All shots in XP-12 look good from distance, but based on what I have seen, the clouds in XP-12 don’t look nearly as good as MSFS once you get close to them. MSFS has a major shading issue when it comes to clouds and of course there is a significant issue with cloud formation/rendering and reflecting the real world conditions. But it’s not all bad. They look much much better than XP-12 when you get close to them and pass through them. It seems like the combination of the two products would result in a perfect world sim 
3 Likes
I took this pic of a cloud as I passed it by last year and I’d much rather see sights like these than what i see in FS (sky and cloud related)
From what I’ve seen in XP12, it does everything from super soft layers to layers with more defined individual clouds in it to the above discreet small everyday cumulus. You look to the horizon in that pic and it looks pretty natural to me.
FS is great for clear weather low flying over good looking TIN but the sky/atmospheric representation just needs a lot of work imo.
12 Likes
Naaaa! They don’t look nearly as nice as MSFS, in my opinion not even close! The formations look better in XP-12 but clouds themselves, MSFS is much better. Although it is hard to argue over tastes and what looks good what doesn’t!
2 Likes
Sorry for the stupid question but is this only here only about visuals? Only if it looks good. What about winds, turbulence etc. !
7 Likes
Yes, that’s something that MSFS can’t do (at least in live weather) to this day - cloud turbulence. Maybe if FS could spawn realistic Cb clouds (vertically thick), it would change.
2 Likes
whats the point of clouds or storms then if theres no wind nor turbulence. oh dear.
5 Likes
It’s not too hard to get a good shot of clouds in FS2024, as many have demonstrated in this topic
But what is important to me is the overall cloud appearance during a flight, and in this I’ve been so disappointed that I now reluctanltly rarely fly with any clouds at all. The main problems (at my settings, of course): pixellation when passsing near many clouds; the overly-fluffy appearance; the way cloud formations become smooth at a distance when flying above the cloud layer; the aggressive sharp cut-off at the bottom of some clouds; and sudden changes in cloud shapes as I fly past them. And there are probably more that I can’t bring to mind at the moment. I know others will argue with me over these, but all I can do is state my experience.
2 Likes
I’m pretty sure in another thread I have listed the X,Y & Z acceleration when transitioning to, and from cloud, and there are turbulence effects on the plane, but they very mild. If you want better results than that you can use external tools like Active Sky. That will rock you around.
3 Likes
The problem with MSFS (as can be seen in your pictures as well), is that other than clouds, there is no atmosphere. Above / below / between the cloud layers it is always unlimited visibility which is (almost) never the case in real life. Add some haze to the mix and it will look 100x better already.
Also, cirrus and stratus depiction is awfull in MSFS. And on top they took visibility controls completely away in MSFS 2024. I think it is absurd for a flight simulator not to have any control over visibility. This does not deserve the “flight simulator” title.
9 Likes
Live weather in 2024 often has haze. Always unlimited visibility was a 2020 thing.
There is cloud turbulence in MSFS 2024. Are you on MSFS 2020? That one didn’t have cloud turbulence (or not much of).
100% agree! That’s what they need to focus on ! Atmospheric related environment, haze based on humidity/dust, fog, smog as reported by METAR, interpolated and better represented in the Sim. Not a dome of haze over a metar station. Something that ATMOS does but dynamic and based on the actual weather conditions…
7 Likes
i can only second that and your two points!
the one thing that i miss the most besided clouds and weather: remember die vegetation mod? Trees as far as 30nm making it so much more immersive than flying 3000ft vfr and even with tlod400 only seeing a flat washed out texture beyond 5-7nm.
1 Like
Definitely there isn’t. Should be impossible to fly a light plane into a Cb cell, which is not the case, even with turbulence on realistic.
1 Like
I am flying the Sim every day. So, there is for sure turbulence in the clouds in MSFS 2024, and sometimes it’s very significant. But perhaps CBs and the turbulence in them isn’t adequately designed. But with normal clouds, rain clouds, etc. there is turbulence and sometimes it’s fairly significant (in MSFS 2024).
Today I did what I often do – I took a flight in XP12 and I took a similar flight in FS2024. Usually the XP flight is the one I remember fondly. Today, not so much. First I had an un-announced video card driver update and then XP had some update. Im not sure what all happened but I hope it gets back to looking good – today was not it.
between KMOD and the San Fran area
in XP12
and the FS2024 version
FS was the clear winner today.
1 Like
Try the same thing in X-Plane 12. For all its faults, that is a much more serious situation.
I only have the XP12 demo, so can only compare the demo areas, and I have certainly seen some funky cloud formations there.
But when it isn’t doing that, the XP12 atmosphere just looks much more believable a lot of the time. To get MSFS close to this you have to use programs like Rex Atmos Core, along with Active Sky for more realistic looking clouds, if MSFS is having a bad cloud day.
3 Likes
I can’t do a single flight without REX Atmos Core. I know, it’s just visuals, and does not offer dynamic behaviour, based on real world weather. But vanilla MSFS2024 just looks too unrealistic, without any haze or believable atmospheric effects. XP12 definitely does that a lot better.
6 Likes
You know when you go to a showroom to buy a new TV, and all the TV’s have been set with that preset, usually called “Dynamic” or similar where everything looks super bright, and vivid, and all the people suddenly have perma-tan? Yeah…
2 Likes