I tried FSMet, and didn't like what it did over default. Is ActiveSky truly a must have, or is it really just different weather than default?Noel

Can't imagine opting for MS default over FS Meteo, especially if you are using FS9, but to each his own. And if you don't like FS Meteo I doubt ActiveSky will knock our socks off either. :)Just save your $$ and use the default stuff.Racartronit means something, but I just can't remember what

Well, I used both all the time in FS2002. However when I set up the latest version of FSMet I tried a few flights and found the weather more closely matched the real world weather with default than with FSMet. For example, flying into KSFO the weather was being reported of the NWS as clear with 20m vis, etc etc, and this is what FS default showed. When I then loaded FSMet, visibility was down to almost nil upon arrival, and clouds looked more like stratus than the few cumulous that were reported in the vicinity. I also noted the type of cloud configurations in the real world where I live, and FS's looked more like what was showing. Since winds aloft are present with FS default, I am wondering why use FS Met.I used to love ActiveSKy in FS2002. Perhaps someone could let me know their impressions on how AS works with FS9--esp in terms of performance since multilayered clouds can bring top machines down. What do you think of ActiveSky? In other words, how about a report of what you like or don't like, rather than guessing what I might like?Noel

The biggest limitation of both of these programs with respect to FS9 is that they set global weather rather than local weather. FSMeteo now offers local weather in version 6.2, but I have not tried it. Activesky wxRE 2 will also have a local weather mode. While the data may be virtually the same for default v. addon (real weather should be just that, right?), what these programs give is some finesse over that data. I used activesky with FS2k2. I loved the TAF processing feature. I also love that fact that it would download more than one cycle of data and interpolate, thus smoothing errors. I'm not sure how FSMeteo compares, but I would wait another few weeks and see what activesky 2 has to offer. I think we'll all be happy...sg

I've used FSMeteo for a long time and always liked it. I bought ActiveSky wxRE a few months back just to see what difference there was. and I liked it just a litte bit better. But with FS9, I'm not sure what the weather addons are actually adding at this point.Lately, I've been getting the weather data via ActiveSky, letting is setup in FS, and then I turn off ActiveSky and let FS9 dynamics take over (on low setting). I guess I prefer the smooth dynamic changes and "clouds carried by winds" in FS to the weather/cloud transitions of the addons.But it is early, and it may take some time for the Weather addons to 'WOW' me again.

ActiveSky 1.9 is (I read here in AVSIM) an intertim product and not fully compatible with FS2004. Damian (again I read here) is busily working on a new version which will address the issue I have now with ActiveSKY and FS2004. Namely that the WX transitions from one weather reporting station to another are sharp and sudden.This wasn't the case with ActiveSky when using FS2002. I'd look for the update (or Version 2.0?) the compare again. Overall I've been happy with ActiveSky using FS2002 and it beat FS2002's wx generator hands down. I haven't tried FSMet.Larry JonesFlorence, MT

I've been using FS Meteo 6.3 lately. I've never tried ActiveSky.What I like about FS Meteo is mainly the ability to get METAR and TAF data for the weather that's actually being used in the sim. I suppose that if FS2004 default weather is always up-to-date, then I could use NWS and FS Browser to get the same info, but I have no way to know whether the default weather is actually up-to-date or not, and I've heard reports that it sometimes isn't. So, while I can get a forecast off NWS, I have no idea whether it will actualy happen in FS2004.There is quite a bit I don't like about FSMet, though. I find it to be fairly buggy and often have problems with it. Marc seems to be pretty responsive to those reports, though.I have seen times when FSMet's METAR data is out-of-date compared to NWS, but I've also seen times when FSMet has later weather than NWS and FS2004 default, so I don't really know what's going on there.The latest release of FS Met does set local weather, though, and it has resolved the flashing/stuttering problem that occurred when weather was updated, at least for me.

For those interested in FS9's weather and its interaction with external weather programs such as ActiveSky and FS Meteo, there is an interesting item by Pete Dowson in his support forum.http://forums.simflight.com/viewtopic.php?t=9427Go down to the section FS2004 global weather control is problematicRgds

>But with FS9, I'm not sure what the weather addons are>actually adding at this point.I am not sure either.Michael J.

One Major reason why I always use FSMeteo and Activesky over default weather is for Winds Aloft. FS default in FS2002 and FS9 has never given me accurate winds aloft, as a matter of face, winds drop to zero when I climb past 4000ft.By extension, I use FSMeteo much more than Activesky because I get more accurate winds aloft with FSMeteo. I'm constantly checking the winds aloft using various websites and they're always correct with FSMeteo. I can therefore use the data on the real world websites to plan my flight and since I'm always flying at FL 310 and above, for me, winds aloft is the more important feature. I'm using the latest version of FSMeteo (6.3) and until Activesky 2 comes out, I'll continue to use FSMeteo over activesky.Default weather.......its only there if I want to set up a thunderstorm or snow conditions etc. to practice IFRs.

Thanks to all for the feedback. I went ahead and downloaded both updates (FSMet, AS) and I would have to say FSMet seems to better approximate what's happening with local weather reported off the NWS. I tried about 4 different areas in the pac nw and found FSMet to be right on. Vis was supposed to be 10 sm via NWS updated 3 minutes before, and yet with both AS and default vis was out to 40+ miles. You could see discreet clouds and total clarity in between in both AS and default, whereas FSMet seemed to give an honest 10. Plus weather seemed more complex with FSMet. I will have to see what AS v2 brings along, but at this point AS doesn't seem to be where it should be. I found the other 3 areas to be accurate to current weather conditions when using FSMet.Noel