There's a big difference between complaints and criticism

I have to apologize to you. The word complains in regard to your post was too harsh. Right you are, the critics are welcome. I think I was distracted by the conspiracy theory in another post. ^_^

 

Now, on the texture basis, the textures were the same on all three attempts, just the weather engines changed. Makes sense to me when looking at the sheer cloud impression (placement) an engine gives you. Since all weather engines allow for any textures to work with them, it shouldn't matter whether you are using REX, HIFI, freeware or default textures as long as you don't change them in between the runs. To compare things, the lowest amount of factors should be altered. This happens when keeping the cloud model and just using different weather programs.

 

So those suggestions of yours

ASE+AS2012 vs. REX Essential

ASE+AS2012 vs. REX Essential (both with REX textures)

ASE+AS2012 vs. REX Essential (both with AS2012 textures, if possible)

wouldn't look any different on the placement of the clouds. The engines call for cloud texture names only, through FSX. Not on a per cloud basis though, more like in the ways you would for example setup your own weather via that FSX 'custom weather' dialogue.

 

Those names are static, the graphic addon just exchanges the textures itself. For example, whatever you put in with cirrus_overcast01.bmp as the name will be displayed in the corresponding situation.

 

Right you are, the feel and stability have to be expressed otherwise and can't be condensed into static screenshots. So far, with adjusting the settings, REX-E does well by the way.

 

Please take a look at harvesl's post, allowing a comparison of REX-E and AS2012 without a texture change. Except for the strange result at LICT, me says that both products are neck and neck.

But how can one truly compare engines if the texture sets are different? There's a big difference between complaints and criticism - I think everyone "complaining" is quite interested and simply would like to see an equitable comparison, myself included.

 

For a true comparison, the same textures should be used (most updated from any set) and the most current weather engine should be used.

 

For one, as someone who only owns ASE, I'd like to see (note I'm not sure how REX textures are chosen/substituted with others'):

 

ASE vs. REX Essential (both with stock FSX textures, if possible)

ASE+AS2012 vs. REX Essential

ASE+AS2012 vs. REX Essential (both with REX textures)

ASE+AS2012 vs. REX Essential (both with AS2012 textures, if possible)

 

This is primarily a graphic comparison; I imagine it would take a lot more time and resources to compare the "physical" weather models throughout a range of conditions. That said, I believe the accuracy of the weather data and resulting "physical" model outweighs the visuals by a long shot, especially when taking into consideration low/limited visibility conditions in which you may not be seeing much out the window for a while anyway.

 

Arguably, the most critical meeting of the two models (visual and physical) happens at approach / final / decision height, where a "whole lot" is going on at once and the visual once again becomes a critical factor. In this case, the REX treatment of low visibility/fog/mist/whatever may be better from what I've seen.

 

REX E textures are much better than the AS2012 textures - for clouds anyway. AS2012 do have a lot of other textures, which are just "different" from a lot of the REX E textures, not really worse. The screenshots I did above were done using the same REX E cloud set - because I can tell you definitively REX E cloud textures are much better. Now, in regards to the weather depiction (just visually speaking) REX E and AS2012 produce visuals on par in the vast majority of scenarios. The only time I've seen REX E depict the weather look better is in the case of haze/mist/fog, as it does things a bit differently - and does look very good. Although, I know the ActiveSky developers are working on making their fog generation look as good.

 

I also had ASE at one point, for some reason I think AS2012 is much improved - I can't put my finger on it though. If you're more interested in the accuracy of the weather engines, however, AS2012 can't really be beaten. This was my first port of call for testing, and I found that in certain situations REX E was reporting aloft winds totally different from the relevant wind charts - in fact, they could've made the aloft winds randomised and it probably would have tied into the charts more than it did. I also had the same aloft wind values over 500-1,000 nm over the atlantic - which I see as a bit of a problem for fuel planning.

Now, on the texture basis, the textures were the same on all three attempts, just the weather engines changed.

 

...The engines call for cloud texture names only, through FSX. Those are static, the graphic addon just exchanges the textures itself.

 

Thanks - this is very helpful. I thought the clouds looked similar (and may have missed a mention of the textures being the same) but wasn't sure.

 

The screenshots I did above were done using the same REX E cloud set - because I can tell you definitively REX E cloud textures are much better. Now, in regards to the weather depiction (just visually speaking) REX E and AS2012 produce visuals on par in the vast majority of scenarios. The only time I've seen REX E depict the weather look better is in the case of haze/mist/fog, as it does things a bit differently - and does look very good. Although, I know the ActiveSky developers are working on making their fog generation look as good.

 

Thanks to you as well - these two last posts combined with the visuals are excellent info.

 

cheers

Andrew

Glad that's all sorted then. Phew :yahoo:

It's...

 

NOT!!!! (cue suspenseful music)

 

Forgot to ask about the "double clouds" in the high layer in the first set - I thought I saw an explanation of what happened, but I'm not finding it now...

 

thx

Comparison shots are misleading. Angle of the aircraft taken by the OP is different in each shot. First shot is below aircraft looking up while other two are looking at same level of aircraft. ASE is older than the newer AS2012. You are comparing an old version from Activesky to a new version of REX... misleading IMO.

