MSTS Clouds in OR

[qballbandit]

Good day,
Paul Precht got me to thinking the last couple of days when viewing his recent screenshots. He mentioned using one of the sky/cloud files from his Kosmos collection. I figured I'd been missing out in a big way by not utilizing those files, so I converted the majority of the ones I had into .png files, and came up with 11 new and varied Clouds01 files!
Here's a link to view the screenshots: https://flic.kr/s/aHskvxu2Bq

Some comments about the screenshots -
1 . I was so excited about what I was doing, I forgot that the activity I was taking the shots in was at 17:00pm, so not
exactly optimum daylight.
2. I purposely used the default, clear blue Skydome1 file to showcase the new Clouds01 files.
3. In my collection, and I think I have them all, are 8 different Skydome1 files - not including the default file I used. I
mention this because this provides almost limitless combinations of skies when mixing the Skydome1 & Clouds01 files.
Using the other Skydome1 files will provide the multi-layered cloud outcome.
4. Many of the .ace files from my Kosmos folders that looked very dark, actually render lighter in OR, which I personally
found appealing. With limiting visibility and/or running at low light times of day, they will look darker.

I hope you get something out of the pics. Take the time to do this, and your options are endless!

Edit: What I failed to mention is, I am manually swapping Clouds01 & Skydome1 files prior to each OR session. If any talented forum member could come up with a dos swap utility to do this, that would be awesome!

[pnrailway]

Neil,

The shots all look very interesting. I haven't tried mixing them with different skydomes. Have to give it a try when I have some time.

[wwhall]

One of the issues with using the Kosmos clouds with OR skydomes is that the Kosmos clouds generally have different "geometry" than the OR skydome--that is, the OR skydome is really dome-shaped while the MSTS Kosmos skies are more based on a flat plane shape. As an amateur climatologist and weather observes, I've never been happy with the Kosmos clouds in OR because the shapes are not properly oriented in relation to the ground. Think of a classic cumulonimbus thunderhead rendered sideways instead of vertically and the distortion becomes clear. Claus Visby Overgaard's optional clouds and skydomes for OR seem to have solved this problem.

One of the issues with any "optional" skydomes and clouds is that OR overwrites them anytime the software is updated. I hope that OR will someday just make a cloud and skydome selection a menu option in the software, so that clouds and skydomes can be easily selected before running an activity.

Truth is, the whole OR weather module still needs a lot of work, but at least it offers dynamic weather options that MSTS never had. OR is headed in the right direction.

[lateagain]

Hi Neil,

Well to my eye some of those look really good but others look rather odd. Some of the heavy cloud images look as if they're coming up out of the ground ...rather than forming a layer above it? If you see what I mean.

I also note you seem to be using OR in MSTS 5x4 format rather than OR's 16x9 format. I wondered if that made any difference?

Lastly I wondered if increasing the haze level in OR would improve the look of some of the "odd looking" textures?

Interested to see the results if you feel like trying those aspects out.

[qballbandit]

Geoff, like Wade said, they are dome shaped, so stretch - sometimes a bit skewed, from horizon to horizon.
That said, I spend my time in the cab, so don't see it as much in the instances where it is more apparent. Also, increasing density, and using the haze does make a difference on the ones where it is more obvious.

"you seem to be using OR in MSTS 5x4 format rather than OR's 16x9 format"

I'm embarrassed to say I don't know what you're talking about??? Please explain, if you don't mind

[lateagain]

Thanks for the feedback Neil,

Geoff, like Wade said, they are dome shaped, so stretch - sometimes a bit skewed, from horizon to horizon. That said, I spend my time in the cab, so don't see it as much in the instances where it is more apparent. Also, increasing density, and using the haze does make a difference on the ones where it is more obvious.

I'm a huge fan of the way OR is developing, BUT I'm not a "fanboy" or any other type of witless wonder who shouts down criticism. Criticism is what design development is based on and folk like yourself trying stuff out and reporting back is extremely useful IMO. I haven't used Kosmos for years. Mainly because many routes were inspired by some of their excellent environments to improve their weather and skies in the first place.

"you seem to be using OR in MSTS 5x4 format rather than OR's 16x9 format"

I'm embarrassed to say I don't know what you're talking about??? Please explain, if you don't mind

Ah, my lack of clarity so to clarify that, your link to the pictures showed 5x4 (or is it 4x3) aspect ratio? width 5 and height 4? MSTS couldn't do widescreen (well not without stretching and distorting everything) and nowadays practically ALL monitors are widescreen width 16 by height 9? One of the things I love about OR is the ability to fill my widescreen monitor. I just wondered that if that extra width that Kosmos was never designed for stretched or distorted the cloud effects on a widescreen? I know some folk hate widescreen monitors and some just haven't needed to update old monitors but like it or not it's just about all that's easily available now.

[qballbandit]

Thanks for clarifying, Geoff.
Another contributing factor is that the brightness/clarity/saturation of the clouds is as intense on the horizon, as it is as they appear higher in the sky. There is no "smoothing" capability like there is in the MSFS world.

All of this said, yes - you can see the "better' ones in the link I provided, but even the ones with the arcing effect can be mitigated by OR's environmental controls. And, as with much of the unworldly items that our eyes sense, because they are used to how our real world looks, it's a matter of what you focus on.
As I mentioned, I spend my time driving the train inside the cab. I only venture out to take the occasional pictures. So in general, my eyes are not focusing on the panoramic view of the sky.

I am familiar with some folks running MSTS stating that they can't get the same environmental feel in OR, skies being one of the drawbacks. Well, I'd have to disagree 100%, as I have more combinations of skies now than I ever dreamed possible back in MSTS. Add in the haze, the dynamic ability to increase/decrease cloud coverage, and the newer options for "random" changes, and OR is certainly on the right track

[MsSheare]

I had someone send me a real nice cloud texture and I found a really nice OR night sky texture in the library. I finally have a day time night time I actually enjoy and I run OR on a wide screen 1920 x 1080. and it's all HD so it looks great.

[longiron]

I found a really nice OR night sky texture in the library.

Would you mind sharing which one the night sky texture is? Looking for a replacement

[ossie]

Chris, it's possible Michelle is referring to a set I put in the file library or a variation of it Roger van Duijnhoven did. There may well be others in there but Roger's and mine are the only two hits I got for searching the combination of "ORTS & night" or "night, sky, stars".