Jump to content

Forgive my ignorance (Weather)


Recommended Posts

Would a weather simulation in KSP burn out most/all computers?

Obviously if the game was simulating pressure systems and fronts for every single planet all the time that would be an issue, but could a system be developed with runs only visuals for weather patterns (such as those on the weather forecast), based on pre-determined characteristics of the celestial body, and then only apply things like turbulence and wind when the craft loads in the atmosphere in a localized way?

9.jpg

The simulation would be applied based on the current state of the visual representation with respect to the craft's location on the celestial body, without simulating an entire planet's worth of wind in great detail.

However, as the title suggests, I'm not a coder, but I hear all the time on the forum that everyone's computer would combust at the first sight of a weather system without much real evidence. Could someone with more experience possibly explain why this couldn't work/would be too hard to implement?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Noud said:

i don't think this will affect game play at all...

(maybe on RSS)

Actually as I've said before, it would and it would be a realistic impact.

In sandbox you can just avoid the weather altogether, but in career when you have deadlines and limits, you have to look over the weather and decide when is the best time and if it's worth the risk or not.

NASA has been limited by weather since the beginning. Events such as Apollo 7, Apollo 12, and STS-51L and that's just how it's impacted Space. Not to mention the hundreds of space missions dedicated to tracking, researching, following and exploring meteorological data.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, ZooNamedGames said:

but in career when you have deadlines and limits, you have to look over the weather and decide when is the best time and if it's worth the risk or not.

Because storms are known to last for 5 years... Contract deadlines are a joke, unless you are supposed to do a grand tour of the entire solar system, they don't matter.

Weather would have no impact on gameplay on Kerbin: you'd just need to timewarp a day or two and launch then.
On the other side, having to deal with a storm on your Duna/Laythe landing could be interesting since it would be harder to get around.

Either way, KSP is too simplistic/easy for weather to actually matter. Temperatures? Parts work flawlessly from 0 to 2000K. Lightning? Maybe, but RNG difficulty is not good difficulty, and you can get around it; besides lightning is not that much of a concern IRL: Apollo 12 was fine, and KSP doesn't simulate part failures at all. Winds? A rocket can flip at max-Q without any consequence besides losing some dV.

As much as I like realism, weather wouldn't make sense in the stock game on its own. It would fit in a RO-type game, but not in stock. The only thing left for weather is making the game more beautiful, I personally don't wish for it since my laptop can't handle graphical mods in KSP, but I can get that argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Gaarst said:

Because storms are known to last for 5 years... Contract deadlines are a joke, unless you are supposed to do a grand tour of the entire solar system, they don't matter.

Weather would have no impact on gameplay on Kerbin: you'd just need to timewarp a day or two and launch then.
On the other side, having to deal with a storm on your Duna/Laythe landing could be interesting since it would be harder to get around.

Either way, KSP is too simplistic/easy for weather to actually matter. Temperatures? Parts work flawlessly from 0 to 2000K. Lightning? Maybe, but RNG difficulty is not good difficulty, and you can get around it; besides lightning is not that much of a concern IRL: Apollo 12 was fine, and KSP doesn't simulate part failures at all. Winds? A rocket can flip at max-Q without any consequence besides losing some dV.

As much as I like realism, weather wouldn't make sense in the stock game on its own. It would fit in a RO-type game, but not in stock. The only thing left for weather is making the game more beautiful, I personally don't wish for it since my laptop can't handle graphical mods in KSP, but I can get that argument.

Then clearly deadlines are too long. Let's shrink them by 60%.

Edited by ZooNamedGames
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Weather is an incentive for the player to think more about landing sites, craft design etc, as well as forcing them to make judgements about safety during a Duna landing, or a Kerbin return, etc.

11 hours ago, Gaarst said:

lightning? Maybe, but RNG difficulty is not good difficulty, and you can get around it; besides lightning is not that much of a concern IRL

Actually a Space X falcon 9 launch was postponed a week or so ago due to concerns over lightning storms. Anyway, lightning would be a bigger issue during something like a re-entry when the player has wrongfully decided to try and return to Kerbin via a powerful low-pressure system (winds blowing the capsule/space-plane off course, lightning frying circuits causing parachutes to fail). Its not random difficulty, because it could be avoided by good planning, and there is always a chance the craft could survive the storm system and still make it safely to the ground, and it would add an interesting twist to any poorly planned return to Kerbin (when you think its all going so well ;))

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RatchetinSpace said:

Weather is an incentive for the player to think more about landing sites, craft design etc, as well as forcing them to make judgements about safety during a Duna landing, or a Kerbin return, etc.

