What I'm talking about is you being a hypocrite when it comes to unrealistic clouds being acceptable but unrealistic weapons not.
For starters, there's a world of difference here. Quite realistic missiles have been demonstrated in FG in terms of the Sidewinder - which means all it takes to do it is research and dedication, there is no conceptual problem.
Detailed volumetric clouds (= what you'd call realistic clouds) on a large scale rendering in real time haven't really been demonstrated in FG or any other Flightsim. To hardware to render that simply doesn't exist.
It's a bit like comparing a car that takes a liter of fuel per 100 km with a superluminal starship. Neither currently exists, but to say because I can't built a superluminal starship I shouldn't urge anyone to build the car is ridiculous. Obviously the challenges are very different. We have the best clouds we can have given what the hardware can deliver, but a Sidewinder with different range and callsign is clearly not the best missile the hardware (or software) can deliver.
As I said, you don't know what you're talking about, otherwise you wouldn't come up with such a funny comparison. To wish for something possible is different from wishing for the impossible.
Being told what is and isn't acceptable or will or will not be committed, by someone who doesn't do either of these two disciplines needs to be responded too...
Look, it's completely meaningless what I do for posting here - what's relevant is what I know. I do know aerodynamics pretty well, and (I would guess quite in contrast to you) I work with computational fluid dynamics codes - so I am entirely qualified to talk about aerodynamics and FDMs - as past discussions have shown, more than you in any case - I don't need to write my own aircraft to prove anything (enough people are doing that anyway) and you may disregard my expertise at your own peril.
I also have a fairly good idea what gets committed and what not - both in general and in the particular case. You don't. Your approach if confronted with inconvenient facts is to shoot the messenger apparently - but that doesn't change the facts.
A development forum requires that people can put forward ideas, brainstorm, consider different anveues of approach......
And it needs reality checks early on. Don't you think the information that X has little chance of ever being committed is something people would want to know early on? Or would you prefer we let people spend half a year with a feature and then tell them it won't ever go to GIT, sorry? You may not want that info, but my answer wasn't given to you...