Thank you! I think that setting is really hidden or not quite obvious by calling it “angular diameter”. Why not just call it “Sun disk size”? 
The sky disappears when going below a certain point with the camera. It does not happen with the old sky.
The new sky is great but it was a bit too many settings that make small visual difference compared to the previous version. Time was spent on these instead of clouds that would have a more significant visual impact.
It’s by design. You have to make sure whole your level is above ground or sea level. Below that sky is black.
Interesting. Who said it is by design?
Design serves a purpose.
Sorry to say this so called “design” (if someone indeed claimed it is so), is flawed. Serves absolutely no purpose, it is limited and illogical.
4 Likes
I don’t know where I read it.
It’s physically accurate and I like it personally. Problem is the frame drop when parameter change.
As far as I remember it was rendering incorrectly when the camera height was below zero, so they simply disabled it.
Hopefully that’s just temporary, as there a still some use cases where you need it. (e.g. being under an ocean surface while looking upwards)
what it looks like in UE4.25 . They have added volumetric clouds using tiling 3d textures…
4 Likes
Yes that is extremly annoying (btw that neat tool to position sun in UE would be nice to have )
1 Like
There is a good reason why top artists prefer Unreal to showcase their skills 
Providing them with the tools that really make a difference.
Nobody cares about a “physically accurate” sky.
Especially when the physically accurate sky is not accompanied by the actual sky with stars, planets etc… and only consumes its effort on nailing visually insignificant accuracies. People on the internet should get over trivialities and focus on things that actually make a difference.
The previous one already looked awesome. It was only lacking clouds.
3 Likes
Unreal is the better engine overhaul do doubt about that, unity simply has no chance vs it on high end graphics and programing.
I do not think so. Unreal has several issues too. Each tool has its strengths and issues.
Sadly many people think that by slapping a “psychically accurate” moniker on whatever they do it has increased value and it is awesome. It is not.
Also many people think that spending weeks of development time on trivial tweaks is a good investment of their skills and efforts. It is not either.
Fixing the disappearing sky is important as it should not happen. Period.
8 Likes
I think there’s some confusion here. If you personally don’t want physically based sky, there are still alternatives to it.
Sky is just one element but most HDRPs PP’s are done to be physically accurate, same with camera setup etc. The whole point is to make the thing work more like in real life and people doing realistic visualizations do appreciate it. I appreciate the effort even when I’m not going for photorealism. There are also alternatives to HDRP on Unity.
@rz_0lento this is the worse response people can give about feedback. Unity invests resources on this feature to be used by as many people as possible. So you saying that there are other solutions, (which is something everybody already knows) works against that goal.
This thread is about providing feedback for the Physical Sky. And that is what people do.
Sometimes negative, sometimes positive.
Feedback that can give the people working on this feature an idea about what they are doing right, and what they should do differently instead, in order to reach the goal which is a wide user acceptance and satisfaction.
You talked about the real life.
In the real life, the sky does not disappear when you move below “0” this is especially important for people doing Realistic work (I personally do both realistic and fantasy projects), more so, when they are using real world map locations and terrain and features that are based on actual location data that should NOT be tampered with.
Also in real life, the sky often has clouds and other volumetric. Resources would be far more well spent in that.
Wasting time on “nailing” the aerosols 100% (never going to happen) that will be completely useless unless you are working on a super high end simulation that this 1% difference from the real thing makes a huge difference in the result of the simulation, is a waste of time.
2 Likes
Your feedback to physically based sky was:
My responses were to point out that if you just want the old sky setup with small improvements, this clearly isn’t the system you are looking for.
1 Like
And you are wrong.
Sorry. I am looking for exactly this system and I bet you a box of your favorite drink that if you have a little survey asking the entire community right now on how the new Physically Based Sky should evolve and how the team should invest their time in either:
A. Making even more accurate aerosols simulation
or
B. Making a believable (but not entirely accurate) cloud system for this sky
“B” would be the easy majority.
You want to argue about that, that is ok, it is your right to argue,
but you are wrong about what the community needs.
5 Likes
I just wasted an hour of my time trying to figure out what’s wrong with the scene setup - when rotating/moving the camera below a certain point all the sky became brown/dark.
It dawned on me that Unity went for an easy exit and simply hardcoded Z=0 into their shaders - without mentioning or documenting this decision. Reading now that it is “per design” … L-O-L
5 Likes
I’m going to ignore all the rest of that and just point out that Unity is aware of the need for the clouds and they’ve mentioned a long time ago already that clouds are coming later on. Nobody here even suggested they were not needed.
I also think it should be not hardcoded, that the sky does not render below zero at the y-axis.
You should atleast make it tweakable and display an infobox so people know what is going on. People could invest hours of bug searching why their sky disappears, not knowing it is a programmed limit.
Also, how would Unity know the sky is not needed at a certain distance? You don’t know the map, and projects may need realistic coordinate system, so y zero marks the water level, which may could be reached by the player, so for certain games it is may needed that you see the sky from underneath water or through holes in the ground. Unity is just limiting in thinking of use cases. Please fix it.
2 Likes
You can decrease the planet radius like by 100m and increase upper atmosphere by the same amount and your sky will not disappear at 0. It will disappear below -100m, but it is how the skies with precomputed tables works. But warning about this still good idea.
1 Like
Hey, I am having issues with it , I am having stuttering in both editor and build version when I hit play, and when my character respawns.
Is there anyway to fix that?
I already tried disabling some features and hit play, but the result is the same, however when I change the sky type to another different to physically based sky, it works fine.