Actually a Space X falcon 9 launch was postponed a week or so ago due to concerns over lightning storms. Anyway, lightning would be a bigger issue during something like a re-entry when the player has wrongfully decided to try and return to Kerbin via a powerful low-pressure system (winds blowing the capsule/space-plane off course, lightning frying circuits causing parachutes to fail). Its not random difficulty, because it could be avoided by good planning, and there is always a chance the craft could survive the storm system and still make it safely to the ground, and it would add an interesting twist to any poorly planned return to Kerbin (when you think its all going so well ;))

That might work for a return from Kerbin orbit but from anywhere further afield it starts to look like random punishment to me.

Say I'm coming back from the Mun. Standard, Apollo style, direct re-entry - in other words I'm not braking into LKO first and then re-entering. In the stock game, there are no in-game tools for figuring out my eventual landing site on Kerbin. I can calculate it roughly from the journey time though, and then time my trans-Kerbin injection burn so that I land at least somewhere near the KSC, or not more than half a continent away at least.

Now throw weather into that plan. Assuming I have a reliable weather forecast, I could probably time my departure from the Mun so I don't hit any bad weather on reentry- although I'd really want some proper in-game tools for this. If that weather suddenly changes half-way home, then I still have time to alter my trajectory and avoid the badness. That assumes I have enough fuel on board but, as you say, proper planning will take care of that. However, there's going to be a point in the journey where, if the weather changes at that point, I'm just hosed. No way of dodging it, no way of planning around it, just ride the lightning and hope the parachutes hold out.

Which sounds terribly dramatic but would, in my opinion, suck. I've done everything right, I've planned for all the contingencies that I can, but in the end, mission success is still down to luck. That's not an interesting twist, that's the RNG biting me in the backside for no good reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Under my system, the weather would be impactful but not impossibly devastating. Granted planets would have different weather patterns and intensities. Not to mention you could simply deploy satellites with weather equipment and know what your heading into so you can better plan. So going in you'd be provided the same data as you were to whether you would land on water or on ground. Weather should also be impacted by where a planet is in it's orbit (ahem seasons). So you can plan around the bad weather even without having to constantly track it.

I also think Kerbin should have reduced levels of weather so Kerbin remains a calm safe place. Impacting weather should remain a difficulty as it's not every players cuppa tea and that's reasonable. Weather on Kerbin should be present but enough for newer players who have just mastered flight can work around it and have it not stop them.

Weather shouldn't ever be the cause of mission enders, but rather a factor to keep in mind. Maybe add an additional battery, solar panel, or thruster to account for the possibility. This should simply reduce the level of "wing it and hope for the best" mentality from KSP. It doesn't have to be a 1:1 simulation and have to be game ending, just a slight tweak to thinking.

Weather effects would build on game start. So career players won't be smashed with a hurricane at tier 2 parts. Give the players maybe 2-3 in game days to build up technology before maybe the first rainstorm. Which on a personal side note- 3 days in KSP (without KCT) is like a lifetime since you can get so much done in that time! Even with Kerbin's shortened days!

Simply put here is a list of what I would expect per planet.

