Damian,After using both 1.7 and 1.8 (beta) versions of Activesky regularly for over a month, and also after reading this forum for the past month, I have come to the conclusion that your choice of online servers is inherently flawed due to it's unreliability. Your customers, including myself with a DSL cable modem, cannot reliably download weather information on a consistant basis (in either online or offline mode) with your current choice of the US Government WMO server for Activesky online data retrieval. The U.S. WMO server is not now, has not been in the past, and will likely not be, reliable in the future. I do not believe the WMO server has the capacity to consistantly handle Activesky's download requests nor do I think the government server was even designed to do so. The WMO server Activesky accesses simply does not have the bandwith associated with it to be consistantly reliable when interacting with a program like Activesky. I have personally tried to remain patient with this issue but I do not feel you are able to address this problem properly for various reasons, including lack of an alternative weather server. Damian, you have stated that you are not responsible for the reliability of the weather servers as stated in the disclaimer of the EULA supplied with Activesky. I feel, however, that if you do not ultimately correct the downloading timeout/weather accessibility issue as it now stands, Activesky will have no longterm future. I would remind you that FS2004 is on the very near horizon and will include a brand new dynamic weather engine, likely with a broad range of built-in online weather data interaction. Why would future potential customers of Activesky purchase your program with the stigma of unreliable online weather data retrieval considering the alternative of FS2004's own built in weather server access? I urge you to contemplate this.I certainly liked Activesky's transitions and TAF interaction, your program had a lot of innovative features and I felt it really had so much potential. But if I cannot consistantly get online data for all of the wonderful features Activesky has in this regard, the program is of no use to me. Today, after experiencing my up-teeth METAR download timeout (KLAX, mid-day, DSL cable modem, online mode), I finally erased my copy of Activesky for good. I simply refuse to deal with the server issues anymore and prefer a less feature rich but RELIABLE program with online weather data access, no names being mentioned. Damian, you simply have not been able to resolve this issue and I'm not sure there is a resolution in sight for that matter. I appreciate that you have attempted to do so by releasing subsequent versions of Activesky specifically to deal with the server problem but I believe it has not worked. I'm sorry but this is my opinion, personal experience, and apparently the shared experience of quite a few other of your customers if this forum is of any testament. Ok, I've stated my piece, send in the hounds and flame away. I do believe this statement had to be made though.

Although I will not probably erase ActiveWeather from my machine, I must say that I share a great many of your views.You have been very articulate in voicing my growing concerns regarding this product.Damian, et. al., are suffering from the commercial implementation of a great idea. His "vision" has made great strides in creating a more realistic weather environment. You touched on several of those points.....But.....You are correct in the download issue. You are damned if you do, and you're damned if you don't...regardless if you try flying with "on-line" or "off-line" weather now."Winds Aloft" might be too big of chunk to implement reliably at this time. I don't know. I DO know that Damian has tried to "solve" this issue via several means.....but it just hasn't happened even with each successive version release.It just might be time to cut the losses, and release a refined "prior" version which was more reliable. I wish I could help with more of a solution, as I don't want to always be considered a "problem". As an engineer, I appreciate the forethought and hard work that has gone into this endeavor. It just seems to be one step forward and two steps backward lately.Glenn D. Willmot

>considered a "problem". As an engineer, I appreciate the>forethought and hard work that has gone into this endeavor. >It just seems to be one step forward and two steps backward>lately.Although Damian doesn't need defending, I for one am prepared to wait for Damian to complete his 'venture into the unknown' of WX software development. I'm also prepared to await his effort in developing a product that goes 'beyond the easy - let's grab a fast buck routine,' which seems to be more and more prevalent these days in the FS Add-on world. Damian has done a lot more than any other major WX developer in continually attempting to improve the SIMULATION of WX reproduction in FS2002. In addition - unlike another developer - ActiveSky hasn't offered a quasi improved version that didn't deliver much more than what FS2002 was doing and expect another 30-bucks U.S. for it! He has put the product out for beta and to my knowledge has not said formally that he's stumped: "Gee! I guess I better give up and go backward."Give him a chance guys, SIMULATION is tough, and it is very reasonably priced simulation. :-outta Ron McLeod CYEG