 

The angle is slightly off, but not enough to make any real difference it what is presented. You'd still see the 2 layers of fuller clouds in REX-E with the angle corrected.

 

Whether those fuller clouds are realistic compared to the METAR report would be the issue.

 

My biggest complaint with REXE is it's accuracy.

 

I can look out my window and see a cloud filled sky and sometimes I'll load up REX and it's sparse at best (yes my settings are maxed and everything is setup right). Sometimes it'll present it perfectly.

 

I found with ASE/AS2012 that I always got more accuracy out of the box in technical presentation even though REXE as a whole does a better job presenting as art IMO.

The angle is slightly off, but not enough to make any real difference it what is presented. You'd still see the 2 layers of fuller clouds in REX-E with the angle corrected.

 

Whether those fuller clouds are realistic compared to the METAR report would be the issue.

 

My biggest complaint with REXE is it's accuracy.

 

I can look out my window and see a cloud filled sky and sometimes I'll load up REX and it's sparse at best (yes my settings are maxed and everything is setup right). Sometimes it'll present it perfectly.

 

I found with ASE/AS2012 that I always got more accuracy out of the box in technical presentation even though REXE as a whole does a better job presenting as art IMO.

 

You think REX E does a better job at presenting the weather in ALL cases? As on my end, the vast majority of the time AS2012 and REX E produce practically identical weather (unless REX E is being completely off). The only improvement I see with REX E, visually, is the generation at low visibility - but that obviously isn't incredibly frequent.

You think REX E does a better job at presenting the weather in ALL cases? As on my end, the vast majority of the time AS2012 and REX E produce practically identical weather (unless REX E is being completely off). The only improvement I see with REX E, visually, is the generation at low visibility - but that obviously isn't incredibly frequent.

 

I said presenting the weather "as art." Yes, in most all cases (assuming the same weather is being presented) I think REXE looks more natural. Fog representation, the way it builds cloud banks, how it stacks clouds, how it handles upper clouds, how it does thunderstorms, etc. all look more natural to me in REXE.

 

I find AS to be more accurate though more often then not, as in what I see outside is what I see in the game although I don't find it's presentation to be as crisp.

Sure, pictures should be self explanatory. I have no idea what REX E was doing at LICT - it kept giving the same result after restarting REX E, FSX, PC.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks for the post! This is a little more scientific. In terms of the textures themselves, I think that is more of a subjective topic. I personally would probably vote for the REX guys on the texture side of things. They have been absolutely incredible for many years now. From a weather accuracy/engine standpoint, I am leaning towards AS2012.

I think that for medium-long flights ASE is better, cause it's more accurate in wind datas

Hello

No historical weather in REX-E so for that reason I cannot use it, as I nearly always fly in the evening after work with my FSX flights set to daytime hours the realtime weather from REX-E, winds, temps ect. is always going to be wrong for the time of day.

If they include historical weather from their servers I will give it another look.

Good thread. Very useful. I've been thinking about Active Sky ever since I found out about the vertical air movement.

 

No historical weather in REX-E

 

Is that true? I clicked on the Fight Center and it gave me the option to use archived wx. Haven't tried it, though, so I can't say.

 

I did try loading up some random weather for a short flight from KSNA to KLAX just to see how REX E would do. It was impressive but it needs some work. The flight was in a thunderstorm. The ATIS said Altimeter 2994 and heavy rain with 20 miles vis (heavy rain, 20 miles vis?...ok...I can forgive that). As soon as I took off approach said the altimeter was 3005...hmmm. About 5 minutes into the flight the weather cleared up and my altitude dropped 300 ft (seems the altimeter changed again, huh.) I clicked reload and in twenty or thirty seconds the weather came back and my altitude was back to where it was.

 

The turbulence kept me busy and was pretty realistic except for no up and down drafts. All in all, the weather was pretty good but they do need to fix the altimeter thing and the clearing of the weather thing. The up/down drafts would be more realistic.

Is that true? I clicked on the Fight Center and it gave me the option to use archived wx. Haven't tried it, though, so I can't say.

 

Hello Greg

I would not have written that if it were not true.

It only archives weather that you have already downloaded for later playback.

So if this evening I wanted to do a daylight flight in FSX. I would have needed to be home to download that metar for later use.

I work shifts so most of the time the REX weather is of no use to me.

I read in this thread that AS2012 does not represent CB accurately in height: on Saturday evening, as we had plenty of severe thunderstorms in our area, I started AS2012 and loaded FSX to realise - to my amazement - that I would not top the CB before FL 330... I never remarked that before in FS. If you want to check, just select a place where CBs are listed and go for it, you might have a nice surprise.

 

Having used ASE and REX in FS9 before moving on to FSX lately, I selected AS2012 as my weather software given the new quality graphics, the incredibly fast texture install time on FSX (compared to the loading time of the REX textures), and the known accuracy of its weather engine.

I would not have written that if it were not true.

It only archives weather that you have already downloaded for later playback.

So if this evening I wanted to do a daylight flight in FSX. I would have needed to be home to download that metar for later use.

I work shifts so most of the time the REX weather is of no use to me

 

Well, that stinks. They need to archive stuff on their server. One thing that would be cool is to be able to go somewhere that has the weather you want and get it on the fly.