  • Kerbol- it has a small but highly heated atmosphere (think it already does)
    • Heat pockets. Increase in part temperatures by 5-20%.
    • Electromagnetic waves depleting batteries. Not mission ending with solar panels.
  • Moho- Used to have an atmosphere in early versions
    • heat pockets. Increase in part temperatures by 5-20%.
  • Eve- only planet worthy of excessive storms?
    • High winds. Constant force of x speed in y direction. Gusts (wind varying from different levels of intensity) possible.
    • Storms. Possible loss of power on a single battery.
  • Gilly- no systems however I will post the possible effects for Dres, Ike, Vall, Pol, Bop, Mun, Minmus and Tylo. These are conceptual and are up to debate if they should be added. Ones in red I do not personally feel will be accepted and I just think in general is a bad idea, but I'm just covering all the bases.
    • Minmus, gas geysers which thrust vehicles upwards at various levels of force (max 30kN, ~thrust of a Juno). Would appear like this so their not invisible and easily avoidable.
    • Planetary Quakes (not-Earth earthquakes), jiggles the craft around.
    • Minmus/Pol, slippery slopes. Slopes which crafts get lessened friction on. Only on slopes.
  • Kerbin- home; present weather patterns however the most reduced.
    • Winds. Constant force of x speed in y direction. Gusts (wind varying from different levels of intensity) possible.
    • Storms. Possible loss of power on a single battery.
  • Duna- Red Planet
    • Winds. Constant force of x speed in y direction. Gusts (wind varying from different levels of intensity) possible.
  • Jool- home to massive storms and winds underneath the outer atmosphere.
    • Highest level winds possible in the Kerbol system. Winds starting at 60km-80km at most so players aerobraking can easily avoid the weather impact. Constant force of x speed in y direction. Gusts (wind varying from different levels of intensity) possible.
    • Storms. Possible loss of power on a single battery.
  • Laythe- Waterworld without the Kevin Costner.
    • Storms. Possible loss of power on a single battery.
    • Winds. Constant force of x speed in y direction. Gusts (wind varying from different levels of intensity) possible.
  • Eeloo- ice world. What should it's weather be? I have no idea!

 

Just imagine gliding on 1mN force winds above the surface of Jool! It would be AWESOME!

---------------------------------------------------

 

For those who are still worried that weather isn't apt for a space simulator then I definitely would like you to look at this-

https://www.space.com/8186-weather-satellites-changed-world.html

Weather has been a factor but more importantly a focal point of scientists since we first left the surface. We use space to study, research, and more notably predict and possibly warn those in harms way. Our world would be different without the aid of space based radar and research.

So deploying a satellite over a planet/moon to track weather isn't that insane as NASA and others have been doing it since the 60s and still continues to today. Is it a pain? Sure. But it's a new form of science and contracts as well as ingame effects. Even with the weather effects disabled the science and contracts can still be available. The ingame barometer is one of a meteorologists basics for reading what is happening with weather and fittingly, such a device is available in KSP already!

 

That all said and done, again, I don't this to be a "well I had no way of predicting this mission ending factor" but rather a method of forethinking and proactive thinking and planning over some player's reactive mindsets. Weather should be a factor, but never a reason for your mission to end unless you knowingly went into a situation unprepared or poorly equipped. If you decide to risk a descent to Eve with a single battery, it is a risk you could have the power zapped. Now you can recharge it, but you'll be left to your probe core or manned capsule power until then. The effect of weather should be mentioned in tutorials and in the ingame KSPwiki.

I know we're not all trying to be little NASAs trying to be percise with out work, which is why it should be left to a difficulty option for those who don't like it. However it should pausing point for players who want to play daredevils and not weigh the risks before hand and decide to fly past the sun at low altitude with their nuclear propelled ore refinery rig without radiators which hits a heat pocket and cripples the ship. These impacts should be easily to counteract, but nevertheless a factor to include.

Just my 2c that I know no one asked for.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ZooNamedGames - I like your ideas, and it seems a lot less computer melty than full weather simulation. However, a constant force of x in y direction.... I'm not sure, since eventually we will be able to just account for that, even if there are gusts. I would say to make it pseudorandomly generated, so that there isn't the same kind of predictability.

 

Also, on Eeloo - I know some planet/ moon had jets of ice spurting from it. What if that was added? So at certain random points, there would be a sudden pushing force outwards. Enough to cause maybe a small probe to go off the surface 10, 20 m or so. Then ,a good counterbalance to this would be to have anchoring parts in the game (This would also cause less outrage for slippery slopes). I also just realized you said this for minmus, so basically, take that ide and apply it to eeloo. Maybe also eeloo should be cold enough to cause batteries to not function as well (deplete electric charge quicker/ reduced storage) (and could be heated up by an RTG?)

