I would have to agree with your assessment as of TODAY.....but.....based on the released literature so far, it appears that Microsoft has upgraded not only the "presentation" of the weather, but also plans to upgrade the retrieval of weather data to insure accurate, dynamic portrayal.Hey, I don't know for sure. I have not been privy to the new product, but I'm going to be an interested observer in a few months when it is released. As for now, I'm going to give Microsoft the benefit of the doubt. I believe that they have been listening quite closely to these forums, and have implemented much of what we have been asking/seeking for.Again, time will tell......we've all seen the problems with their weather server data also.gwillmot

>BTW the wind server just worked perfectly again.11AM, 5/13

Oops...It looks like I didn't do my homework properly. After browsing through the COF site it sure looks like MS is doing a major overhaul on the wx engine as well...They don't however mention winds aloft so I'll stick with your last comment... Time will tell... ;-)Regards

Eric,"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."How do you figure? The past 3 updates and the one we are currently still working on is specifically addressing these server issues. I have spent much time trying to do all I can to improve things. And continue to do so. If you have a problem with my attitude, I must say that I don't really know what you expect.. I have responded to all issues and have/continue to work hard based on feedback.What exactly do you expect? Trouble free servers? Sorry, such thing does not exist that I know of. I cannot fix a public data server! I am truly sorry and frustrated as well that the server has had some unreliable days and I continue to try to improve wxRE to deal with these things. And as of course you know I am spending a lot of time and money developing private servers and the network that supports them.Sorry I could not deliver on your expectations and that my attitude is so bad in your eyes... Please let me know what you think I should do.. I will consider all your suggestions!-Damian

Hi,The FS9 wx engine and new features are great, but they don't make wx add-ons obsolete and here's why:FS9 new wx features:-Volumetric 3D clouds-Automatic online re-download every 15 minutes (they call it "dynamic weather")-Distant weather objects (see clear skies to the east and clouds to the west)-Improved internal draw cloud transitions (build-up and dissipation) and other horizon, lighting/shading, precip and visibility effectsFeatures still unique to wxRE 1.x:- Many options including download and transition intervals- VATSIM server data access- Wake turbulence- Weather planning- Text and Voice flightwatch- Intelligent turbulence- Intelligent METAR string processing (better handling of international METAR reports)- TAF processing and true dynamic weather- Full area transition logic/smoothing- Online/offline operation will cycle sets- Text ICAO/WMO database edit ability- Cavok cloud generationThen of course there is the question of server and area coverage - if MS uses the same source then their data will be quite flawed and conditions depicted won't be that accurate (as it is now).Anyways, I plan to make wxRE 1.x compatible with FS9 if possible (depending on FSUIPC developments). I don't really think that the new FS will provide as much real-world realism as most weather add-on users have come to expect. But we will all have to wait and see! Regardless, development will continue... MS can only do so much, and there will always be a need for future weather enhancements. What MS has really done with FS9 is open the door to even better weather add-ons.Planned 2.0 features taking advantage of the new FS9 wx engine:- Enhanced distant weather display- FS Sky World integration with new cloud set textures and 3D cloud models + intelligent cloud graphic/model selection based on conditions- Enhanced smoothing and transition effectsThen there are all the other features planned (see the 2.0 thread!)-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

gwillmot, "What more could a 3rd-party addon possibly contribute? "I have seen this many time before each version.Just note that's some clouds appears cartoon on the edge, cotton's ball clouds style, etc. Where are the clean wispy cirrus, real puffy clouds cumulus with definated egde and whispy, clean textured CB etc...Default stuff have been always been replaced, specialy because Ms they don't use the full capability from their own engine..Look what's happend to fs2002 3rd party addons, the same will happend to fs2004, 3rd party improvement over default.. ThanksChris Willis[link:fsw.simflight.com/FSWMenuFsSim.html]Clouds And Addons For MsFs

