Fs global real weather and Opus

[MindYerBeak 66]

According to one of the Fs global real weather devs  -quote- 

 

The difference between the other tools and FSGRW is that we don't just use METARs and Upper Air Forecasts to provide the weather. We have many other data sources to create realistic weather where other reports don't have any details. As an example: having CAVOK in a METAR does not mean that there are no clouds. FSGRW doesn't "randomly" create clouds there. It creates them by using other real-world weather sources (where available). --end of quote---

 

 

 

How  would  fs global real weather stack up against  say  Opus ?  Any of you  bought  FSGRW ?

 

 

Thanks

[joherszch 21]

I have looked at FS Global Real Weather, there's a demo which let you try it for a limited number of sessions.

 

My personal experience is that Active Sky 2012 and FS Global Real Weather depicts the weather pretty much the same, have no good word for it, but "standardized" in some way to me. I chose OpusFSX hands down. Their depiction method is the most diverse and most realistic looking to me.

[Alec 180]

So they have access to data better than the one real pilots have? Hmmmm... I'll stick to Opus

[Bryn 41]

I have opus and fsgwx (and as2012). I strongly prefer fsgwx at the moment. Simple interface, accurate depiction, complex model. It just does good wx - I like that focused approach.

 

And i've had great response on suggestions and support. It's been a long time since I've had such positive engagement with a dev in support. (Strangely two different devs have engaged really constructively with me this week... Armi was the other one).

 

Bryn.

[MindYerBeak 66]

 

 

I have opus and fsgwx (and as2012). I strongly prefer fsgwx at the moment. Simple interface, accurate depiction, complex model.

 

 

I'm trying to use opus camera  (+ dhm) with  fsgrwx  weather at the moment..The one thing I do not like much about fsgrwx is that you cannot force a refresh  and metars  seem to be off at times ?.Other than that fs g r wx seems to be good.

[BerndPodhradsky 5]

So they have access to data better than the one real pilots have? Hmmmm... I'll stick to Opus

We don't have more data than real pilots have. We just don't stick to METARs alone, since they don't tell you the whole truth (or do you really think 9999 is the exact visibility for 90 % of weather stations out there?) . In addition to that, METARs don't provide cloud types and will (sometimes) only report cloud layers up to MSA or 5.000 feet, whichever is higher. Most of the data sources we consume are the ones actually used by real world airlines or flight planning solution providers.

 

What makes FSGRW unique is the fact that we compose the weather in a cloud-based system, so our weather server collects the data (lower and upper air, METARs, other weather reports, cloud types, icing, turbulence data, SIGMETs etc), feeds an atmospheric model with it and creates a weather file that will be downloaded by the client application. None of the other tools uses that amount of data.

 

With METARs alone you won't get the most realistic experience in the sim, especially over oceans .

 

Another unique feature are "local weather effects" where we simulate real-world weather effects at certain locations; watch the following video for one of these effects in action at Madeira:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=W08vvkI1caA

 

Bernd

[daniel_pt 30]

I already spent money with ASE, AS2012 and Opusfsx... I have very mixed feelings about all these softwares.

 

ASE, being the oldest obviously should not be compared to the others and I have it still to use with fs9 (almost never nowadays).

 

Comparing AS2012 with Opus I'd say I don't like both and at the same time I like both.

 

Opus, imho, is great if the I choose to fly low with general aviation aircrafts...

But, flying high and jets, for me, is totally disappointing. I get so many overspeed, the aircrafts are always fighting the wind and that kills the experience... I talked about this in their forum, but what I get, is always the same answer- it's not an Opus problem, it's a fsx problem. And I believe it is, but at the same time, if we know that fsx has that bug, why should it be poked? Why not take another path?

 

So, now I'm using AS2012... and for some reason it just doesn't feel real, not very accurate... it's just as feeling that I have, might be wrong!

 

 

What I have to ask about FSGRW is this? How does fsx behaves when he fly high with a jet? Is it smooth like AS 2012 with Opus accuracy or is it more of the same?

 

Why would I spend more money with another weather software?

 

Cheers,

Daniel

 

Sent from my HTC Desire using Tapatalk 2

 

 

[JBZ 13]

So they have access to data better than the one real pilots have? Hmmmm... I'll stick to Opus

 

To be fair, real-world pilots don't just use METARs for their weather. We have 4 different types of weather reporting systems in the Tower at LAS that show things that others don't. I'm sure airline operations have different weather info also.

 

I might have to try this program, it sounds interesring. I've tried Opus, REX, AS, currently us AS as I find it's upper wind data (in the US) to be more accurate to what NOAA is reporting.

