CLOUDS????

[kipp]

what is it like when you fly through the clouds. Are they really 3d as they say????


kipp :-wave

[Tabs]

No it's all a lie - the clouds are actually 1D and you can't even see them... ;-) :D

From everything I've read yes they are true 3d - Frank at ProjectAI did a video of the lear flying through them actually.

[BillA]

Where can I see the video?

Thanks,

Bill
EPOX 8K7A Motherboard
AMD 2100 (1.7)
512MB DDR RAM
Winfast Geforce 3 64MB Video Card
Windows XP Pro
IBM 60gig 7200 HD

[adlion944]

LAST EDITED ON Jun-27-03 AT 01:45PM (EDT)[p]They are 3D, but I don't think they look as good as the FS2002 from a distance. The flat bottoms are kinda lame. Plus there's a major performance hit. You can fly through them and the effect is fairly good, though. Better than looking to the side in FS2002 and seeing a 2D cloud passing at an angle to the cockpit!

Hopefully, someone will build a great new set of clouds because it seems FS2004 still uses 2D clouds in the distance.

The blending of the sky looks great. The sky is very blue and the wisps of clouds in the upper atmosphere is awesome. The "line" that marked the sky and the texture used to paint the upper atmosphere is gone.

The weather is great. Snow looks awesome. The rain looks great, too. Much more realistic.

I also love the lens flare of the sun, even though your eyeballs don't see lens flare (artifact of a camera lens). Isn't that ironic that to heighten the realism when we could have things pristine, we use advanced technology to simulate a limitation of previous technology?

The water textures are pretty lame and the splashing waves are gone for the most part.

[Nels_Anderson]

You can see a video here:

http://www.flightsim.com/notams03/fs2004ss/clouds.wmv

This shows a view out the side window of the Mooney while passing through the edge of some clouds. Of course, it does not do it justice...full size in real time looks much better.

Video taken with Camtasia Studio. For more information, see our review:

http://www.flightsim.com/cgi/kds/main/review/camtasia.htm

[Jeff_DCA]

>Hopefully, someone will build a great
>new set of clouds because
>it seems FS2004 still uses
>2D clouds in the distance.

I take it you'd rather have 100% 3D clouds, and a 2 FPS game to go with? ;-)

Cheers,


http://www.detour-rock.com/backup/jeff/forumbanner.gif[TD]
- Jeremiah 29:11 | www.deltaconnectionacademy.com -[TD]

[Lou_Betti]

The default FS2004 clouds BLOW AWAY the default FS2002 clouds.

It's as simple as that. :-)

Regards,
[link:www.dreamfleet2000.com|http://www.dreamfleet2000.com/gfx/images/Forum_Banners/DF_BANNER_FORUM_LOU6.jpg]

[Ken_Salter]

Do you have the beta? Just wondering what you are basing your opinion on...

[ladamson]

>
>The water textures are pretty lame
>and the splashing waves are
>gone for the most part.
>

I've seen some very interesting water textures. Ones I prefer much over FS2002. And they vary with time of day. The splashing waves are still there too.......... so I'm not sure what you're missing, or settings.

As to the clouds, I've seen what I consider "lack luster" screen shots with a bunch of small flat bottom clouds. I've also seen much better than some of these represented in the screen shots.

Ladamson

[shwncplnd]

LAST EDITED ON Jun-27-03 AT 07:24PM (EDT)[p]I'm sure Lou's seen ACOF first-hand.

Shawn
Nobody beats the Rizz

[BillA]

I think towards the end of the clip there is some turbulence. Am I right? Looks like its modeled nicely.
Bill
EPOX 8K7A Motherboard
AMD 2100 (1.7)
512MB DDR RAM
Winfast Geforce 3 64MB Video Card
Windows XP Pro
IBM 60gig 7200 HD

[budreiser]

From what I have seen, it is just like every previous FS from
Microsoft. It just keeps getting better and better. I'm pushing
68 and hope I live to see MSFS 2050 or beyond. I'm pushing the
envelope, ain't I?

[adlion944]

>>Hopefully, someone will build a great
>>new set of clouds because
>>it seems FS2004 still uses
>>2D clouds in the distance.
>
>I take it you'd rather have
>100% 3D clouds, and a
>2 FPS game to go
>with? ;-)
>
>Cheers,
>
>
http://www.detour-rock.com/backup/jeff/forumbanner.gif[TD]
- Jeremiah 29:11 |
>www.deltaconnectionacademy.com -[TD]

Heck no!