 

Should Eve also have an atmosphere that could damage or overheat parts (with low heat tolerance, think basic fin)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, qzgy said:

@ZooNamedGames - I like your ideas, and it seems a lot less computer melty than full weather simulation. However, a constant force of x in y direction.... I'm not sure, since eventually we will be able to just account for that, even if there are gusts. I would say to make it pseudorandomly generated, so that there isn't the same kind of predictability.

 

Also, on Eeloo - I know some planet/ moon had jets of ice spurting from it. What if that was added? So at certain random points, there would be a sudden pushing force outwards. Enough to cause maybe a small probe to go off the surface 10, 20 m or so. Then ,a good counterbalance to this would be to have anchoring parts in the game (This would also cause less outrage for slippery slopes). I also just realized you said this for minmus, so basically, take that ide and apply it to eeloo. Maybe also eeloo should be cold enough to cause batteries to not function as well (deplete electric charge quicker/ reduced storage) (and could be heated up by an RTG?)

 

Should Eve also have an atmosphere that could damage or overheat parts (with low heat tolerance, think basic fin)?

I'd be for full random gusts if it weren't for the aforementioned "losing to the RNG" issue so despite it adding to the fun and being able to overcome it, some might prefer being able to predict it even though it's unrealistic.

Theres a good idea to help improve the struggle and help implement the realism without a solution being given.

Also good to see Eeloo given some love!

I'm ok with your ideas with Eve as I personally think the corrosion process should be simulated by the existing thermal system instead of a new system or mechanic. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And then there is weather like this...

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40339730

 

too hot for planes! 

 

The question (for any mod that adds realism) is: does this make it more fun? 

The answer of course depends on the player.  A weather mod would add a bit of piloting difficulty, but also a lot of scheduling and logistical work. Is that more fun?

Actually, i used to really want weather in the game, but I think I would be happy with a button that let you set wind speed and direction. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well the easiest way is to implement it and have it be an option in settings. Like comnet. Do I like comnet? Yes. Do I sometimes forget why I lose control over probes and toggle it off? Also yes. Its a fun feature, but can be annoying sometimes to deal with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ZooNamedGames There's some familiarity to this subject as I've answered in another thread. That one asked about windmills, which by extension, also require weather.

At the most abstract level, I envision the weather system being implemented as a swarm of invisible volumetric shapes just like EVE clouds. When you clip them, you experience a gradient and smoothly transition into whatever RNG-powered effect it's carrying. This makes it so (in opposition to) what someone said you can't just become accustomed to and easily account for it in your flight profile. You could clip a second wind field suddenly and simultaneously, and experience a change in wind speed and wind vector.

Lightning strikes could have have an additional EMP or heat burst field if you happen to pass near one since they are plasma. The risk of getting wrecked by lightning could become real.

22 hours ago, Nightside said:

And then there is weather like this...

-snip-

A weather mod would add a bit of piloting difficulty, but also a lot of scheduling and logistical work. Is that more fun? 

The most interesting thing would be if on tidally locked planets with extreme temperature variance, the difference in atmosphere density (if it has an atmosphere) and temperature (surface or atmosphere) would be unmistakable (assuming anyone dares to visit these).

Just as there's something for everyone, there's someone for everything. Users of Kerbalism, MKS, KerbalHealth, KSP Intestellar, Realism Overhaul etc have it in them to see the fun in this kind of thing, and enjoy it for a long time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JadeOfMaar said:

@ZooNamedGames There's some familiarity to this subject as I've answered in another thread. That one asked about windmills, which by extension, also require weather.

At the most abstract level, I envision the weather system being implemented as a swarm of invisible volumetric shapes just like EVE clouds. When you clip them, you experience a gradient and smoothly transition into whatever RNG-powered effect it's carrying. This makes it so (in opposition to) what someone said you can't just become accustomed to and easily account for it in your flight profile. You could clip a second wind field suddenly and simultaneously, and experience a change in wind speed and wind vector.

Lightning strikes could have have an additional EMP or heat burst field if you happen to pass near one since they are plasma. The risk of getting wrecked by lightning could become real.

The most interesting thing would be if on tidally locked planets with extreme temperature variance, the difference in atmosphere density (if it has an atmosphere) and temperature (surface or atmosphere) would be unmistakable (assuming anyone dares to visit these).