Hi Damian, thanks for the reply.The frustration comes not only from the server issue but also equally from the "we are working on it and addressing it with the latest release candidate". The inference is that you are going to fix the server problem when in reality it simply can't be fixed because it's beyond your control to do so. You don't own, operate, nor maintain the servers used by Activesky. This seems to me like you are glossing over the real issue by suggesting that your software will eventually work reliably (in regarding to online weather download).Your attitude is that there simply will be good days with the servers as well as bad, that it's just the way it is going to be for the present and users shouldn't be too bothered with it. I don't know, maybe a certain element of your user base doesn't mind this but I think you have to realize that you are alienating a large segment of simmers at this point and you will continue to do so as more time goes by. Activesky is getting a stigma of being unreliable in online mode and that alone makes your product unattractive to hardcore enthusiasts. The features are great Damian, I've certainly stated so myself more than once. But if we have to use fake weather to implement Activesky's wonderful capabilities it spoils everything. I do appreciate your listening to your customer's feedback, I respect and admire that quality about your company.

You are correct, Chris.You have done marvels (and I hope will continue) with the display of clouds.I was referring in particular to the engine behind the display of the clouds and weather.We all must wait and see. I was just conjecturing on what Microsoft has implied in their release information.It's really a question of AS v1.8 (live with it) or migrate to v2.0 (at extra cost) when it becomes available.With the problems in v1.x, I'm really kinda wary at present.I haven't seen a completely working version yet, and the engineer in me is getting a little nervous about the product.gwillmot

True.....IF.....you have weather data to manipulate with ActiveSky.No data (server), no features.It's like an automobile with a great engine and every accessory the factory offers.......but it doesn't have a battery.Great potential, but nothing works.gwillmot

I have to agree with the post above.Damien, it's not your attitude. I also have praised the amount of work and effort you have put into the product. I have also praised your attitude with respect to customer service. You have always responded when I needed you.It does still amaze me that you still expect "us" to expect problematic servers which render your product next to useless.Reliance on public servers.....reliance on public servers.....(repeat after me).....reliance on public servers......Again, take FSMeteo as an example. I have had only two problems with downloading from their servers in the past two years.Yes.....they are privateYes.....I help pay for them with higher fees.Yes...I am willing to do so for the confidence of using the product reliably whenever I want to.Yes...I am willing to pay more for your product for the same confidence.No...I am not willing to again pay for a v2.x if the server situation is not addressed and rectified.Nol....I am not happy with USING your product at this time (happy with the program, very unhappy since I can't use it reliably a great deal of the time).Suggestion.......Stop work on v2.0 and secure private, reliable servers. Ask your current users to pay an extra $10 to defray the cost. With that, it's still only as expensive as your competitors.Please concentrate on reliable weather data delivery. Your product is great as it stands......it appears the only major flaw (and common thread through all versions) is the lack of universal weather data on a reliable server(s).Fix this root cause problem, and you'll be hailed as a weather genius (and greatly increase you cash flow with new business). Failure to do so will place your efforts in jeopardy. That is not intended as any sort of threat, please don't misunderstand. It's just business logic.I hope you realize that much of what has been commented on is an effort to localize the problem(s) for you from a consumer/user standpoint. It is aimed at trying to see you succeed since we are very much impressed with the product.Deliver.......and they will come!gwillmot

Thanks for your input...I have been working on the private weather server for 2 months now.. at least 8 hours a day. It's not like I am ignoring this. I have already spent over $10K in network hardware and server equipment not to mention the many hours spent trying to help 'ease' the download requirements of 1.x to make things better.If I could have a new solution for you overnight I would. Sorry it is taking so much time but it is very complex! Thanks for your patience... BTW, how are the servers for you this morning?-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

