3.1.2 or 3.2? They both exist, so just clarifying.

As soon as I am back to my desktop I will post images which prove your statement incorrect. It does not matter which PC I am on, the result is the same (and I run extreme on the desktop). Regardless of how you feel things work for you, your computer does not define what may happen on everyone else's or even the majority. I'm not sure how we got on this debate anyhow. You're coming at this from a different angle than the context of this dialogue. The debate was really if SkyMaxx Pro v3 is even capable of producing clouds up to the horizon, and as demonstrated, it IS capable of doing such as of version 3.2 (and much more efficiently, as many customers have reported to us). I absolutely disagree with this. I personally ONLY fly jetliners, especially IXEG. With 3.2, not only are my FPS greatly improved, but the distance for which clouds are drawn is drastically improved. I understand you feel differently, but there has been a HUGE response in kind to what I have said all over social media, in our e-mails, and on a few forums. So, we can easily agree to disagree here. As long as the majority doesn't see if your way I feel comfortably with where we're at and how things are heading.

Re-download RWC and run it from the latest installer.

My screenshots clearly show clouds going to the horizon (and at a higher altitude). It also clearly shows a considerable fps increase. What you're still failing to see is such tests are not applicable with real weather active. When RWC is present the METAR reading is much more precise, whereas default is an approximation. Therefore, comparing the two with real weather active does not demonstrate cloud distance draw between the two appropriately.

I can't actually really see what you mean in these screenshots. What I see is Real Weather Connector active and displaying a mix of long range overcast (which in the middle appears to go to horizon) with a "hole" in coverage on left and right side, vs a slightly more inaccurate "assumption" for what X-Plane thinks is going on there in the default screenshot. If you want to test the two out correctly, disable real weather. Case in point... I have just run a test at 28,000 ft (sorry for the quality, I'm using laptop for these images). I maxed out cloud detail in X-Plane rendering settings for default clouds, and I maxed out cloud draw distance for SMP clouds. The results are shown below: