Exactly my thoughts. I really don't know what to chose. The more sreenshots and videos I see, the bigger the confusion becomes.

A merge of those three really outstanding weatherengines would be the perfect thing imo.

 

Regards

Hirschi

 

+1

It's absurd to keep repeating the claim that because Opus doesn't get winds aloft as accurately as another program, a feature that really only matters for those flying tubes, that it is merely eye candy. Particularly when those repeating it haven't even tried the program.

Well said from a real life VFR flyer.

All the programs can throw up a pretty looking sky with the right choice of textures. Opus simulates the sky environment as a whole so much more like what I see and feel when flying in RL. That's realistic, hard-core simming for the way I fly.

 

Ditto, well articulated.

 

Dirk.

It's absurd to keep repeating the claim that because Opus doesn't get winds aloft as accurately as another program, a feature that really only matters for those flying tubes, that it is merely eye candy. Particularly when those repeating it haven't even tried the program.

 

While I completely agree that the whole "real simmer vs eye candy" thing gets old in ANY discussion, I have to disagree a bit with several of your points. First, I don't fly tubes - at all - yet I still value accurate winds aloft. IRL I owned and flew a turbo-ed piston single, and I guarantee you that winds aloft forecasts were an integral part of my flight planning for anything other than short $100 hamburger jumps.

 

Secondly, you characterize Opus as having "the most realistic depiction of clouds", and that's something that I think is still very much open to debate. I've done a lot of direct comparisons under a variety of conditions between Opus and the new REX engine, and frankly both are now doing an excellent job of depicting conditions as specified by the METARS but I've found I generally prefer REX' depiction as just feeling closer to right to me. But read that sentence twice before reacting. They're both doing a good job, and the second part is simply my preference.

 

Opus is doing a lot of things very well, but I do think there are some tradeoffs being made, as there usually are. For one thing, I find many stratus depictions in Opus to be harder than I like. I expect (but I certainly don't know) that may be a tradeoff done to increase IMC immersion. How you feel about any tradeoff is going to depend an awful lot on what you value most.

 

In my case, I'm trending more towards REXE+ after much back and forth, due to winds and temps aloft, a generally more pleasing (to me) depiction of conditions, what I perceive as generally smoother transitions, and longer term historical wx availability. But I still recognize the strengths of Opus, will continue to use it as it rapidly evolves and am glad I purchased it. And I certainly understand why some value what it does over what it (currently) doesn't do.

 

But yeah - let's drop the whole "serious simmer" thing. :-)

 

Scott

WXPLUS

Try with the Standard Mode with Synoptic, Micro, and FSX/P3D Interpolation processes enabled. This will give you a much richer and realistic environment. The WXPLUS mode has it's benefits in that there is no hit on the FPS, but you can't get the realism of the Standard (Station by Station Mode) in REX+.

As this seems to be the most popular weather engine thread currently running let me ask, what are people getting for frame rates with respect to AS2012 sp2 and newest REX release? I posted over in the HiFi forum about terrible frame loss with SP2 cloud textures. I lose about 20 frames with the clouds and that is with 1024 textures selected and DXT1. I am wondering how bad a hit the REX textures are?

Out of interest is it possible to extract the new REX files to another drive other than onto one's C drive? I don't have enough room on my C drive!

The extraction process may always use your TEMP folder in Windows. If that one is on C, your program will use it there. Maybe you can use another extraction option like 'extract here' and then directly process the files.

 

By this, you could move them to any free drive, then click 'extract here' and C won't be used. Well, I guess.

 

If this happens more often, I would move the temp folder or make sure that C doesn't have a huge recycle bin setting and tons of stored temporary internet files. There's a cleanup option in the Win Explorer.

One thing to keep in mind about winds aloft is that they aren't just for the flight levels. If you just fly GA and VFR, you still have winds aloft reported at 3 different levels below 10,000 feet. Having a moderate wind coming from the wrong direction has a lot of effect on an aircraft flying at 80 knots, which will mess up your flight planning even if you aren't using an FMC.

 

Winds at those levels tend to change direction a lot between levels, unlike the flight levels where the winds are usually from the same direction.

 

Some people will say "I don't care what the winds are doing or if they're accurate as long as I have winds." Others will say "I don't care if the cloud depiction is accurate as long as I have interesting clouds." There are tradeoffs and compromises, and a lot of people are somewhere in between.

 

I don't care if the clouds are exactly right as long as they are a reasonable representation (and match the METAR fairly well), I can see different clouds in the distance which are still there when I arrive (if they haven't changed during the trip), and I don't have to look at cloud popping and shifts. That last is the most important for me.

 

For winds at any level, I value smoothness of change over accuracy. This includes temperature change and barometer change as well. If there is real world wind shear, depict it but let me avoid the altitude where it's happening; don't make every wind change everywhere into a wind shear event. If I'm flying high enough to have to deal with upper level winds, they'd better be coming from the right quadrant, at least.

 

Hook

One thing to keep in mind about winds aloft is that they aren't just for the flight levels.

 

Absolutely. See my comments above on this very issue.

 

Scott

See my comments above on this very issue.

 

That was my inspiration. I was expanding on it.

 

Hook

Absolutely, each of us is likely to find different combinations of features more or less to our preference. And yes, my main point was to ask to stop the which is "serious sim worthy" thread in the conversation.

 

As to some of the details, I fly mostly online with folks using all three of the main engines. I have RexE+ and Opus, not AS12. I've tried to like Rex. It just gets the Metars more wrong more often than the others. And it's not consistent. The guys flying it in the same location will have very different weather and winds. But if you like it, great. That's what matters. It enhances your simming experience. The guys flying AS seem to be happy. Their weather always seems to be pretty accurate. My Opus weather is always pretty accurate to the Metars.

 

I've taken some comparison screen shots with RexE+ and Opus just switching back and forth between the two. Opus gets the winds and Metars better. I don't like the hard edge and unrealistic look of RexE haze and ground mist. I like the more realistic layers of clouds with Opus. I like the realistic depiction of IMC. I agree winds aloft below 10000 matters for VFR. I've found Opus to be accurate. The winds aloft to 10000 are always very accurate according to my Foreflight winds aloft charts. So I'm happy.

 

I don't regret buying Rex. I appreciate all the free upgrades I've gotten. I love the textures. I just find even the new weather engine unconvincing for me. That's why it's great there are choices.

I've taken some comparison screen shots with RexE+ and Opus just switching back and forth between the two. Opus gets the winds and Metars better.

 

As have I (and posted some comparison images) and have, at least for now, come to a completely different conclusion.

 

What surprises me is that we're so different on the details, not our opinion of them. As I've posted on a couple of occasions, one of the things I've struggled with about Opus (with REX textures) is how "hard" and artificial it seems to portray stratus. As for the METAR rendering, I've done, man I don't know how many direct comparisons, and in every case I've checked so far, both get it right every time - I simply prefer the REX rendering.

 

You say: "It just gets the Metars more wrong more often than the others." Are you really seeing REX getting the METARs completely wrong? If so, I suspect a problem. If you simply prefer the way Opus renders - no problem, I completely understand.

 

Scott

You say: "It just gets the Metars more wrong more often than the others." Are you really seeing REX getting the METARs completely wrong? If so, I suspect a problem.

 

Most likey the causes of problems are due to not installing as admin or running as admin, or the most obvious not following the correct installation proceedures since iam having no problems at all now since the update to rexe to o/d.

I know how to install and run the program. That is not a problem. As I said, not only does it not get it right sometimes, but at least before Plus, when a number of us would run Rex weather and fly together online, it wouldn't even give us all the same weather at the same location. I'm glad to hear others don't experience those problems, but I've experienced them enough (as have others I fly with) that most of us have moved on to other programs for that reason.