I'm inclined to say 'stick with it'. Progress often encounters difficulties. I belive Damian is doing his best for us. Yes, the download issue is irritating, but I belive in the eventual success of this product. I made my first successful download today since 17 April.Gavin

I too am inclined to "stick with it", as I mentioned before.You must admit though that this product (currentlly) has not lived up to the expections that we derived from Damien.He should garner all the accolades that he can for the vision and effort that he (and those that assist him) have put into this product.The point is.......any criticism is NOT a slam on him (or anyone else) personally. He has always been quick to help me whenever I need it. His customer service is supurb. He seems like a GREAT guy.What we are discussing is the state of this product. It has become rather a pain to use if you try to obtain all that was promised a long time ago. That's the bottom line.Will he overcome?.....probably.Will most of us be around by then?....probably.It's just that some (or many) of us would rather see something more reliable. That would be my expectations should I buy a new Ford or Lexus. There has to be some satisfaction knowing that it is going to "work" when called upon.More accurate protrayal of cloud formations......he's done it.Incorporation of TAF reports for a more "fluid" and accurate weather portrayal....he's done it.This has been "around" for months and we're all glad for it!It appears the problem with downloads, servers, etc. center around trying to have accurate winds aloft for everyone, everywhere.Maybe we should all be glad to settle for simulated winds with accurate portrayal of surface weather. I know I would.Like I said.....I fully understand the complexities of traveling where "no man has gone before".Let's just continue to have a calm, intellectual discussion in the forum so that we (Damien and "us") can all learn something. I have been very impressed with the level of responses so far. Thanks for the great attitudes.Let's all keep in mind that our love (flight simulation) IS simulation after all.Glenn D. Willmot

I have to agree with the above statements although for me, the thing that bothers me the most is the inaccurate aloft wind data and how it is interfaced into FS. I fly online everytime I fly with Squawkbox and VATSIM. Due to this I use AdvDisplay (latest version) by Pete Dowson to hide the text from view due to it being shown everytime a pilot types something online. The bad thing is, when using the AdvDisplay module, it screws up the communication with Activesky and FS. So I took the module out and guess what, I still get winds that are way off what the Activesky program is showing. Everytime I fly in all parts of the country I get aloft winds that are 90 to 180 degrees off what is being reported by Activesky and 40-60kts off on the speed. I think it has to do with the constant "Aloft data invalid, retrying on the next interval" which I get very frequently (I am using the latest 1.8 beta). I have gotten so fustrated with inaccurate wind data that I went and got the payware program Weather Center (another real world wx program) which does not have TAF but does most everything else Activesky does and it gives me the correct aloft winds as being reported and that is what I want. Activesky does great with cloud layers and rain etc... but misses the mark on the wind coponent. The thing I want to know iw why does Weather Center and FS Meteo have no problem with aloft data and Activesky does and on top of that, I can use Weather Center and FS Meteo with the AdvDisplay module with no communication problems. Now Damien, don't get me wrong, your program shows the most promise. I just hope this inaccurate aloft data and that bug with AdvDisplay module gets worked out. Have you talked with Pete Downson about resolving that bug?

