The clouds are thin, to puffy and have no definition as in it’s so blurry, it IS distracting. Just calling a spade a spade. Needs some juicing up, perhaps a 3dr party contest to drive the improvements to a new level? It’s just not cutting it when you have such high levels of ground details and zero detail in the clouds creates a graphic imbalance for the eyes. Just my 2 cents.
Please thicken them up and make them crispy. Just like the way my mom makes chicken.
Cheers,
PACO572
Clouds looks a bit dirty sometimes. They need a bath. You are correct in your analysis. Your mom’s chicken sounds delicious!
I’ve seen other people’s 2 cents saying the clouds are fantastic, so it’s all subjective. To me, sometimes clouds look very realistic and sometimes they look terrible.
In the right lighting, the clouds look amazing. In certain lighting where you see the volcano-looking clouds, that is pretty ugly. One thing that has been cool is flying at night through the clouds on approach and the way the light shines through the clouds I find fairly realistic.
Some things it does very well and others not maybe so great, but it is hands down better than those odd P3Dv5 thunderstorms.
This sums it up spot on!
I find at low altitudes the clouds are actually too think, so the opposite.
This is not my screenshot, it is from @DementedCorn327, but so often you get these horrible clouds are too thick.
Fingers crossed they are sorting this is SU10 as they have hinted.
Fix ya settings then.
Maybe a photo of what you mean would help?
I haven’t thought about the subpar sky rendition that way, but you are right, there is an imbalance!
If anyone who is reading this thread is unfamiliar with the development of MSFS since launch, it has to be explained that there are two main causes for the underwhelming rendition of the sky we are seeing now:
SU5, which was largely celebrated as the sim update bringing MSFS to XBox and dramatically enhancing the performance on PC, and SU7, which was intended to improve the accuracy of Live weather to match real world METAR data.
The performance gain in SU5 came with a cost, and that was a downgrade in the rendering of the sky. While I am not certain what they changed in particular, I noticed changes especially in the way the lighting interacts with the clouds. Harsh contrasts and less fidelity introduced the ash look, and while there were changes in the lighting while you were flying within the clouds, it has become flat grey after the update with the sun penetrating even the thickest cloud layer.
The thin, puffy, always cumulus type of clouds that prevail in the sim are the result of the developers failing to proper integrate METAR data into the weather rendering with SU7.
As a result, a key feature of the sim has become one of it’s major flaws.
The last developer Q&A imho confirmed my above mentioned assessment, as Seb stated that the rendition of the clouds could be enhanced, but only with a performance penalty.
But the sad truth is that not enough users seem to care to participate in the ongoing discussion in weather related threads, not even seem to be willing to vote. Therefore, for the time being the developers are getting away with attempts to tweak the subpar weather rendition, where in my opinion a general revamp (or reversion?) would be appropriate.
If you’d like to participate and/or vote, you might want to take a look at the weather related section of this forum:
Because in principle, they know how to do it:
Have you tried changing your volumetric cloud graphics settings?
Whether a cloud looks good or not might be subjective.
To me this cloud view from my flight yesterday looks pretty good.
Do you think the clouds looks horrible to you?
There are serious issues in the core sim functionality that are way more important and pressing than the perceived correct fluffiness or otherwise of clouds.
I never had problems with clouds, the only problem we have is we need new weather theme’s than the standard themes like microburst and supercell themes
I mean lets be honest though, They’re still better than 95% of the clouds in other video games
Agree, I don’t see anything wrong with them. Quite realistic in most cases, and I’m flying in and out of them in real life on a daily basis.
Where they actually matter? I dunno. I somewhat like the clouds I use with Active Sky Cloud Art for P3D more (cumulonimbus can be a bit of an eyesore if there is a lot of it as they all look the exact same). When clouds in WT and DCS were updated I immediately thought of MSFS (which I think is a good thing).
Former commercial pilot and the clouds look good to me. I am frequently awed by how good they look. Wondering if there is a problem in your rig/setup?
Nothing is wrong with my rig/setup and I’m not saying they look terrible (sunsets are wonderful to fly in with them), I am however thinking there is room for improvement. I have quite a stout rig (and building a second currently) and use all my sims (MSFS, P3D, XP and DCS) pretty much maxed out.
EDIT: @DismayingBroom1 Wait were you replying to me? I did get a notification, I thought you were responding to my post.
Some clouds look really good but others, like shown in post 6 in this thread, just are not right imo. They are too dark and wrongly shaded and often have too much yellow on their faces.
For some reason the clouds get darker at lower altitudes by default. Its as if to say that there are no low altitude bright faced cumulus which is not true.
I think they either intentionally introduced more yellow for lower altitude clouds or its a result of the addition of the ‘density’ variable which really turned very nice blue shadowed clouds into much darker clouds.
I also think they made the clouds generally larger and blurrier than what they used to be - probably in an effort to fight the pixelated look.
here’s what I saw today and I think its not right:
To me that’s a plausible situation in real life, the right side does look a bit more “fluffy”, it does look like that sometimes in real life, those sharp edges usually mean it’s gonna get bumpy.
