Summer1, beware if you use Opus that currently only thing the program does good is weather generation for low fliers.

Summer1, beware if you use Opus that currently only thing the program does good is weather generation for low fliers.

 

I disagree. The only aircraft I fly in FSX is the NGX, and with the typical max range I fly with the 737, I am not too hung up on upper air winds.

 

Why? I can live just fine with the +/- 20 min discrepancy between ATE and ETE.

 

What I can't deal with is transparent weather when descending into an airport that is supposed to be LIFR. That's where I think Opus excels. And that's what matters to me in a home simulator environment.

 

Of course, flying across the Atlantic or the Pacific in a 747, that's a different matter. But to say that Opus is useless for jet aircraft all together is not something I agree with. But then again, people have different views.

I do all my flying in the NGX and I'm very happy with OpusFSX.

A comparison thread avoiding a comparison for three pages now. ^_^

 

We're trying to draw out the suspense! :-)

 

Honestly, I've played with the new version of REX for a total of less than two hours and I expect most are in similar circumstances. I like some things very much and am still trying to understand a few anomalies. I hope to do a few more direct comparisons this evening. The one thing I don't want to do is to post something either praising or d*mning, only to find that I'd made a silly setting error or made a bad assumption or simply had different conditions that I made too much of. Really evaluating wx packages seems to me to be something that takes a bit of time.

 

I can say (and have said) that I sure do enjoy having both historical wx (which I know is coming for Opus as well) and true winds aloft (which Opus is also working on, though with different data). I'm also not seeing some of the dramatic shifts that I've had with Opus at lower levels. Weather injections are virtually instantaneous, just as they are in Opus, but I don't seem to get kicked around as I often do with Opus when the wx conditions change - but that may just be different conditions. Oh, and yes I'm getting the correct barometric pressure at airports, at least so far.

 

Flights so far have been piston GA up to 16,000' so I have no feel yet for how things are (especially those abrupt wind changes) up in the flight levels. I've flown up through a solid overcast layer and it was well-depicted with the true IMC feel I get with Opus, but I haven't done the opposite yet. As someone else mentioned, I really value having an approach to minimums really feel like an approach to minimums, but I haven't had those conditions yet in Plus.

 

More when I know more, and I'm sure the same will be true from others.

 

Scott

I saw you being on the wise approach, Scott. Much appreciated. Don't worry, I wasn't looking for quick conclusions. More for some pictures showing a METAR and then what the weather engine in use makes of it for example.

 

We had such things back then when REX Ess (without the Plus) came out and wanted to compare it to ASE and AS2012. A friendly guy then took some shots, at least allowing a view on what it looks like in the sim when the real world reports this and that. Here's the post to start with. http://forum.avsim.n...25#entry2393656

 

The details on the actual injection like if it causes stutters, flashes or just happens too fast are vital too of course. It's just like I don't see much of a comparison like the OP has requested but more of a expression of feelings and thoughts at times.

 

That's useful too, but hard to compare. :smile:

 

ASE

AS2012

REX (old V2)

REX Ess

REX Ess Plus

Open Clouds

Opus

FsrealWx

come to my mind.

 

Now that's a bunch of engines and, even after six years of FSX, we have yet to find the one which does best. I doubt that there is one, so the description of each item has to allow for a judgement on the reader's side if one was up for a nice overview.

Dave, you are correct, Opus doesn't have any delay, why: it doesn't incorporate ANY other real world data except metar. But in FSX, this ain't enough for a real weather representation.

 

I had Opus, I used it, and noticed the downsides - those being inaccurate winds, wind shifts, winds aloft, missing temperatures aloft etc - they might be "working" on it, but the fact is now and now it is not working. It's the same and I could just say "if it's ok for you to have inaccurate winds, that's great!".

 

Up to 30 minutes delay is for me OK, since AS never really missed the weather outside, it was only in worst case scenario a little delayed - if you set 5min updates, it's even gonna be 15min delay.

