V1.6: My first results

[Guest]

...and first of all: good stuff! :)I like the new flightwatcher voice feature. It sounds quite nice and is very helpful to determine the probably arrival runway depending on actual weather - very good.Unfortunately, the new real winds aloft did not work - at least this time.I just flew from EDDL over EDLW to EDDB (west to northeast germany), but there was nowhere any "useful aloft data" (on- and offline).Therefore I had to check "winds aloft simulation" again - although I expected never need to use it anymore.Maybe we can find a solution - would be a bummer to leave this most interesting feature...

[JSkorna 137]

Chris,Glad you like it!!I just went to EDDL in FS and got nothing, but then I went to EDDB and got winds aloft data. From this I conclude that the EDDL data was missing in the last report. I didn't get any errors, just a line of many zeros for the data. Just to confirm EDDL had an WMO ID of 10410 and EDDB had a WMO ID of 10393. In all of testing I don't recall this ever happening!Hope this helps,Jim

[Guest]

Thanks for the hint, Jim.I can cofirm, that both WMO ID's are in the list.One belongs to "Lindenberg", the other one to "Essen".Are these allocations comprehensible for wxRE-users - or definitely necessary in any way?In other words: most countries and cities of the world should be covered by actual wmo list and where's finally no aloft, there is currently no data available but basically present?...just to comprehend aloft data's function...

[Guest]

@Jim, you're right:A lo(f)t of sackcloth and ashes! :-doh Aloft wind is there... :-sun1 I'll kill that daffy firewall! Of course, wxRE is looking for a new outbound connection, but same daffy user (yes, it's me ;) ) refuses it unwittingly.By the way: offline mode keeps aloft simulation. Is this normal?Sorry for my "panic" - let's get make another fly tonight :-hahCheers

[JSkorna 137]

Chris,I'm not real clear as to your question, but I'll give it a shot. Most major cities and countries should be covered. But even through testing, users were discovering new stations to add and they were added and tested. The key is to watch is the main winds aloft window. If you are not covered by a WMO the word "simulated" will appear before the ID. All offline use will use simulated winds no matter your location. In your test flight EDLL had bad data, not a missing station.Hope this helps,Jim

[Guest Jalok]

Hi Jim,I have experienced a bunch of "Bad Aloft Data/Timeout" error messages around the world. Also, I have noticed that there's a lack of winds information for some airports I have tried, including the Guarulhos (SBGR), one of the busiest south hemisphere terminals. ActiveSky seems to grab winds data from a much far station. Some examples:SBSPWMO ID: 83840 DIST: 178 - 264(69):0/0/0 - 2873(751):0/0/0 - 5669(1482):290/22/19 - 11972(3130):0/0/9SBGRWMO ID: 83746 DIST: 182 - 363(95):360/7/29 - 3010(787):335/19/24 - 5837(1526):320/26/20 - 12141(3174):320/13/9 - 22529(5890):320/14/-7 - 29108(7610):300/11/-17 - 37179(9720):210/13/-31 - 42037(10990):195/19/-40 - 47736(12480):205/28/-53 - 54621(14280):200/40/-67 - 63648(16640):150/14/-77GCLPWMO ID: 08522 DIST: 293 - 945(247):210/6/14 - 3439(899):340/4/9 - 6154(1609):205/8/13 - 12282(3211):0/0/3 - 22376(5850):0/0/-15 - 28649(7490):0/0/-28 - 36338(9500):255/31/-42 - 40966(10710):265/25/-52 - 46359(12120):250/37/-63 - 53129(13890):275/64/-61 - 62692(16390):260/40/-67LSZHWMO ID: 06610 DIST: 76 - 765(200):0/0/0 - 3194(835):235/10/4 - 5810(1519):250/22/0 - 11712(3062):265/24/-6 - 21497(5620):290/29/-24 - 27578(7210):295/25/-35 - 34961(9140):290/36/-53 - 39398(10300):290/31/-60 - 44638(11670):265/32/-62 - 51561(13480):280/30/-59 - 61315(16030):285/21/-58I'm not sure if 76nm isn't normal for LSZH, but for GCLP and SBSP/SBGR I think there should be nearer wind readings than those 300nm and 180nm far stations.Finally, congratulations for the ATIS/FSS voice implementation! Maybe in the future, Hifi could implement real frequencies for ATIS/FSS broadcasts, for the sake of an additional realism. And winds aloft for some regions I've tested seems to be quite updated compared to the current wind charts! One question: how could ActiveSky get the same altitude intervals for all stations around the world? I mean, there always are data for ~3000ft, ~6000ft, ~12000ft, ~22000ft, etc. But in my country, Brazil, the official meteo info does not publish winds for those altitudes and/or with that gap. In fact, they report winds for FL050, FL100, FL180, FL240, FL300, FL340, etc. How does ActiveSky accoplish that? Does it have more detailed sources for winds? or is there any kind of interpolation? Thanks!

[jcboliveira 1]

Ol

[Guest Jalok]

>Ol

[Damian Clark 1,082]

Ummm, no... We added as many stations as we could verify as valid and reporting, but this is changing all the time and depends on what area you fly in. 60+ beta testers fly in many areas of the world, but we cannot identify all, and the sources for this WMO information range from impossible to endless... I am not an expert in every country's aviation practices or local weather offices.Of course I will release updates to the wmo.txt file as more stations get identified and verified.Let me ask which area are you flying in? I will keep that in mind when researching new station information.. Perhaps we can get you a nice new wmo.txt that is much more complete for your home area.-Damian[table border=0" cellspacing="30" cellpadding="0][tr][td align = "left"]Damian ClarkHiFi Simulation SoftwareDeveloper of ActiveSkyThe next-generation weather environment simulation for FS2002!http://hifi.avsim.net/activesky[/td][td]http://hifi.avsim.net/activesky/images/wxrebeta.jpg][/td][/tr][/table://http://hifi.avsim.net/activesky/ima...][/tr][/table

[Guest Jalok]

>Ummm, no... >>We added as many stations as we could verify as valid and >reporting, but this is changing all the time and depends on >what area you fly in. 60+ beta testers fly in many areas of >the world, but we cannot identify all, and the sources for >this WMO information range from impossible to endless... I >am not an expert in every country's aviation practices or >local weather offices. >>Of course I will release updates to the wmo.txt file as more >stations get identified and verified. >>Let me ask which area are you flying in? I will keep that >in mind when researching new station information.. Perhaps >we can get you a nice new wmo.txt that is much more complete >for your home area. Thanks, Damian, for the real customer service! In fact, I do not fly too much on Sao Paulo area. Home area (SBBR) is well covered by stations listed on current wmo.txt. But I think some care should be taken for S