Official Fulqrum Publishing forum - Friday 2010-10-15 Dev. update and Discussion

Official Fulqrum Publishing forum (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/index.php)

- IL-2 Sturmovik (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/forumdisplay.php?f=98)

- - Friday 2010-10-15 Dev. update and Discussion (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/showthread.php?t=16964)

S!

With over 10 years with F18C and D I can say that in the FSX video that Hornet AB flame looks more wrong than forged money, literally CRAP. It does not act like that, be sure. IL-2 was ahead of it's time and could do things FS could only imagine of back then. Go figure.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redwan (Post 191934)

Please don’t teach me the shape of a cumulus or about aerology. I’m a glider pilot for more that 15 years …

Photos taken a couple of days ago in flight over the south of Belgium.
The inversion is a straight line, clearly visible and all the cumulus’s are above. I have never seen this effect modeled in the BOB preview screen

Inversion at 1200 m.
Pictures taken at around 1000 m

From close you don’t see the shape but only mist:
http://img638.imageshack.us/img638/4988/85082710.jpg

But from far you can see the flat base:
http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/3721/33791683.jpg

To Winny: from which planet do you come dud ? You think that FSX is using photograph to model the clouds ? Nope, they are 3 D objects ! I think you make a naive confusion with ground textures.

FSX clouds: (for me the minimum quality of coulds that a sim of 2011 needs to have):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v73FuuP4NM8

I hate Microsoft and its commercial monopoly and I’m a fan of Il2 since it’s been out but now I have to say that I’m disappointed by the quality of BOB graphics. Although based on IL2, WOP looks much more professional.

I think that Oleg had a lot of success with IL2 because at that time people were not too demanding on graphics but in 2011 it’s another story and I’m afraid that good graphic environments are for professional companies and not for small teams’ like BOBs’ with small budgets … and no pilots (as graphic advisor) in the team.

http://img403.imageshack.us/img403/381/cheersk.jpg

Cheers.

Sorry then

but it is normally my function to just that as I am a gliding instructor on our national gliding centre at Terlet the Netherlands.

so to keep in style :)

A temperature inversion is a thin layer of the atmosphere where the decrease in temperature with height is much less than normal (or in extreme cases, the temperature increases with height). An inversion, also called a "stable" air layer, acts like a lid, keeping normal convective overturning of the atmosphere from penetrating through the inversion. This can cause several weather-related effects. One is the trapping of pollutants below the inversion, allowing them to build up. If the sky is very hazy, or is sunsets are very red, there is likely an inversion somewhere in the lower atmosphere. This happens more frequently in high pressure zones, where the gradual sinking of air in the high pressure dome typically causes an inversion to form at the base of a sinking layer of air. Another effect is making clouds spread out and take on a flattened appearance. Still another effect is to prevent thunderstorms from forming. Even in an air mass that is hot and humid in the lowest layers, thunderstorms will be prevented if an inversion is keeping this air from rising. The opposite of a temperature inversion is an unstable air layer.

and here is a link to the page where i found this exerpt.

http://www.weatherquestions.com/What..._inversion.htm

actually i see now that the drawing on the linked page is not an inversion but more like a isotherm for it to be a inversion the temp line should go to the right indicating an actual rise in temperature with increasing altitude

And I dont say it is impossible to have thermals below an inversion.
I am saying that an inversion cant be the reason the bottom af a culumus is flat.
It can how ever be the reason for their tops to be flattend.

http://www.twin-astir.nl/

Cheers,

Niels

Not really wishing to continue this whole ground textures debate, however I was looking through one of my Ju-52 reference books when I came across a 1/2 dozen or so postcards that I forgot that I had, I purchased these a few years back after having the great privilege to go on a Ju-Air flight.

One of these post cards in particular caught my eye and I just had to scan it and post it here, if you can ignore the rape-seed crops you may notice another distinctive crop colour, that apparently does not exist?

http://i94.photobucket.com/albums/l1...rplecrop25.jpg

Yes I know it’s a fairly modern image, but I felt it may be relevant none the less, flame-on kiddies.

:) I wonder if Oleg has seen the development for ROF
http://riseofflight.com/Blogs/default.aspx

Quote:

Originally Posted by NLS61 (Post 192122)

"And I dont say it is impossible to have thermals below an inversion" ????

The termals occurs only under the inversion line !!! How could a glider pilot cannot say such a nonsense .... and the story about cumulus with flat tops is very funny too ;-))) Never saw that before ....

... I think that you have just learned what you know about inversion on the link that you posted ;-))))

Anyway, I d'dn't need a link for noobs to learn about inversion (I perfectly know what it is) but I just wanted to say that FSX is much better in the cloud modeling than the BOB.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redwan (Post 191934)

Please don’t teach me the shape of a cumulus or about aerology. I’m a glider pilot for more that 15 years …

To Winny: from which planet do you come dud ? You think that FSX is using photograph to model the clouds ? Nope, they are 3 D objects ! I think you make a naive confusion with ground textures.

Funnily enough I'm from Earth and I'm not confusing ground textures with clouds, nor am I naive, (wrong maybe but not naive). And you side stepped the bit about needing the clouds to be viewable by more than one player at a time, which I believe is harder to do than the FSX version.

You however, are full of your own self importance as is obvious by your 'look at me I'm a glider pilot so I know more than you about computer games" attitude. So I'll leave you to argue about your glider nonsense and I'll carry on waiting for SoW. You're obviously an expert.

Hmm, what an interesting discussion.

He is right about the clouds Winny; scientifically mostly all clouds will form with some type of flat-cloud-base for reasons I outlined in an earlier discussion topic. This seems to be missing at the moment from SoW.

However, Redwan, although FSX uses a 'type' of 3-d cloud system, they use 2-d textures. Consequently, the whole cloud is covered by this one texture. Consequently, as you move, so does the texture, meaning that the whole cloud looks the same from basically every angle. Consequently, FSK is not as advanced as one might think ;)

SoW is going to be completely different and far more complicated. Conversely though, a model change doesn't sound that hard, as all that's needed is for SoW's clouds to have flat-bottom and more defined shadows ;)

Just to say it again in case somebody missed it:

The flat cloud base is the result of the temperature drop with increasing height
and marks the limit where the cooling, ascending air can't hold the humidity it contains
any longer.

It's interesting that people can say that FSX clouds are better than BOB's when we haven't yet seen all of BOB's clouds due to bug fixing.