 

As far as you are telling me, you care about eye-candy, but not about realistic weather depiction.

 

I like to have as realistic as possible actually, but it seems we cant have the best of both worlds. Anyway I loaded the new REX plus and here are my observations. I should have taken photos but forgot. Word Not Allowed you are right about Opus and its wind shifts problem. I get penalized from VAFS all the time because of my excessive G forces when im cruising at straight and level at altitude. Opus seems to also be more susceptible to TAT which affects climb performance.

But the new REX plus on the test flight I just did also alot of wind shifts. Enough that it knocks off my Vnav and Lnav just like Opus. Annoying. Rex has the TAT right it seems though.

 

However here is the big difference to me. Rex just loaded the weather and I have mostly clear skies with quite a bit of haze and I can see the ground completely. I then disabled it and loaded Opus. Now I have an mostly overcast layer below me and some parts are broken cloud. So take your pick of which you like to deal with best. Personally Ill forgo the winds right now, because I like to break out of an overcast condition which is supposed to be there 500 ft AGL. I dont have money to splurge and buy the 3rd engine of AS to compare. I think buying two is enough. Wish all three weather engines would get together and get one that works properly. But as it stands competition is good, and each one has its pros and cons. Opus is constanltly being updated and hopefully they sort out the wind shifts and winds aloft very soon. The TAT problem is claimed to be an FSX issue, although I find it hard to believe since loading new weather will change the TAT just about everytime.

One other thing with REX, was that the weather on my 2nd test flight really had drastic changes. Sudden blue skies and then on the next load, there was a bunch of clouds. I like the fact that Opus loads the weather in advance so there is gradualism. That to me is realistic, and not about eye candy.

But each to their own liking. These are just my observations, and my .01c worth to comment on it.

 

Happy flying.

Some great suggestions for not that great weather conditions can be found here. http://fourflights.com/ I always look there for the testing or just for the fun of instrument flying (though I wouldn't call my flying that way, it's more of a guesswork).

 

So far, the IFR and LIFR stuff worked out fine with REX Ess+ and my beloved freeware, which I had in use before. For comparisons with other engines, I once again rely on you folks. :smile:

 

I'm currently checking which looks best. Fog with the use of cloud textures or with some fog layer. Well, lets see.

Why? I can live just fine with the +/- 20 min discrepancy between ATE and ETE.

 

And when that starts to add up over course of couple of hours, including the false fuel burn and at 4/5 of the flight you get insufficient fuel message, I guess you are not bothered by that also?

I guess everyone is flying the NGX to their preference and their level of realism. Sorry to say, my wish is the most possible realism.

 

EDIT: Just a quick comparison: LOWW, 24,000ft:

AS2012: 277 @ 44

Opus: 317 @ 7

 

That will leave you crippled when you do realistic flight planing and might as well leave you short on fuel somewhere. Opus is "calculating", AS2012 is pulling the data from somewhere.

 

On the other hand, who says AS is correct: I can't find any data on the internet? Any ideas anyone?

And when that starts to add up over course of couple of hours, including the false fuel burn and at 4/5 of the flight you get insufficient fuel message, I guess you are not bothered by that also?

I guess everyone is flying the NGX to their preference and their level of realism. Sorry to say, my wish is the most possible realism.

 

EDIT: Just a quick comparison: LOWW, 24,000ft:

AS2012: 277 @ 44

Opus: 317 @ 7

 

That will leave you crippled when you do realistic flight planing and might as well leave you short on fuel somewhere. Opus is "calculating", AS2012 is pulling the data from somewhere.

 

On the other hand, who says AS is correct: I can't find any data on the internet? Any ideas anyone?

 

AS2012 is fairly correct when compared to http://aviationweather.gov/products/nws/winds/ so I'm guessing it's just as accurate overseas.

That said, once Opus gets its winds aloft patch in, it will rival active sky.