I think at a distance, the clouds in FS2002 looks totally real. I'm looking at the clouds in the FS2004 beta and they look like a collection of fat little blobs all over the sky. When the sky conditions are like that, the effect is horrible. But any other time, the sky looks very good, especially with bad weather. I flew with the thunderstorm preset and the lighting was breathtaking.

I'm just hoping that Chris Wilkes can make some nicer clouds.

As for the water, I was wrong. Near the ocean beach, there are waves. And the reflection of the sun off the water is awesome! Looks really nice.

Snow and rain look fantastic.

I've tried importing some FS2002 stuff like FSUIPC so I could put in Active Camera and the sim crashed.

I'm flying the default planes. I forgot how bad Microsoft does air files.

On a positive note, the new 2D front panels look incredible. The new VCs are a mixed bag. Still blocky and low polys yet get the same frames as 3rd party VCs (like Briefing Time or the Capt Sim 727) which look a lot better.

The new Lear model is really sharp. The VC ain't bad either. The Mooney even has a decent VC.

And the Wright Flyer is impossible to fly. Don't know why they bothered. Is anyone going to fly it for more than 1 minute? Guess it sells the game.

Blurries are still there, but perhaps slightly improved. I'm trying to figure out the new display options (clouds, mip maps).

There's a display bug when selecting new aircraft, the whole screen goes black and I have to "window" FS2004, select the aircraft and re-maximize the game. Annoying, but hopefully will be fixed. Updating Detonator drivers didn't fix it.

[mith]

Lou... can we say, "Blow away" here?

[mith]

Well... in Heaven.... the game's free.... and there is no "Fly!"... so it's really heaven!

[Jeff_DCA]

LAST EDITED ON Jun-28-03 AT 07:29AM (EDT)[p]>I'm flying the default planes.
>I forgot how bad Microsoft
>does air files.

Here we go again! :-lol This subject has been argued to death.

>And the Wright Flyer is impossible
>to fly. Don't know
>why they bothered. Is
>anyone going to fly it
>for more than 1 minute?
> Guess it sells the
>game.

Well, why have it any other way, when the real thing was just as difficult to fly? :-) In the Century of Flight edition, you can't exactly leave out the Wright Flyer can you?

Just remember how little you pay for this game, in relation to what it does.

Cheers,


http://www.detour-rock.com/backup/jeff/forumbanner.gif[TD]
- Jeremiah 29:11 | www.deltaconnectionacademy.com -[TD]

[adlion944]

Well aware, Jeff. Don't need a lecture. I just find it hard to believe that anyone will take to flying the Wright Flyer for more than a couple minutes.

And the air files are not good. Every aircraft is really, really twitchy and unstable. You should see the maneuvers I was pulling in the Lear. I was at 5K feet and pulled an inverse loop that even an Extra 300 couldn't do and the Lear made it, no problem.

The heavy iron is just terrible compared to the DreamFleet 737. And the Cessnas are terrile compared to the Cardinal.

You can't argue with that.

[shwncplnd]

It'll be like walking on clouds, eh?! :-lol:-lol

Shawn
Nobody beats the Rizz

[Ken_Salter]

LAST EDITED ON Jun-28-03 AT 01:09PM (EDT)[p]I wasn't referring to Lou...

[Jeff_DCA]

And i repeat; Just remember how little you pay for this game, in relation to what it does. :-) :-) :-)

Cheers,


http://www.detour-rock.com/backup/jeff/forumbanner.gif[TD]
- Jeremiah 29:11 | www.deltaconnectionacademy.com -[TD]

[adlion944]

>Do you have the beta?
>Just wondering what you are
>basing your opinion on...


I have seen the beta first hand.

[kc10]

LAST EDITED ON Jun-28-03 AT 07:25PM (EDT)[p]
>>"Just remember how little you pay for this game, in relation to what it does..""

Well,that statement can certainly be applied in relation to many aspects of the sim; but the airfiles?? Come on,how much more could it cost to make an acurate airfile?! And it's a FLIGHT SIMULATOR. Aircraft realism should come before geographically acurate grass textures.(I just made that up,but you get my point i hope :7 )

As for the "cartoonish" flat bottom clouds, I think that's just a result of A: no variation set for cloud altitudes in cloud settings, and B: screenshots never do justice to the actual 3D picture.

