PDA

View Full Version : Clouds, are they to low?



XyZspineZyX
12-01-2003, 03:49 PM
{
<< "This has had me thinkning for some time now. Dont clouds usualy lurk higher then 1500m?\n";
}



1st Lut. 361stMapleTiger.


Proud member of FBAA. and i have issues.

XyZspineZyX
12-01-2003, 03:49 PM
{
<< "This has had me thinkning for some time now. Dont clouds usualy lurk higher then 1500m?\n";
}



1st Lut. 361stMapleTiger.


Proud member of FBAA. and i have issues.

XyZspineZyX
12-01-2003, 04:04 PM
Of course not ! The fog, for example, is only a cloud lying on the ground, and in a real flight, the bases of the low cumuluses often stands at 600-800m.

http://membres.lycos.fr/fawbounty/photos/logoboris.gif

XyZspineZyX
12-01-2003, 11:56 PM
I agree with you there, fog usualy stays quit close to the ground.

but when its a nice sunny day with some clouds it just seems like they are higher then 1500m.

I dont know, mayby im just nuts lol



1st Lut. 361stMapleTiger.


Proud member of FBAA. and i have issues.

XyZspineZyX
12-02-2003, 12:03 AM
Its my understanding that clouds lurk whereever they please. I mean, how are you going to tell them where to go? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

But seriously, the clouds in FB are easily the best in any sim to date. Here's to hoping that BoB will demonstrate the old admonition of:

"There is never any reason to fly through a cumulonimbus cloud in peacetime!"

--------------------
"'There are no atheists in foxholes' isn't an argument against atheists, its an argument against foxholes" -- John Morrow.

http://so-rawk.net/quizzes/famguy/stewie.gif (http://so-rawk.net/quizzes/famguy/)
Which Family Guy Character are you? Take the Quiz! (http://so-rawk.net/quizzes/famguy/)

Sean "Goodwood" Nash
http://www.ww2flight.org

XyZspineZyX
12-02-2003, 12:14 AM
Goodwood_Alpha wrote:
- Its my understanding that clouds lurk whereever they
- please. I mean, how are you going to tell them where
- to go?

But seriously, the clouds in FB are easily the best
- in any sim to date. Here's to hoping that BoB will
- demonstrate the old admonition of.



I can't disagree with you there. i have never seen clouds in any other game or sim that even come close to what FB has to offer.



1st Lut. 361stMapleTiger.


Proud member of FBAA. and i have issues.

XyZspineZyX
12-02-2003, 12:38 AM
1500m is 4900 feet. This is normal for many large cumulus late in the day. Often they are lower like in early day when they first form.

500m is good for many cumulus on some hot humid days.

We need slow atmospheric changes like this during the day, as the FB sun crosses the FB sky. The FB clouds don't move or change shape. Worse, they are the exact locations on each map on every mission load. The clouds are mapped like mountains and are permanent features. Not even random like in DOS Flanker 1.0.


Message Edited on 12/01/0311:41PM by LEXX_Luthor

XyZspineZyX
12-02-2003, 01:02 AM
LEXX_Luthor wrote:
- 1500m is 4900 feet. This is normal for many large
- cumulus late in the day. Often they are lower like
- in early day when they first form.
-
- 500m is good for many cumulus on some hot humid
- days.
-
- We need slow atmospheric changes like this during
- the day, as the FB sun crosses the FB sky. The FB
- clouds don't move or change shape. Worse, they are
- the exact locations on each map on every mission
- load. The clouds are mapped like mountains and are
- permanent features. Not even random like in DOS
- Flanker 1.0.
-
-
- Message Edited on 12/01/03 11:41PM by
- LEXX_Luthor

That's probably the price you pay for having such nice looking clouds... To have clouds like you do in IL2 and have them not be static objects would probably be too taxing on most computer systems today.

XyZspineZyX
12-02-2003, 01:24 AM
They are not just static objects, they are fixed map features that are identical each mission load.

XyZspineZyX
12-02-2003, 02:03 AM
I don't think the clouds in FS2004 are visually better, but I like their variety and vertical development. I'd love to see that in FB, and the 1500m limit always seemed odd to me too. There's a trick in VFR flying to guess cloud bases so you don't fly into a problem. It goes something like: subtract dewpoint centigrade from temperature centigrade times some factor (?) times 1000 to give the base in feet. Obviously, I didn't use that enough to remember it lol.