 

Further, the guy said he was happy with the limitations Word Not Allowed. Why do you have to continue to bash him for more discrepancies?

So OPUS is good for airliners if you don't care that is not good for airliners, basically? Good meaning that you can fly realistically (winds aloft and stuff).

And when that starts to add up over course of couple of hours, including the false fuel burn and at 4/5 of the flight you get insufficient fuel message, I guess you are not bothered by that also?

I guess everyone is flying the NGX to their preference and their level of realism. Sorry to say, my wish is the most possible realism.

 

EDIT: Just a quick comparison: LOWW, 24,000ft:

AS2012: 277 @ 44

Opus: 317 @ 7

 

That will leave you crippled when you do realistic flight planing and might as well leave you short on fuel somewhere. Opus is "calculating", AS2012 is pulling the data from somewhere.

 

On the other hand, who says AS is correct: I can't find any data on the internet? Any ideas anyone?

 

This is FSX, it's not going to be 100 % realistic no matter what you do.

 

A 2000 NM flight using your example, Word Not Allowed.

Heading: 090 / TAS: 450

 

AS2012 GS: 494 KTS = enroute time 4:03

Opus GS: 455 KTS = enroute time 4:24

 

Like I said, I can live with that on the NGX.

 

The difference would probably be around 800 kg of fuel. A little bit of conservative flight planning will get you there every time.

 

 

Edit: I have never had insufficient fuel (it would bother me), I usually land with between 3 and 2 tons of fuel. It's really not that hard.

 

Of course, I want true winds aloft like you. For now though, I rather have proper low vis and ceilings vs actual winds aloft.

I'am getting both now textures and wind and temp aloft now using rexe with o/d, and with all the fixes now implemented including the much improved loading times one very happy camper here (imo) and the best part is that its only one addon

Daniel I agree also,

I fly the NGX a lot but only do 100-230 mile flights, cruising to me is boring as hell and x2 speed etc is not my idea of keeping it real.

AS2012 I used for the passed 10 months and always entered the winds aloft in the FMC and yes it can make a notable diffrence but not all the time.

But for me the trade of with winds aloft and the weather that OPUS gives me is worth it every time.

 

We all have to make compromises in our sim to what level of real we want or we all would end up with a level D in our back garden if we had the £ or $.

I use a Warthog HOTAS because it's so good but again its nothing like a NGX yoke "compromises" we all have them and we all to have to make them.

 

Each to there own.

Does the new Version of Rex still have windshift issues when new weather is injected?

for example you 'could be' flying at FL360 with wind 310/45 and then all of a sudden it could go to 185/54 and blast your plane to the side and speed shoot up into the overspeed area.

does this kind of thing still happen?

More for some pictures showing a METAR and then what the weather engine in use makes of it for example.

 

There are days you have to love FSX... and days you don't. I was all set up to do a nice comparison last night. Was going to run a live flight with Opus, complete with screen grabs, then duplicate that flight with REX time shifting to their historical data to match METAR times almost completely. Got set up and about 10 minutes into the Opus flight everything locked up. My FSX is very stable, and I rarely get this kind of thing, but I'd already loaded and unloaded both REX and Opus several times as well as FSX, as I played with ideas and areas of bad wx so I think the problem was self-inflicted. At any rate, it was already late and I was already tired. I threw up my hands and went off to bed. The more detailed comparison will have to wait.

 

As I took off last night on the first leg I had scattered clouds and clear vis (flying eventually towards overcast). Out of the blue (so to speak) as I climbed out, Opus picked up something from somewhere that put me in some significant haze that I don't think was at all correct. This is not a problem I've had with Opus before. I bring this up only to point out again that a good evaluation requires some time. A one time "I tried X, but it blew it and gave me Y so I'm going back to Z" can lead to some pretty bogus conclusions. I know the problem I saw last night isn't a common problem with Opus - but I know that only because I've spent hours with it, not just a single quick flight.

 

Scott