Improve clouds in Live Weather

[AlpineB4652]

Please improve cloud variety and depiction in live weather to make it create:

1. predictable and consistent clouds in line with IRL weather sources/forecast
2. Dynamic cloud formations with smooth and organic development without bubbles or rapid transitions.
3. A full variety of the main cloud types, with appropriate boundary definition, volume and density for that cloud type, making full use of the cloud rendering tools already available in the sim.

If all three conditions cannot be met in the live weather environment, then users should be given an option whether they want more ‘accurate’ weather based on observation (eg METAR) or more ‘dynamic’ based on forecast models (eg the pre-SU7 model).

To explain: The current live weather is, in many ways, excellent, accurately reflecting real world observations and forecasts, particularly in relation to temperature, pressure, wind speed and direction, both at the surface and aloft. This addresses the non-cloud aspects of weather: there is no real issue with this.

Live weather’s one major weakness is how it depicts clouds. These often tend to lack variety of type and layering, with high level cirrus, stratus layers and cumulonimbus poorly represented (and the associated precipitation and convective turbulence’)

Whist on some occasions the live weather engine will generate cloudscapes expected by forecast or observation, this appears often to be the exception rather than the rule: performance is inconsistent.

MSFS is capable of rendering excellent clouds: this can be seen from both custom weather and the occasions when the live weather engine does produce something more dynamic.

(Although there has been much forum discussion of a percieved regression in cloud depiction in comparison to pre-SU7 live weather, it has not been subject of a wishlist item, but rather a bug report which is not necessarily the correct category).

[AlpineB4652]

Further to this post, another user pointed out to me the closed wishlist item here:

More cloud formations!

Aircraft basically live in the sky. Which makes the sky very important, especially in a flight simulator. I think eventually, we need to see all the possible cloud formations that are true to life. As mentioned in a previous Q&A, they (MSFS) are striving to create a replica of the earth. Below is an image that illustrates some of the cloud formations that we see in our everyday-to-day life. [image] Source: List of cloud types - Wikipedia This image is only the tip of the iceberg regarding c…

It has some good examples of cloud variety if you are interested.

To be clear: this wishlist item is not the same as a shopping-list for cloud types but rather the improved use of existing SIM assets and the architecture of how clouds in the live weather environment are created and rendered.

[Perrry]

Those 3 points i bet most of the users expected in this sim. Even if we as community asked for more accurate weather at release. We didn’t expect less dynamism and cloud variety. We wanted at least same dynamism, at least same variety of clouds after the accuracy improvments. Thats why we got dissapointed after the accuracy improvments of su7.

If the same variety and dynamism were still there together with the accuracy nobody would have complained.

And i agree, i think what we can see is not a bug. It’s how it were meant to be after su7 even that we as users didn’t expected the other features of weather to be worse.

Hope they can at least restore the pre su7 feel. Weather for me is the main feature in the sim, thats why i’m here hoping for a real update of weather. Only seen small hotfixes since su7 even that weather is a core feature that affects all of the users. Those single aircraft gets massive updates compared to weather but weather all of the users use. We all fly in same atmosphere and all of the aircraft use same atmosphere.

[AlpineB4652]

Yes, I’d hope this is a baseline we can all agree is a reasonable ask. There are those who maintain there was no degredation. And somedays I see clouds that do look awesome. But oftentimes not. To me, the lack of variety has been very noticeable as I usually fly VFR in the UK, Alaska or PNW. All of which have very dynamic maritime weather patterns.

[BluMac2251]

I wholeheartedly agree with this wishlist item. This comment aims to analyze a clear example of the inaccuracies mentioned in the original post. As an example, here is a storm from earlier today. These two photos were taken within 3 minutes of each other:

This is a drone image. It may be hard to tell, but there is a distant towering CB cloud with measured Echo Tops of 45000FT. You can see the infamous Cumulonimbus flat top. This center of the storm was estimated at 21NM from my location.