 

 

 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk 2

 

 

[mganz121 159]

I have AS2012, but am being pulled more and more towards FS Global Real Weather. Have seen some interesting scenarios with building storm clouds to one side of the aircraft and clear sky to the other. Its quite impressive and have never experienced to such a degree with AS. Have not encountered problems with winds aloft "spikes". 

 

The beauty with this weather programme is that you can trial it and I am sure that most people are adult enough to draw their own conclusions.

 

Let me also just add and this is relevant to me only. I have read a lot of threads about real winds aloft and from what I have gathered - GRW and AS2012 are pretty similar. But regardless of that, most of my flights are 1 to 2 hours duration and when it comes down to realism, planning and fuel remaining at the end of a flight in a simulator, the difference is minor.

 

Try it is the best advice I can give.

[krazyk 155]

Don't own all 3 of them. Have been using AS2012 for a while and I'm quite happy with it. Anyway, found this short video on YouTube depicting the sky with different engines. 

 

[Alec 180]

I'll give the demo a try.

 

Very cool stuff of this per airport weather effects! It's going to be hard to implement those around the world thought, as only a pilot with lots of experience on an airport will know what happens and where. But a cool feature!

[klamal 272]

Don't own all 3 of them. Have been using AS2012 for a while and I'm quite happy with it. Anyway, found this short video on YouTube depicting the sky with different engines.

 

So this is a good video and all...some excellent scenery and weather depiction. But, how is anyone supposed to really know which one is doing the best job of displaying the real weather without the data(metar, tafs, etc) that is being used to create the weather?

[JBZ 13]

Ok, so I took the plunge and was excited to try this program out.  My opinion, it still has a ways to go and I shall explain why I feel this way.

 

First, my GOOD points about the product. The GUI is easy to use, and I like the flight planning system.  It provides a nice table that can be printed out.  It also provides wind and temperature data for your entire flight.  The upper level winds and temperatures are very accurate and I have no issues with temperature or wind shifts in cruise, it's very smooth.

 

Now onto my points that I think need work.  The GUI does not provide a way to Refresh the weather, so most likely, your weather will be older data and if newer data is available, the program wont download it for 5 minutes.  This is enough time for you to fly an approach and have your weather change to the correct weather once you land.  Also, even though you are loading a flight plan, it doesn't set your destination weather until you're destination is closest to you.  This causes changes in the weather when you're on final.  I think these are two things that need to be worked on to compete with the other programs.

 

And now, my NOT GOOD point, and I only have one, but it's a big one.  I was excited while reading the posts above that "seemed" to describe an ability to depict the weather at a more accurate level.  And while I'm not expecting it to look exactly the same as it does in the real world, I was expecting a better representation.  Here's what I mean, this morning I took a flight out of KMCI which had a large storm overhead, here is a shot of the real-world weather radar, tmci is the airport's terminal radar and the airport's location:

 

 

Pretty nasty right?  Now, while departing KMCI, I was in the middle of a thunderstorm, but not for long.  Here's a screenshot of what FS Global Real Weather depicted:

 

 

This doesn't look very good, kinda looks like there's just a small group of cumulous clouds creating one small isolated thunderstorm....not really what the radar looks like.  To do a comparison, I closed FSGRW and loaded up AS2012 and this was how AS2012 depicted the storm:

 

 

Now that's a storm, clouds all around and I haven't even hit the tops yet.

 

Overall, I'm pleased at some of the features, but when it comes to depiction, I'm a bit disappointed.  Try it out and judge for yourself, this is just my findings.

[krazyk 155]

 

 

But, how is anyone supposed to really know which one is doing the best job of displaying the real weather without the data(metar, tafs, etc) that is being used to create the weather?

 

I doubt the video is asking to be accepted in that regard. It simply visualizes a certain weather condition and projects the outcome of the 3 engines working in their own way. Thought it's interesting.

[klamal 272]

I doubt the video is asking to be accepted in that regard. It simply visualizes a certain weather condition and projects the outcome of the 3 engines working in their own way. Thought it's interesting.

I'm not saying it's not interesting. It's just that any weather program can make any one of those depicted weather situations. I think I could even make it do all that myself with the default weather in FSX. So, I'm just saying I think it would be even more interesting to see what the weather data was for each scenario and who depicted them the best.

 

Posts like the one by Jeremy(JBZ) are a much better way to get a comparison. There you can tell that AS2012 does a much better job of depicting that scenario in KMCI.