Just as there's something for everyone, there's someone for everything. Users of Kerbalism, MKS, KerbalHealth, KSP Intestellar, Realism Overhaul etc have it in them to see the fun in this kind of thing, and enjoy it for a long time.

Others however have mentioned how they'd like the predictability. So I say we compromise and let the game naturally randomly generate the weather and have the effects static and predictable (with varying intensities or occurrences) so that we can appeal to a wider range.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, ZooNamedGames said:

Others however have mentioned how they'd like the predictability. So I say we compromise and let the game naturally randomly generate the weather and have the effects static and predictable (with varying intensities or occurrences) so that we can appeal to a wider range.

Fine by me. :) I'd like to see weather and windmills happen but I won't be on the bandwagon trying to petition for weather.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/16/2017 at 6:46 PM, KSK said:

Which sounds terribly dramatic but would, in my opinion, suck. I've done everything right, I've planned for all the contingencies that I can, but in the end, mission success is still down to luck. That's not an interesting twist, that's the RNG biting me in the backside for no good reason.

I'm imagining Kerbin's weather to be far more predictable than Earth's for balance purposes.

In what you're saying though, the crisis could be avoided if you designed a craft to not directly re-enter Kerbin's atmosphere from deep-space, instead aerobraking/entering a parking orbit for greater safety of the crew. Of-course the Apollo program didn't do this, and they took the risk (I'll be-it a small risk) that the recovery zone might not be suitable for re-entry.

On 6/17/2017 at 3:28 AM, ZooNamedGames said:

Just my 2c that I know no one asked for.

Didn't ask for it, loved reading it.

Anyway, I'm glad this thread has provoked factual discussion about weather in KSP, rather than "Ugh it'll kill my PC", which is what I'm used to at this point :wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I don't code games but from an optimization standpoint weather calculations don't have much CPU drain as they are only a bunch of random numbers, which don't even get generated on the same chip as physics calculations in modern cpus(discrete chip, on package). The real question is about how to integrate it into physics. There, we just adjust the atmospheric direction of the craft(in the computer) and calculate from there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, 322997am said:

Well, I don't code games but from an optimization standpoint weather calculations don't have much CPU drain as they are only a bunch of random numbers, which don't even get generated on the same chip as physics calculations in modern cpus(discrete chip, on package). The real question is about how to integrate it into physics. There, we just adjust the atmospheric direction of the craft(in the computer) and calculate from there.

I think you need to validate your claim that simulating weather systems doesn't take up much cpu power with meteorologists. It's not entirely inconceivable that their opinion diverges from yours.

Of course, you could just pick a random vector for windshear and keep it static, but that will only result in a follow-up demand for realistic weather and then we're back at a cpu-cycle hungry monster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Kerbart said:

I think you need to validate your claim that simulating weather systems doesn't take up much cpu power with meteorologists. It's not entirely inconceivable that their opinion diverges from yours.

Of course, you could just pick a random vector for windshear and keep it static, but that will only result in a follow-up demand for realistic weather and then we're back at a cpu-cycle hungry monster.

What I meant was a semi realistic situation where each weather pattern has a direction it's headed in, and spawning is procedural

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Kerbart said:

I think you need to validate your claim that simulating weather systems doesn't take up much cpu power with meteorologists. It's not entirely inconceivable that their opinion diverges from yours.

Of course, you could just pick a random vector for windshear and keep it static, but that will only result in a follow-up demand for realistic weather and then we're back at a cpu-cycle hungry monster.

If a weather system was added to the game I'm sure modders would make a more realistic version available for people who want to burn their CPUs.

I was thinking the system would involve a simple, planet-wide, isobar-based map. A windshear vector and turbulance would be applied to the craft based on which section of the isobar system the craft is loaded in. Then (if it doesn't take a toll on GPUs/CPUs) clouds and rain could be applied to the planet's atmosphere based on the isobar map. My computer isn't particularly beefy and it runs environmental visual enhancements just fine, but I'd like to see a bit more logic applied to the placement of clouds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎22‎/‎06‎/‎2017 at 9:19 AM, RatchetinSpace said:

I'm imagining Kerbin's weather to be far more predictable than Earth's for balance purposes.