And here is the in-sim screenshot. It is much different than the RL photo. The towering CB cloud does not exist in the sim. The sim renders this strange cumulus/nimbostratus rain cloud, which isn’t nearly correct. The top of the in-sim cloud was only 16000FT, drastically different from the real-life photo (45000FT). The cloud was also closer to the camera position, about 14NM. These incorrect characteristics have been consistent within the extensive comparisons I have done over the last few months. All storms look virtually the same in MSFS— This is just one example.

The live weather has been very ‘flat’ for a long time. Much of the weather diversity has disappeared over the last two years— I mean, we can’t even have lightning anymore. The degradation has not proved very reassuring for the users, as we all know this sim has excellent capabilities with its weather engine. It just needs to be programmed correctly.

Additionally, this relates closely to other wishlist items such as weather radar and realistic dangerous weather. You cannot have a helpful weather radar without having accurate weather to draw from, especially when cloud/precip heights are so utterly wrong. That’s a whole other topic to discuss, so I’ll leave it at that.

[AlpineB4652]

Thank you. Evidence-based posts are refreshing and welcome.

On the one hand, props to the weather engine for recognising there was a storm in the vicinity (14nm out isn’t all that bad…) . But shame shame about cloud type used to show it.

[mbraortns]

The type of cloud that I want back (the sim once did a pretty good job with these imo) is what I call alto cumulus. It may be stratus – I’m not super knowledgable on cloud types. But they are very important to an overall atmospheric representation as there appearance very much depends on how you are seeing them.

For example, here we are (thanks to Premier One Driver - all pics from his video “We’re going to move you around those storms. Avoiding bad weather in a private jet”) – here we are over the Gulf of Mexico heading south along Florida’s west coast with storms along the coast and there are ‘patches’ of alto cumulus below us that, like most clouds, are brighter where thicker and dimmer at the edges (when not backlit by the sun):

Up against a bright cloud face, they appear dark:

Here we are passing just underneath and in the distance they can appear to be nothing more than thin dark lines in the sky:

From underneath, their appearance is darker against the brighter higher altitude clouds:

but yet really bright when backlit by the sun:

To me its the most useful cloud type of all because they can add simple beauty all by themselves or they can add intricate detail when properly lit and mixed with other clouds.
You can even see them in @BluMac2251 's top photo adding just a little shadowy detail near the anvil. Its a wonderful cloud that the sim used to do a not bad job of:

but now I never see anything like that anymore. I’d really like good clouds back. I think it should be a priority and I hope it is.

[Perrry]

I thought about a thing. If those meteorologists don’t solves the equations to predict weather 100% then why would Asobo be able to?

Weather in the sim will always have limitations of accuracy.

Then why not include options for us to choose limitations?

[AlpineB4652]

Well exactly. Weather prediction is very challenging IRL and why there will always be deviations. Even with the very accurate short-range forecasts available nowadays there will still be some deviation. Its why I pay little heed to the ‘look, see!: METAR says it is cloudy/clear/wet/dry etc at airport x but its different in the sim’ posts. A single data point proves nothing and even in the real world th there will be variation between forecast and observation. What matters is the scale of the variation and if it is to such an extent that it renders real-world aviation weather planning tools meaningless.

But as I’ve said before I don’t think there is actually any conflict between how live clouds are rendered and the use of observational data to supplement the forecast model and there should be no need for the options unless there is some other, performance-related issue (or cost?) that is limiting how the sim treats clouds in live weather. But as all that is all just guessology on our part the best we can do is state what we would like to see: clouds that match IRL forecasts & observation & typology and without being a slide-show or more at home in an, er, video game…

[Perrry]

@AlpineB4652

if it is to such an extent that it renders real-world aviation weather planning tools meaningless.

The question is how much from those observations are needed to make those planning tools useful as a minimum? How much can the weather deviate from those planning tools? Set it exactly what those planning tools says also makes the weather 100% predictable and hard to make dynamic.