Glenn,you express very well what I also feel about this "issue", especially after thinking about Damian's response in the thread I started about two weeks ago. Without dismissing the points you make - I agree with them - but possibly being slightly provocative: In contrast one could argue, that versions 1.7 and 1.8beta actually do deliver a sufficiently detailed weather experience and they do this in a reliable way.Don't flame me right away, plz let me explain: METAR and TAF downloads (online and offline) have always been consistently reliable (at least for me). It's "only" the winds aloft download (for offline mode, online mode again seems to be OK most of the time, correct?) that's been troubled with timeouts. As Damian stated in his response, when real data is inaccurate, incomplete or missing, then the wxRE built-in simulation of winds aloft will kick in, which Damian enhanced in version 1.6 to include full international simulation. With this in mind, isn't wxRE delivering a reliable weather experience? Reliable in the sense, that one can continue to simulate flying anytime (no show stopper b/c of timeouts for real offline winds aloft) in a realistic weather environment. An environment that is based on real METAR and TAF data with possibly simulated (not real, but still realistic) winds aloft for times when real data is not available. In his response back then, Damian even went as far as to say that such an environment is "completely realistic for 99% of the user base". I had to think about that, but after some initial uneasy feelings I came to this conclusion: I had been completely happy with version 1.6 with real winds aloft online and simulated winds aloft for offline mode. With versions 1.7 and now 1.8beta I actually had an additional option: To use real winds aloft data offline, if I so chose, either automated, or when not possible, then manually. If I really want to have real data for offline winds aloft in contrast to a sufficiently accurate simulation, d'loading manually really isn't that much of a hassle either.So what do I get? I didn't have to pay for these updates. I've got more options. OK, built-in offline d'load is unreliable. But it's only one offline function that's flawed - wxRE as such still functions reliably. That is, I can continue to reliably fly with a much more realistic (as I said above "sufficiently detailed") weather experience created by wxRE as compared to what FS2002 offers out of the box. And possibly also compared to other competing weather add-ons, this assumption being based on posts by users who said to have permanently switched to wxRE even prior to version 1.7.Meanwhile, I believe the importance of this "timeout issue" arises more due to our perception of the severity that error message implies, than the effective impact it has on providing an accurate and realistic weather representation. (Although this might not apply to those users who fly online on VATSIM.) As the wxRE user base continues to grow, inevitably different individuals will have differing expectations of what a "perfect" weather representation should include and on what it should be based (simulated realistically vs simulated based on real data). Users who have just begun with 1.7 or 1.8 might have more expressed expectations than those of us who have "stuck on" since the beginning.I personally do not expect any version 1.x to offer a "reliable" offline d'load built-in. Damian repeatedly announced that he is considering setting up a private server. That's clearly going to cost $$. I anticipate having to pay for a future major update to wxRE (say to version 2.0), which would include a reliable option to connect to a private server. I also expect, considering the impressive update history of wxRE, that this won't be the only benefit derived from such an update. (Hey, more possibilities in FS2004, partnering with FSW, ah, surely good things to come...). Believe it or not, but actually I'm content with what I've got now. And I'm happy to know Damian is working on more advanced solutions for the future.Thanks for reading all of this, Peter

I'll have to echo Eric's views on this product. While I have finally been able to get fairly reliable data downloads without initial errors(offline-dailup here), at the point of final approach in 4 out of last 5 flights i've found myelf with 75 kt. crosswinds(stuck undoubtably from winds aloft data)and upon coming out of 3d and onto the desktop there is the dreaded ".....check your files or download new set" error.Like many others I switched from FSMeteo for the added features, but perhaps more importantly I was looking for more reliable downloads as the data errors could be frustrating with FSMeteo also. I hope these issues can be resolved as this product holds a lot of promise.

I think that you are "right on" for the majority of your message.Other responses are still indicating issues with unrealistic or "stuck" winds. Regardless of the reason, they are causing many problems in this area.I did note that you indicated that maybe the issues won't be solved until v2, which I understood to be developed for the next generation of Microsoft flight sim. In addition, it has been suggested that this will be a $ upgrade.On the surface, I found no objections with this (although I probably won't instantly migrate to FS2004/COF, or whatever it is going to be referred to. I'm still running on a 3+ year old machine....so you can imagine how down rev it is....but....This blows away the arguement of many who have said "Hey.....this product cost only half of what the "other" costs....you should be happy!" It looks like we're going to be playing on a level playing field soon.The cost is not an issue with me. I'd spend the money (heck, I own (paid) for more than one weather program now).I happen to really enjoy this product, and it has become my primary weather program when using flight sim.But that still doesn't take away the fact that we are basically using beta copies....no matter what version we are running.I would like to ask anyone out there a question.........Which version is most "reliable"? I have recently upgraded to DSL, so I can now use online weather.I am currently running v1.7To be honest...I've sorta lost track of which does what, and which had what "problems".Thanks again for the very cool responses. This has been one of the few threads in any forum which has not degenerated into a "us versus them" flame war. May reason prevail!Glenn D. Willmot

