Do you prefer traditional skyboxes or volumetric clouds in games?

>>715794237 (OP)
As long as it looks nice, I don't mind either, but since it's harder to make good looking and functional volumetric clouds, which also only make sense in the right kind of game, I think static ones are generally nicer. Going for a bit of a mix with some subtle moving elements in traditional skyboxes might be my favorite.

>>715794237 (OP)
traditional skyboxes

>>715794237 (OP)
Traditional. I would rather it was handpainted or even using bought brushes and assets but reflect the studio's vision and implemented in a mediocre way, much more over generic volumetric cloud and dusts that adds nothing to the overall art direction other than to say "we have clouds and dust ermagherd"

Spyro skyboxes still haven't been surpassed so who cares

>game set in the past
>night time
>barely any stars in the skybox
Personal pet peeve of mine.

>>715795787
There weren't as many stars back then since the universe was still cooling from the big bang

>>715795787
Same shit as LA and Indian artists make every single vidya setting foggy as hell because they're used to all the smog and think it's standard

>>715794237 (OP)
I like the traditional skyboxes in monster hunter world

>>715794237 (OP)
Volumetric clouds range from RDR2 to DD2
Whereas with skyboxes it seldom dissapoints from STALKER to Morrowind, etc.

>>715795787
you're delusional if you think you can see the milky way if there's no light polution
you know what just take a trip to one of those african shitholes and go deep inland and you'll get your wish and broken delusions

>>715795787
Sadly this is a high exposure camera thing.

>>715798540
>you can see the milky way if there's no light polution
You literally can lmao

>>715794237 (OP)
Traditional almost always look better. Volumetric ones always have some level of jank if you look at the clouds long enough. But Volumetric are cool just to appreciate neat tech. And obviously if you can fly up in the clouds volumetric are a must have.

>>715798540
Go outside anon. Ive seen the milky way out in the wilderness of Montana and utah.

>>715798540
>you're delusional if you think you can see the milky way if there's no light polution
I literally saw it just a few months ago in a national park in the middle of Pennsylvania. Here's a shit photo from my iPhone

>>715799745
Bullshit. I have been all over, from the high mountains to lowlands to the seas. You will never have a milky way sky like they show on television without a good camera, the naked eye cannot see that.

>>715795787
Note the difference
>>715799826

>>715795276
Love it or hate it, but Elden Ring has some very nice skyboxes that also make good use setting the atmosphere with different color tones.

>>715798540
Just because photographers use long time exposure for their images, doesn't mean you can't see the fucking milky way. It's fucking huge, but it doesn't help that it's for some reason kinda hard to find nice "more natural" looking pictures online and even pic related doesn't really do it justice really.
I went camping in a fairly rural area once and seeing it in person on a clear moonless night hits way different.

>>715798540
it's not like a camera's photo but you can definitely see it with your eyes even at Bortle 3-4, and at 0 it's really goddamn impressive.
Took pic related with my cheap phone right outside of my home town btw

>>715794237 (OP)
At the moment, despite the progress over the years, volumetric clouds are still no better than traditional skybox imo. People rave about RDR2 clouds, but sometimes it still looks fake.

>>715803538
but skyboxes dont take up any gpu resources we need volumetric clouds because its better technology

Realistic graphics with day/night cycle: real sky captured with timelapse photography (Forza Horizon)
Game involves flying or high altitudes: volumetric clouds
Otherwise: traditional skyboxes