No offense to Mac users, but that seems to fall in line with Apple's old 'We know what's good for you. You will take this and like it!' Philosophy.:lol: The very reason why I switched to Android mobile devices as soon as I could (root that phone), although a little 'jail breaking' never hurt the iPhone -. No offence to Mac users either, but I will never own one. Windows desktop/game system, Linux laptop, and Android tablet and phone. Macs have their place.in a graphics environment or music studio, not flight simulating.:lol: run run run. Makes me think that BootCamp should really be the most popular MAC App these days:Clown: It's been a long time since my last ride on a MAC.

By then it was the Lisa. One day I asked Austin for a higher range when we use the Map view. We are restricted to the current tile, and can't even use it for planning. He answered telling me to use an App for a SmartPhone, or something that also runs on Android, assuming I have one of those fancy devices. Well, my mobile is 6yo, and will be for a long time, as well as my car (13 yo, and going, and it's just a Renault.). I'm not rich. But I play one whenever I fly the Corvalis in XP10.

File Like An Eagle (around The Cloud With Eaglefiler For Mac)

(no pun intended.). Great looking clouds COULD be implemented easily even today by Laminar if they wanted to, at super fluid 60 Hz. Don't believe if someone tells you: 'todays pc's are not powerful enough' But don't forget, that X-Plane is doing a 'little bit' more, than what your - definitely very beautiful - video shows (like landscape rendering, aerodynamics simulation,drawing complex aircraft etc.

So, if we don't know how much resources the example video needs, we don't know how much would be left to do other things. Nevertheless, the video is beautiful.

I am just questioning what it 'costs' (performance wise). Alpipilot glad at least someone understands why I posted this, unlike some ignorants over here: your question is valid and the same I had, but considering they claimed 60Hz already on a pc 4 years ago and it supports multicore, I assume it would be marginal and much more performant than what we get currently in xplane. Lets not forget x-plane framerate breaks down if you move your cloud sliders to the right and still does not look half as good. The Simul weather SDK could be implemented easily as it is multi platform. It is so good, INTEL invited them to demo it in their booth at Game developers conference. Instead of paying for weather addons that can never deliver what Simul weather SDK achieves, I would prefer Laminar to use that SDK and include that feature right out of the box.

I am not the only one who was impressed when I first saw it: 'to see Simul’s new tools and technology for dynamic skies and volumetric weather effects. Intel have kindly hosted Simul on their stand today, which features a selection of the best high-performance software for games, running on the latest multi-core Intel processors.' I am sure Muskoka, myself and many others would gladly pay 100$ if it was available as an addon product for xplane. Imagine how much better xplane would look. No other flight simulator could compete weather wise. Thanks for your fantastic landscape contribution to x-plane64, we love it! Alpipilot glad at least someone understands why I posted this, unlike some ignorants over here: your question is valid and the same I had, but considering they claimed 60Hz already on a pc 4 years ago and it supports multicore, I assume it would be marginal and much more performant than what we get currently in xplane.

Lets not forget x-plane framerate breaks down if you move your cloud sliders to the right and still does not look half as good. The Simul weather SDK could be implemented easily as it is multi platform. It is so good, INTEL invited them to demo it in their booth at Game developers conference. Instead of paying for weather addons that can never deliver what Sumul weather SDK achieves, I would prefer Laminar to use that SDK and include that feature right out of the box.

I am not the only one who was impressed when I first saw it: 'to see Simul’s new tools and technology for dynamic skies and volumetric weather effects. Intel have kindly hosted Simul on their stand today, which features a selection of the best high-performance software for games, running on the latest multi-core Intel processors.' Thanks for your fantastic landscape contribution to x-plane64, we love it! So those that don't salivate with you over a demo shown by Intel, are ignorants? LOL Subscribed. This is gonna get interesting. Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2.

Eagle, I wouldn't go so far as to say their ignorant, they just have different perspectives, views, and priorities, all of which I accept. I don't like some if it, but I accept it.

A lot here don't like me or my views, fine, not here to be popular, but they have for the most part been accepting, especially the site moderators, thanks for allowing 'free speech', from all angles. This wouldn't be allowed at the.borg, oops I meant the.org. To 'resist is futile', although I will 'NEVER' join the Borg Collective that exists around here. (humour folks, with a pinch of truth) - I will 'pay' for whatever I can get my hands on to improve any simulation or program for that matter. If developers can't supply a feature, or it's taking too long, I have no problem paying someone else for said feature. So yes, I would be in, in a heart beat. Anything, to improve some aspects of Xplane.

For me, the main limitations in the X-Plane cloud system are, in rough order of importance: 1) Poor performance at high puff density settings: in the first releases of X-Plane 10, there were 2 cloud sliders, and tuning them you could obtain a nice depiction of clouds and also a good performance. A step backward for me; 2) Clouds not moving with wind; since the weather system generates seamless cloud patterns for contiguous scenery tiles (you can observe this in the local map, moving the map to the nearby scenery tiles), making the clouds move should not be very difficult; 3) Lacking or poor depiction of certain common cloud types, namely cumulus humilis, cirrus clouds; 4) The 'on/off' grey-out that appears when the aircraft is considered to be inside a cloud. Sometimes it appears when the aircraft is not inside a cloud puff. It would be better to remove this 'grey-out' altogether, the final effect would be more realistic. So, at a first glance, neither of these 4 points seem too much difficult to improve.