Thanks for allowing everyone to contribute to this thread, and thank you for your response.You have only reconfimed your dedication, commitment, and your concern for this great product.Some call it nitpicking, some call it criticism, but all have contributed to the best constructive dialog that I have seen in a long time.Well, I be signing off the thread......and I'll be loading up v1.8beta this weekend to give it a go.Everyone have enjoyable "flights"Glenn D. Willmot

Hi Damian,first let me say I do not agree with the writer of the letter, but what indeed crossed my mind is why it is so difficult for You to find a reliable server or aloft source when FS Meteo (for example) always has 5 Backup Servers online, a stable winds aloft source ALSO for european and other non-us areas and all this priced the same level as ActivSky!I can fully understand You saying it was difficult to interpret the Aloft Sources Data you now use, but why can FSMeteo use a Source you cant use. But maybe you can explain this to me and I will understand an take back my questions.I appreciate all your work on this great program and hope you keep it up!!!All the best

Hi Lars,Same price? ActiveSky wxRE is $19.95. The other product is over $45 (US) last time I checked.I have been looking for sources of weather information for the past 4 years. Only recently has worldwide winds aloft become possible due to the new WMO system. Basically, as soon as a VALID source was found, we took advantage of it. Unfortunately 10% of our user base has problems downloading from it.I am not aware of what sources the other program uses. But I AM aware that there are many wx service sites that permit limited use of the data which excludes automated access, scripts or "robots". Many of these sites are pay-to-play. This rules out any kind of legal use for a weather add-on.As I have always claimed, if you can provide me with a new source that is reliable and legal, I will implement it right away. Many folks have asked this same question that you brought up and the fact is, nobody knows the sources of the other add-on's data, or more importantly, nobody knows of ANY other sources.Help wanted!-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

Hi Damian,I just hope I made clear I of course never wanted to offend you;) Its just a little bit confusing how the "other programmer" can get such a reliable weather source and others dont even know where to find it.FSMeteo cost 29

Hi Damian - Not to start a flame war but if someone who has the 'other' application and can monitor tcp/ip activity, it should be no problem to determine the URL's being contacted. Unless they are 'private' url's ( which I doubt) there's nothing illegal or immoral in that type of reverse engineering.I personally don't like or use the other program, caused lots of problems on my system so I trashed it.There's a free utility called TCPMON (IIRC) that's available from sysinternals.com that can monitor all activity/ports.Just my two cents worth.Vic Baron

Vic,Thanks but that wouldn't work either... remember they are private servers.. the servers are the ones grabbing the data.-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

It is now painfully obvious that ActiveSky does not have the _______ (choose your work/phrase) to become a reliable/mainstream commercial product.Yes, I know all about the "stuff" which drew us too the product, but if you can't reliably use it......what's the point?I am now of the opinion that I won't be migrating to v2. I'm really at the end of my patience on waiting for a reliable deliverable.This is not a slam on Damien, et. al., except to say that I think they now realize that they bit off a bit more then they can chew. Maybe all those cheerleaders who slammed FSMeteo now understand why it's more expensive (and reliable).It was a good run, but it's now a virtually unusable product due to server problems, etc. Hey....that isn't going away by the way.....gwillmot

Gwillmot, I tend to agree with you. Sure Damian is not to blame for the bad performance of the public NOAA servers. However, when one begins to think of creating a weather addon, the very first thing I would start with is the weather itself. IE the data source for the program. And this seems to be underestimated. If the program can not get reliable data, then what's the use? OK, wxRE has more weather features to offer. But getting actual online weather is top and first priority! I'm sure Damian will have a bad feeling about the server performance as well.I have been in contact with the KNMI, the national Dutch weather service. On behalve of the flightsim community I've asked them if they know of any free online weather source that can be used for downloading actual (and/or saved) aviation weather. So far they did not provide something. However, I request anyone reading this post to do the same in their country. Damian do you mind this? I had mixed feelings when I contacted them, as wxRE is ofcourse payware while I'm asking for free data access.Let's hope this basic issue of getting a reliable free weather source will be solved soon! In my opinion this will decide if wxRE will survive in the commercial FS world...