This seems to be my day for analogies, so let me offer up one here:I recently bought a diesel car...it gets 40 mpg, is very comfortable and has had no mechanical problems. Now let's suppose that the only gas station in my area that sells diesel fuel runs out of diesel regularly, and that 50-75% of the time I can't get fuel for my diesel car. I talk to the dealership, and they sigh and tell me that they are not in the fuel business, and that they can't engage with the local gas station right now because they are too busy working on ordering a shipment of newer even better diesel cars that get 50 mpg instead of 40 mpg.After a fairly short time, I'd be selling my car for one that uses something besides diesel, and the local dealership will soon have a lot full of 50 mpg cars they can't sell.Damian...I need some diesel fuel soon, or I'm going to be forced to trade in my 2003 wxRE diesel sportster for a gas powered Meteo, and then I won't even stop at the lot when the 2004 wxRE 2.0 sportster comes out. It doesn't matter to me *who* provides me the "fuel" (data) I need to run, but without it I'm going to have to do something else.As a start, as I've suggested elsewhere, some precanned offline wx packages would be helpful. Another option would be to mirror the latest public wx server data on your web site, and have the program go to the mirror as a secondary source if it can't get the data from the server--even if the mirrored data is several hours old, it has to be better than all the error messages.As others have said here, a for-fee upgrade to version 2.0 is not going to be in the cards for me unless and until a reliable version 1.x *environment* (program and access to online data) appears first.RegardsBob ScottATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-V

Thanks Eric and I do understand the frustration...But I really am doing everything I can. Of course I cannot fix public servers and I have stated that many many times. All I can do is try to improve things as much as possible with the current version (doesn't take too much time to improve things a little) while I work hard on the private servers (which takes LOTS of time). Trying to balance this all out, and I have been spending at least 8 hours a day on the server coding plus have spent over $10K already on the equipment. I wish it was an overnight fix but it is proving very complex. I will keep you all posted on the progress... -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

Glenn, Eric,maybe I'll get pounded for writing this, but anyway...Apart from technical design decisions, isn't it also a matter of usage and expectations?With usage I mean the kind of simming you do, thus the type of wxRe utilization needed and deliverance expectations (frustrations when not achievable). Part-time outage of the NOAA wind servers hasn't really impacted my simming - I loaded offline weather I had kept archived, turned back FS date/time correspondingly and used wxRe running with FS time. For my kind of simming (and my expectations of wxRe 1.x versions), I don't have the need/urge/desire/requirement to always fly on the actual real-time day. That's why I don't agree with your view, that wxRe is "(virtually/next to) useless" without 24/7 real-time data, at least not for everybody.And let's not forget that wxRe still has a simulation engine built-in for winds aloft when no real wind data (METAR/TAF data d'load was near100% reliable) is available. One might deem this "fake", but wxRe still delivers "a realistic weather environment" that reliably is fun to fly in. It's more a matter of "good enough?" in the winds aloft department.Sure, having wxRe access private servers would be a great feature, and I'm looking forward to it. The way I see it, the initial design decision was to use public servers (most likely one reason for a low price tag), period. This decision was/would have been perfectly OK, as the extent of the server outages were probably not foreseeable. Access to private servers is an additional feature and, I would assume, for Damian an additional venture, not included with 1.x business calculations. Having a V2 wxRe not only compatible with but augmenting the new features in FS2004 is clearly the basis for any future commercial success. Only next in priority, although included in the first V2 release, should be the added feature of reliable world-wide wx data availability (naturally with additional costs for all of us).The release of FS2004 (and wxRe V2?) in July is almost here. If the public servers are online most of the time, I can live with the present situation, using my offline data intermittently. And I'm looking forward to migrating as soon as possible

Bob, Damian,the last two sets of wx cycles I've got for offline use are 7-19Z on 12.05 and 7-21Z for 08.05. I'd be glad to share these (about 8MB zipped each), but seeing the number of views on this thread I'm afraid I wouldn't have the bandwidth available to me, if there would be a lot of interest.Anybody want me to upload them to the lib or any other ftp-site (or do you want them Damian, if you would rather provide them)?Peter