The new wisp effect sometimes looks OK and other times looks, well, kinda contrived and forced. So while reducing cloud density a notch triggers an AS16 warning about not getting the full effects, I think it actually looks better as I no longer have to deal with the overcast wall of nothing. I’ve recently turned clouds in P3D down from max to high to counter the crippling effect of SGSS that I need to make P3D look good. I found myself dealing with this wall of nothing very very frequently and it appeared to run counter to the METARs in question. But personally, to my mind and based upon my experience, it’s overdone. There’s a much more prevalent overcast effect - basically where you cannot see anything. I guess the test is that apart from the occasional popcorn and some cloud repetition, which was worse at launch I think, there’s nothing there that I look at and think “eh?” They say it’s better, and after flying it a while I kinda think it’s better. Maybe it looks better, but I’m wary of wishful thinking applying here.
Is the weather depiction better than ASN? It’s really hard to say without doing a side by side comparison.
Active sky next fsx steam upgrade#
To be honest I’m not completely and utterly sold on the upgrade and the revised per-platform pricing, though I can appreciate why they’ve done it. I upgraded from ASN to AS16 & ASCA not long after it was launched, coming from an ASN / Texture Direct 4 with Soft Clouds setup. An another topic - anyone using Active Sky 2016 and is it worth the upgrade?
0 kommentar(er)