In what you're saying though, the crisis could be avoided if you designed a craft to not directly re-enter Kerbin's atmosphere from deep-space, instead aerobraking/entering a parking orbit for greater safety of the crew. Of-course the Apollo program didn't do this, and they took the risk (I'll be-it a small risk) that the recovery zone might not be suitable for re-entry.

Agree that this thread has made for some interesting reading. With regards to @RatchetinSpace's last comment, that only pushes the problem back a step. OK, I enter that parking orbit, select my landing site, with due attention paid to prevailing weather conditions, execute my de-orbit burn... and just as I hit atmosphere, the weather changes. I'm right back to being bitten by the RNG again.

More generally, I think that making the weather sufficiently dynamic to present the challenges that folks are clearly looking for, whilst making it predictable enough to not just be a random point of mission failure (which may be realistic but isn't fun - at least not to my mind) is going to be a really difficult balance to strike.

And then you get back to @Gaarst's point, which I think is an excellent one. The rest of the stock game just isn't well set up to deal with the subtleties of mission planning and execution that weather would entail. Apart from anything else, contracts are incredibly formulaic at the moment: get your advance, execute the mission, if you meet the deadline you get paid, if you miss it you get punished. Leaving aside any appeals to the real world and whether hard deadlines make much sense for most of the contracts we undertake in KSP, if being able to meet deadlines is going to become affected by forces outside my control, then I want some fuzziness on those deadlines to compensate. Some kind of sliding scale of reduced payoff maybe, tapering off to an outright mission fail if I overshoot the deadline by too much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One easy way, although unrealistic but maybe realistic enough, would be to look for trailing edges on the clouds then raise wind speed in that area. It would be non regular, have a connection to what you can see, and be IMHO good enough for adding a bit of variation for rocket launches and flying.

Not sure if it would work well enough to make a glider and fly on the thermals though, a few tweaks and it would though. AFAIK they use the swirling, rising air between clouds, again just use the cloud map and base your physical effects from that.

FAR simpler (badum-tish) than simulating a chaotic atmosphere on a planet.

 

EDIT : this topic again to me shows that KSP needs time sensitive events.

`Rescue dan kerman from orbit IN LESS THAN 7 DAYS or they run out of oxygen` in combination with Kerbal Construction Time and the mod where time passes in the VAB is actually a tough contract, especially if you lose rep for having a kerbal die in space from failing it. It leads you to develop a rescue backup craft and build it in case a mission goes wrong and you need to rescue kerbals in kerbin's SOI.

If the weather was so bad you could not launch for a day that would have an effect, without time based mechanics it does not matter.

I know contracts have deadlines right now but it is not the same. Craft design and build is instant, if the contract deadline was in 200 minutes you have time to leisurely design a craft (taking a real world day if you want) and build it and rescue Dan.

`Rescue Dan Kerman from Orbit` is currently not hard at all.

 

EDIT 2:

17 hours ago, Kerbart said:

I think you need to validate your claim that simulating weather systems doesn't take up much cpu power with meteorologists. It's not entirely inconceivable that their opinion diverges from yours.

Of course, you could just pick a random vector for windshear and keep it static, but that will only result in a follow-up demand for realistic weather and then we're back at a cpu-cycle hungry monster.


You do not have to simulate a chaotic system to get weather realistic enough for KSP, it just has to feel real to the player. If dealing with wind you would need one variable for direction, another for strength, two more for their rate of change of each variable then only change their rate of change a bit once an hour so predictions are very cheap on CPU time as well. If you hit a limit (no wind or too much) invert the rate of change.

Only have weather in the local bubble, and generate new weather (if you go from space->atmo) on the fly from the cloud map.

There you go, a non-iterative, non chaotic, semi realistic weather in the local area that is cheap on CPU cycles. Not just static either. For people that really want gliders set a centre point for `swirl` and set the wind vector to a direction based on your position relative to the centre point. The centre point could be inbetween clouds, like it is in the real world for gliders.

Tell people who want realistic weather to submit a pull request and their code solution can be examined.

Edited by John FX
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...