Isn’t the things they added pre su7 enought? wind, pressure and temp. I know about the visibility/fog layer they added in su7. Besides that were the blending or change of the MB data really needed?

As you say there is no evidence what were the real cause of the downgrade but thats what they mentioned and thats the information we as users have to work with when reporting issues.

And those planning tools also uses different sources that may say different things that may not match the source in another planning tool that some other user uses.

[AlpineB4652]

The picture is muddy for sure. I’m just conscious that SU7 coincided with an expected (then actual) massive increase in the user base. The changes to live weather clouds correlated with METAR, but was that the causation? I don’t think we know the answer to that.

Anyway. We’ve been round this particular bouy endlessly. The other point: how much deviation is acceptable? Well everyone is going to have a different opinion on that. I would say ‘a bit’ but ‘not much’ when it comes to the more quantifiable data like temp, pressure etc.

But with the more dynamic aspects that change moment to moment, positioning of cloud formations, or breaks in overcast I think a more generous set of tolerances should apply - like with the post above with the CB out by 14nm. That, to me, is within tolerance of what we can expect from a home simulator.

And you know, I can live with that, so long as Asobo provide more insight into what the tolerance ls are and how data integration is done so I can factor it into my planning. And if I spawn in and what the SIM presents me is a bit different from what the forecast suggested then fine - that happens IRL. I’ll make on the spot observations and adjust my plan accordingly. Same goes for en-route and landing.

[Speedbrake22]

I think the problem with thunderstorms is that they are hard to predict when and where exactly they occur. They can develop in minutes so it might not always be in the exact same location in the sim

[DementedCorn327]

@AlpineB4652

like with the post above with the CB out by 14nm. That, to me, is within tolerance of what we can expect from a home simulator.

Agree that we have to accept tolerance, forecast data cannot be 100% accurate vs what we see out of our window but I think that what BluMac2251 wanted also to show is that this type of CB high altitude extension cloud is missing in the sim. So in some cases it is fine if the sim does not represent it if no such CB data has been received, but if MB send the data related to CB then it should be correctly depicted in the sim. As of today we don’t have CB correctly depicted.

[AlpineB4652]

Oh, I wholly agree with the main point that was being made. It is, after all, the main point of this wishlist item. It was the secondary point about the accuracy of the lateral positioning that provided a handy example of where I would draw a different line when it comes to setting a tolerance.

[AlpineB4652]

And on a side note, just did a short hop from KTTD to KKLS and enjoyed some very accurate , but sadly very ugly (clouds), live weather

[Perrry]

About the rendering i think UE5 renders clouds and weather well. I’m not sure what engine Asobo uses to render the weather. I bet an own developed engine I know Seb mentioned they needed to change rendering to make more realistic clouds without reducing performance.

Ultra Dynamic Sky - Product Video + Quick Start (UE5 Version)

[UltraRR3660]

The question I ask is quite simple: is it possible to create an atmosphere so close to reality with this msfs “engine”
.
Otherwise, it would be generating too much expectation about something that can never happen…

[AlpineB4652]

Well, that’s a question for Asobo to answer in response to user wishes

There are always the perma-dissatisfied who want nothing less than perfection. But that’s no reason not to ask for some improvement. It isn’t all or nothing. It never is.

[Perrry]

@UltraRR3660

Otherwise, it would be generating too much expectation about something that can never happen…

I know the rendering is capable of more than what we have since su7. I know it could render the weather more varied and unique every flight pre su7. And that have set my expectations.

[DementedCorn327]

Yep I think that’s the main complaint here, accuracy is quite good and if it is not, we understand that it can’t be always 100% vs IRL actual weather. But having bad clouds depiction, knowing what the weather engine is capable of much better rendering (what we had at initial release and now using presets), this is something that can be fixed and improved, just a question of priorities and have the correct dev team (with weather knowledge) assigned to that task.