XyZspineZyX
12-02-2003, 12:28 PM
yes...Substract Dewpoint from surface temp...divide this by 1.98, it'll give you approximate height of base of cloudes in 1000's of feet (Above Ground Level)...Of course it is only precise if you have a standard temp laps rate of 1.98c per 1000ft that day, but it is a good enough estimate...

"See, Decide, Attack, Reverse or Coffee Break" E.H.

XyZspineZyX
12-02-2003, 02:44 PM
"i have never seen clouds in any other game or sim that even come close to what FB has to offer."

I almost agree with you but my only (very) minor gripe is that CFS3 clouds retain a more natural mistiness when you're in them. In other words, looking along your wing from the cockpit, the wing becomes less and less clear the further out you look until it finally becomes obscured by the mist. There's a gentle fading into obscurity, much like the real thing.
In FB, there's a cut off point where the wing suddenly disappears a certain distance off as though a straight line of visible/invisible had been drawn.

This was one of the few things I liked about CFS3 - the clouds did look and'feel' right. Much of everything else in the game was cobblers . . .
I have no experience of M/Soft Flight Sim 2004 or whatever its modern equivalent's called, but wonder if that game's clouds are as realistic.

Hopefully BoB will have stunning clouds to hide in.

XyZspineZyX
12-02-2003, 03:56 PM
Needs more vertical element to the clouds and definately more work needs to be done on more realistic appearing thunderstorms (thunderheads and whatnot - should be huge and towering) but I'll gladly accept what we have now because as everyone says, they are quite good!

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/temp_sig.jpg
"Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few." - Winston Churchill

XyZspineZyX
12-02-2003, 04:17 PM
More cloud layers, different types of clouds, and different intensity, yes.

An example from a navigation exercise we had at the club not very long ago. Weather was borderline for following through, since it's all about VFR navigation along a difficult route with few visible objects on the ground.

To begin with, it was overcast. A stratus cover varied from about 1500' (500m) down to about 800' (270m.) There were also a few small rags, which name I can for the moment not remember, hanging at everything from ground level to 600' (200m.) Locally, there were also a few minor showers, where the cloud base went to the ground, and through which visibility was very limited. One does, of course, keep a healthy distance from those.

Above the stratus cover I assume it was nice.
_
/Bjorn.

XyZspineZyX
12-02-2003, 04:21 PM
EFG_Zeb wrote:
- yes...Substract Dewpoint from surface temp...divide
- this by 1.98, it'll give you approximate height of
- base of cloudes in 1000's of feet (Above Ground
- Level)...Of course it is only precise if you have a
- standard temp laps rate of 1.98c per 1000ft that
- day, but it is a good enough estimate...


All right, where getting some where. now um. i beleave Oleg would be the only one that would know what the Surface temp would be. in FB that is lol



1st Lut. 361stMapleTiger.


Proud member of FBAA. and i have issues.

XyZspineZyX
12-02-2003, 04:44 PM
MSFS4 does a better job with clouds (IMHO) but then it is not a combat sim so I may have just disqualified myself from this thread/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
<Center>http://www.km011a0004.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/wow.jpg <CENTER>

<center>http://www.km011a0004.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/peace.jpg <CENTER><Center><div style="width:200;color:F0FFFF;font-size:11pt;filter:glow[color=black,strength=3)">"Which button fires the missiles?"
<Center>

XyZspineZyX
12-05-2003, 03:10 PM
SmokeJaguar wrote:
- MSFS4 does a better job with clouds (IMHO) but then
- it is not a combat sim so I may have just
- disqualified myself from this thread<img

Not with me you didn't. With weather and clouds, FS2004 has this game hands down. Your screenshot is poor quality, the actual game is much much nicer.

FB and LOMAC slam it on flight model and damage realism though.

Those who say FB is best haven't seen or played FS2004 on a high end machine. Those clouds look so real they are scary. Not to mention they build and fall apart exactly as a real cloud would.

EDIT: Clouds can develope anywhere in the atmosphere that they please. Period.

Message Edited on 12/05/0308:12AM by waterinthefuel

XyZspineZyX
12-05-2003, 09:39 PM
Well since I have all three games and fly them all, FB now being the leader and then cfs 3 and then FS. FS 2k4 and cfs 3 got the weather and clouds down. I would like to see some diferent cloud variations. But if we have to give on the sims overall package then no I will deal with the stratosphere junkies another way LOL.

Warriorbear