P4 2.4/533FSB
Tachyon 9700pro
Samsung 512 PC2700
SndBlstr Live 5.1
WD 40gb 7200rpm
__________________________
KC
Ft Lauderdale,Florida

[Jeff_DCA]

http://www.flightsim.com/dcforum/DCForumID21/29.html

Cheers,


http://www.detour-rock.com/backup/jeff/forumbanner.gif[TD]
- Jeremiah 29:11 | www.deltaconnectionacademy.com -[TD]

[sonic33]

You aint paying for the airfile it's self, You are paying for the knowledge it takes to create it.
Why not go ahead and create your own air file and see just what's involved. Sure, you don't have the knowledge, but if you did then you could get paid for it by producing a perfect simulator for us all. How much would you market it for I wonder?

Remember the purpose of Beta software, As I remember, when FS2002 was in beta stage there was talk about the airliners doing rollercoaster manoevers when in AP mode. Of course, it was fixed in the final release.

Sorry, had to get that off my chest :-)

Regards
Geoff
http://ffacc.com/images/geoffban.jpg
www.fsfreeforall.net
*********************************
http://www.btinternet.com/~g_seal <<<< My attempt at FS Scenery Design.
*********************************

[ladamson]

> Well,that statement can certainly be
>applied in relation to many
>aspects of the sim; but
>the airfiles?? Come on,how much
>more could it cost to
>make an acurate airfile?!

Airfiles are open to interpretation & users hardware/settings. And many of the better airfiles don't even run to the full limitations of the real aircraft's flight envelope (spins,etc.)

I've always considered stock MSFS air.files (FS2K Lear excluded)to be about neutral when used on hard settings. Never as refined as some third parties, but certainly not "terrible" as I've witnessed in other simulations & a few add-ons. I consider terrible files as those, that don't allow for recoverable stalls, constant babying to maintain altitude, horribly twitchy in pitch & roll, or vastly under-powered. MSFS defaults at least allow for getting from point A to B without tedious hassels.

IMO---- the "Wright Flyer" could be the best little air.file to come along which demonstrates the art of keeping an aircraft on the verge of a controlled stall in slow flight.

Ladamson

[sonic33]

Ladamson,
Couldn't have said it better myself.... Perfect ;-)

Regards
Geoff
http://ffacc.com/images/geoffban.jpg
www.fsfreeforall.net
*********************************
http://www.btinternet.com/~g_seal <<<< My attempt at FS Scenery Design.
*********************************

[flyinggriffin]

So much discussion about something that isn't even the same from minute to minute some days. The amount of anguish over clouds, yet nobody seems to care how the default terrain looks?
What robs any sim of realism for me, besides a C152 that climbs at 1500fpm, is ground texture.

[Ken_Salter]

Why? Unless you are always flying at 2000 ft, we tend to care more about what's in the air than what's on the ground (except for landing of course).

IMHO, I'd rather they put much more attention on weather and ATC than putting odd house and tree on the ground...

And I am very much looking forward to seeing both in this release! :-)

[ladamson]

>Why? Unless you are always
>flying at 2000 ft, we
>tend to care more about
>what's in the air than
>what's on the ground (except
>for landing of course).
>
>IMHO, I'd rather they put much
>more attention on weather and
>ATC than putting odd house
>and tree on the ground...
>
In all serious, my prime interest in real flight, IS the ground. This is the reason I'm so fond of the Mountain West, the Southwest Deserts, and backcountry flying which I'd like to extend to Alaska.

It's being in the air & looking down, that does it for me! :)
And being more serious, mountain and backcountry flying/landing can certainly be as dangerous or more dangerous than typical IFR flight involving clouds and loosing sight of the ground. But it's just a totally different realm of flight, involving skills and practice, that some may not be interested in.

And BTW---- yes, the ground/autogen, water, sky, the backcountry, and sunsets is improved in FS2004....

Ladamson

[Ken_Salter]

I guess the point I was trying to make is that to me FS2002 did address the ground (quite nicely) and now MS should (and apparently did) switch attention to the sky.

Yes, it definitely does depend on what you are interested in ;-)

Yeah, can't wait to see FS2004...unfortunately I don't have the beta, so I don't feel it is my place to critisize the software until I have acutally USED it ;-)

[ladamson]

>I guess the point I was
>trying to make is that
>to me FS2002 did address
>the ground (quite nicely) and
>now MS should (and apparently
>did) switch attention to the
>sky.
>
I know................... it made Pete Sidoli tremendously happy!, you can only fly over the U.K. or Ireland, so many times without getting real interested in cloud formations! :)

For me, clouds either contain icing possibilities, or cover what I really wanted to see!!!!

Ladamson