Both of you don't understand, there there are no better PUBLIC weather servers out there. Go back to V1.0, you will get weather EVERY SINGLE TIME. Of course, you'll give up a bunch of stuff. How did that bunch of stuff get into AS? From the wishes of users who we listened to, and are now pissing and moaning about this and that. Damian could have choosen to stop development with V1.0. Then we would have heard about how he doesn't care and all he wanted was our money. But no, the project keeps growing, features are added, updates are PUBLICLY tested and released, all for either $15 or $20. And guess what? As I finished writing this I was able to start AS and download all the necessary weather on the programs first try.Hope this helps,JimActiveSky Support

Hi Jim,I think both of us DO understand. I'm not at all complaining, pissing or moaning about wxRE itself. I'm getting ###### by the NOAA servers, as are many others looking at the many posts about this issue. Even your own sentence ('I was able to start AS and download all the necessary weather on the programs first try.') implicates it is not at all self-evident that each update is succesfull. I've only been trying to find an alternative source for aviation weather. How can you be so sure there is none? Did you contact staff of the Dutch KNMI? Did you contact meteorologists of other countries? Many of them are also meteo hobbyists that might have more sources than publicly known. I thought it was worth a shot. It could be beneficial to all users of wxRE. And don't get me wrong, despite the unreliable servers I'm still a happy user!Kind regards,Hakkie

You tended to agree with the post before yours and at the same time I over-reacted. Damian has done extensive research into alternative public data servers and came up with nothing better than NOAA, thus the general plan for a private server for V2.0. But no, you are correct, I'm sure he didn't contact everyone in the world and I did over-react.BTW the wind server just worked perfectly again.Hope this helps,JimActiveSky Support

So what's the hangup about using PUBLIC servers?....They don't work reliably, and they make your productg useless.That's the point......."PUBLIC servers?....we don't need no stink'n PUBLIC servers".....(to quote an old movies).Also....I don't care for any more wonderful "features" when I can't reliably use the features I already got!...and yes....I too just started AS and downloaded all the necessary weather .....AFTER 4 DAYS of a big bag of Nothing!WAKE UP!.....the public servers are the problem and will always be the problem.Jim....just think about what you wrote, and I'm sure that you'll realize that you know the problem. Please don't just perpetuate the myth that "all is well" and "what do you expect for $15 and public servers?"At least Damian has admitted his frustration with the public server situation. I have a lot of respect for him for his product due to his honesty on that point. Better let him field these questions, as he does a much better job of filling us in on what's going on without the "spin" I'm hearing from you.It's VERY hard to introduce a commercially successful product, but the public wants success anyway.Old saying about computers/programs......Garbage In, Garbage Out. Great Program, just garbage data.Glenn D. Willmot>Both of you don't understand, there there are no better>PUBLIC weather servers out there. Go back to V1.0, you will>get weather EVERY SINGLE TIME. Of course, you'll give up a>bunch of stuff. How did that bunch of stuff get into AS? From>the wishes of users who we listened to, and are now pissing>and moaning about this and that. Damian could have choosen to>stop development with V1.0. Then we would have heard about how>he doesn't care and all he wanted was our money. But no, the>project keeps growing, features are added, updates are>PUBLICLY tested and released, all for either $15 or $20. And>guess what? As I finished writing this I was able to start AS>and download all the necessary weather on the programs first>try.>>Hope this helps,>Jim>ActiveSky Support

Being the original author of this thread I have to again reiterate my orginal premise about the unreliablity of the weather servers utilized by Activesky. Damian, Jim, et al, there has simply been too much a of dilema with this issue. Perhaps development emphasis has shifted gears more toward future FS2004 projects rather than fixing the current generation of Activesky, I'm not sure.I will say that Activesky no longer holds any credibility for me at this point though; attempting to gloss over/ignore the ongoing server issue and asserting that subsequent release versions did or would repair the problem was a major PR mistake from your company and I believe it has backfired. I think the worse thing your organization could do was mislead customers into thinking there is no problem or that the problem lies with the customer's equipment, circumventing the real issue of server inacessability. The FS2004 train is about to pull into the station - will Activesky be onboard for the trip? Not likely unless something radical changes in both the program and it's developer's attitude.

Honestly, if Microsoft does anywhere near what it says it has done with their weather engine, I don't see any reason for weather addons to exist.What more could a 3rd-party addon possibly contribute? Please take a look at this to see my point. Look especially at the overcast and snow pictures.http://www.gamespy.com/e32003/gallery/pc/1001554/gwillmot

Hi gwillmotI think you are comparing apples and oranges here to some extent. It is true, the screen shots on the overcast and the snow looks absolutely stunning. But that doesn't tell anything about the default weather engine taking care of real winds aloft, dynamic processing over time and distance, visibility issues and so on and so forth.I'm sure there will be a need for third party add-ons like ActiveSky, FSMeteo et al. They are not add-ons for weather/meteorological presentation. They are add-ons to accurately process the input to the default MSFS weather engine to give us realistic and realtime weather. Best regards :-)