A simple question: which is the best?

That can be a touchy subject... many people will disagree on which is best...Maybe a vote is the better way to go?So vote #1 from me is Activesky.I could sit here and tell you everything I like about it, but it's late and I need to sleep. *:-*But definitely work the price you would pay.

Since you are an Activesky user can you tell me how to avoid getting tower to reassign me to opposite runways?

I would advise you that the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is contemplating action against HIFI Sim (developers of Activesky) for misuse of U.S. Government weather servers by facilitating automated downloads of weather data by a commercial software application. This is in violation of NOAA's publicly-stated terms of service for it's weather server. Should NOAA decide to take action against HIFI Sim, it is unlikely that future releases of Activesky will be able to legally be coded to access NOAA weather data online.

>Should NOAA decide to take action against HIFI Sim, it is>unlikely that future releases of Activesky will be able to>legally be coded to access NOAA weather data online. Then it will be a matter of users typing the NOAA site into some box rather then having it 'automated'. A minor inconvenience.I think ActiveSky + FS Sky World (they combined forces) at the moment provide the best talent in the weather department going forward to FS2004.Michael J.

>I would advise you that the U.S. National Oceanic and>Atmospheric Administration is contemplating action against>HIFI Sim (developers of Activesky) for misuse of U.S.>Government weather servers by facilitating automated downloads>of weather data by a commercial software application. This>is in violation of NOAA's publicly-stated terms of service for>it's weather server. >>Should NOAA decide to take action against HIFI Sim, it is>unlikely that future releases of Activesky will be able to>legally be coded to access NOAA weather data online. My god sir, you definitely have something against Damian and Activesky, don

I am not misrepresenting any facts nor am I attempting to spread false rumors. I have no idea if NOAA has or will decide to take action against HIFI Sim, only that NOAA personnel have been contacted and there is contemplation of such action at this time. Clearly, Activesky software is in violation of the NOAA server terms of service and I have so stated. NOAA's RAOB server's homepage (http://raob.fsl.noaa.gov/Raob_Software.html) states the following:"We also reserve the right to deny access to any individual or organization that we determine is abusing this service. Examples of abuse include automated transfers resulting in excessive data requests (because it hinders others from accessing the service)"The current version of Activesky 1.87 is coded to access the NOAA RAOB weather server by automated download and the above terms of service is clearly applicable to the Activesky program.I have not now nor ever made any false claim or unfactual statement about Activesky or Damian Clark in any public or private forum. It is my personal opinion that Activesky software is defective and that it's developer is misleading consumers by continuing to market an application with serious reliability issues in terms of online weather data retrieval, all legality issues of online server access notwithstanding. You are entitled to your opinion, I am entitled to mine. I have a constitutional right to publicly state my opinion about any product and this does not constitute slander or defamation of character.

I definitely see where this fellow Eric is coming from. It used to be that NOAA servers are unreliable now it is about NOAA contemplating actions (most likely Eric has snitches in the White House). If this does not pan out I wonder what will be next on his agenda - probably that Bin Laden is using the servers too so any ActiveSky customer is unamerican. :-hahMichael J.

I have not made any false or misleading claims. It seems you have more of an agenda than me with your sophomoric remarks.

I thought all the weather programs used a NOAA server?

So far you have failed to provide evidence to substantiate the following statement you made:>I would advise you that the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is contemplating action against HIFI Sim [...]http://hifi.avsim.net/activesky/images/wxrebeta.jpg

>I am not misrepresenting any facts nor am I attempting to>spread false rumors. I have no idea if NOAA has or will>decide to take action against HIFI Sim, only that NOAA>personnel have been contacted and there is contemplation of>such action at this time. You wrote the following in this same thread:"I would advise you that the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is contemplating action against HIFI Sim (developers of Activesky) for misuse of U.S. Government weather servers by facilitating automated downloads of weather data by a commercial software application."Now I have to ask you this: Do you work for NOAA? Do you know or not if NOAA is "contemplating action against HIFI Sim"? First you affirm this and then you say you have no idea if they will decide to take action against HIFI. >Clearly, Activesky software is in>violation of the NOAA server terms of service and I have so>stated. Why are you so sure about this? Were you involved in the development of Activesky so you would know what kind of terms Acticesky has with NOAA? Are you sure about NOAA's opinion in this matter? Again, do you work at NOAA to know? >NOAA's RAOB server's homepage>(http://raob.fsl.noaa.gov/Raob_Software.html) states the>following:>>"We also reserve the right to deny access to any individual or>organization that we determine is abusing this service.>Examples of abuse include automated transfers resulting in>excessive data requests (because it hinders others from>accessing the service)"It sounds reasonable to me.>The current version of Activesky 1.87 is coded to access the>NOAA RAOB weather server by automated download and the above>terms of service is clearly applicable to the Activesky>program.Why? Are you sure that Activesky is abusing the service? Do you have any idea at all of what NOAA thinks is an "abuse of the service"? And again, DO YOU WORK AT NOAA to know anything?>I have not now nor ever made any false claim or unfactual>statement about Activesky or Damian Clark in any public or>private forum. I really don't know what were you thinking when you wrote those lines. That is exactly what you have done; you have made false claims about Activesky here, a public forum.YOU are interpreting NOAA's terms in YOUR way, and YOU think that Activesky is violating those terms without knowing the real facts, YOU don't know what NOAA thinks...so that sir, is a RUMOR. >It is my personal opinion that Activesky software is defective>and that it's developer is misleading consumers by continuing>to market an application with serious reliability issues in>terms of online weather data retrieval, all legality issues of>online server access notwithstanding. I think Damian will be here soon to give you the answer you deserve.>You are entitled to your opinion, I am entitled to mine. That sir, you are right.>I have a constitutional right to publicly state my opinion about>any product and this does not constitute slander or defamation>of character. I'm not a legal expert but the real facts that I see here is that you are trying to spread a rumor with the only intension to damage Activesky's reputation. That will carry Damian economical damages and is also his right to defend himself against this kind of defamation.Carlos.

Are there really that many flight simmers using ActiveSky that it would "deny NOAA server access to others"??? Somehow I doubt that.I think that clause is referring to professional weather services using the server etc, not a flight simulator addon that no one in their right mind would try to use for professional flight weather reporting...Ryan

I have not obtained permission from certain NOAA employees to publicly post such information regarding NOAA's response to this situation but I can assure you that my statement was accurate. Obviously I would not make such a statement without reliable and verifiable information.

Sir, I have quoted the online server terms of service from the NOAA website and I have stated factual information that very lucidly shows that Activesky software's coding has violated those terms of service. I fail to see how anyone can interpret such facts in any other way unless such individuals have a personal agenda which you obviously appear to have.I have futhermore stated that NOAA is contemplating action but has reached no firm decision. This is a factual and accurate statement based on communication with NOAA personnel.