Arby,Yes, I agree, the stuck winds are confounding! I have my time set to update the weather every 10min. After flying for say an hour on a typical west to east USA route, I notice my aloft winds have not changed by a degree and the speed has stayed the same. I check the Activesky program and the aloft winds will say the winds should be for example 255/68kts. What I show inside FS is 110/7? This I am sorry to say drives me crazy and gets fustrating. I like to base my fuel load on the aloft wind data but everytime, it messes up due to the Activesky program not communicating the correct winds into FS. I have every setting correct, FSUIPC set correctly, on a bloody cable modem and have AdvDisplay disabled (due to that bug with it) and still get these problems. I am beginning to think that when Squawkbox may be interferring with the communication but who knows?

Hi all,Thanks for all the truthful and tactful comments. I appreciate the honesty and the way it was delivered. I agree that the winds aloft downloads are problematic, and I am currently devoting quite a bit of time into developing a private server implementation. As stated, this will cost more $ for both developer and user, but I am trying to make this an OPTIONAL service. The price is hard to define right now, but I anticipate something like $10 per quarter or $30 per year for private dedicated server access with archive retrieval (stored up to 1 year). I am also working on bringing back the old US FD winds aloft system as another option for those who fly only in the US (this system seems very reliable).As to not delivering what was promised - I can't agree here. What specifically was NOT delivered on the feature set? And then let me ask, what WAS delivered beyond the initial feature set? Believe it or not, but the winds aloft offline source took a LONG time to find and make work, and it was no easy challenge - and we all knew there would be some problems due to the size of the data downloads. Please see earlier posts that were made during 1.7 development for a recap. In short, user's didn't care that it was almost impossible and required huge downloads, they wanted it no matter what.Those who are having inaccurate winds, please help me troubleshoot this. I need the following information: Screenshot of main and status screens when this occurs + shift-z fs2002 screen, and a recent winds report/forecast (from the internet) for that area to compare accuracy. With your help we can eliminate these problems. At this point any innacuracy reported has ended up being a result of a bug in OFFLINE winds aloft mode (being fixed before 1.8 release), or because the user thought he/she was getting reported winds vs. simulated when it was actually SIMULATED (this is also being changed so (Sim) is more visible).Thanks again for the comments, I will take it all into consideration as development continues in 1.8 and eventually 2.0!-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

DamianIn my opinion you ARE delivering what was promised. With the added advantage of genuinly caring customer care. I bought WxRE because I was fed up with the default weather. Your product is MUCH better. And I don't have to buy an entirely new FS program to get free updates.Keep up the good work. Your continuing efforts are very much appreciated.Gavin

While I agree in principal with all that has been said - I really have to make a comment - Get a life folks - it's only a simulation.I fly FS2k2 with no problems - why?.... 'cause I don't look for them. I haven't the faintest idea what my framerate is - why - cause I don't care! It LOOKS good to me - I'm happy.ActiveSky LOOKS GOOD to me - I'm happy. Do I need to read every metar and compare it to the actual settings, etc - hell no.I used to build computers for a living and I've tweaked until I'm sick of it. Flight sims are for enjoyment - so enjoy them and stop complaining.This in no way disprespects the people who like to nitpick - that is YOUR choice and I respect that - I just say - cut him ( and other developers) some slack. If you want REAL weather - get a pilot's ticket and an aircraft and go fly - of course then some of you might complain about that as being too realistic.Of course, this is also just MHO,Vic

Well said Vic, I agree with you!Damian clearly does his level best with WX-RE, bring out updated versions continually and offering some great customer support here on the forum.All this considering I only paid $15/

Thanks for all your efforts really appreciated :-)Andr