Searching for weather engine

[CoolP 283]

I'd personally put FSGRW in another box as I think it's a very different impression and method in regard to REX. But I still use REX, perhaps just for the fun of being able to switch and experience different weather engines, and I think it works quite good. Much more options though, much more opportunities to also mix things up with the user's input. :mellow: Praise the manual! ^_^

 

Thinking about when I've purchased REX and how many major and free improvements came to life since then, I think I also have developed a personal 'like'. By this, I might be biased. :blush: But, some time ago, we've compared AS2012 and REX and, to me, it looked like those two are closer together than forum signatures might suggest.

 

Call me a mad man but I would compare REX and AS2012 separately from the Opus and FSGRW comparison. Having the pun in mind, the second group sort of enabled a fresh and exciting breeze in FSX. Does that make sense to you?

[tttocs 301]

 

 

Call me a mad man but I would compare REX and AS2012 separately from the Opus and FSGRW comparison. Having the pun in mind, the second group sort of enabled a fresh and exciting breeze in FSX. Does that make sense to you?

 

Actually... no.  :lol:

 

I don't use AS, but I do have and regularly use REX and Opus.  I bought Opus during a period when REX was having some fairly significant issues with their wx engine, but in current incarnations, I find them more alike than different once you go past the differences in setup and UI.  The setup process may be different, but the results seem remarkably similar to me in most conditions.  Some things Opus usually does a bit better, others I think REX does.

 

I'm genuinely curious as to why you group Opus in a separate category.  Don't know about FSGRW, as I haven't tried it yet.

 

Scott

[rsperge 182]

Well I have been using rex essential plus, for quite a few years, and to me it has been fine.  Of course some headaches, but forum is very supportive and will always come through and fix the problem  Plus, you get many free updates as well!!!!!

[PigsInSpace 21]

Some say the latest version is okay but whenever there is a topic about weather add ons, people only talk about OpsuFSX, AS2012 and (recently) FSGRW. I think that says enough about the REX weather engine. I only use REX for textures and OpusFSX for weather.

 

From what I have seen I think I'm going to give Opus a try but the installation routine looks brutal, could you to comment on that?

[tttocs 301]

 

 

From what I have seen I think I'm going to give Opus a try but the installation routine looks brutal, could you to comment on that?

 

Well, I'm not Jeroen, but from my perspective - leaving cameras out of the equation and just addressing the wx engine, setup is pretty straightforward.  Defaults work well and for the most part will only require change to address specific issues or tastes.

 

If you want to set up camera views, as expected that's a bit more involved.

 

Scott

[CoolP 283]

Actually... no. :lol:

[...]

I'm genuinely curious as to why you group Opus in a separate category.

I feared that. :-P Well the technical basis seems to differ as far as the injection process is concerned, but the actual difference, for me, would be the more consistent picture the new programs try to deliver. Seeing the weather fronts way ahead of you. I also think that, while the low vis situations in REX are good, the ones with Opus and FSGRW are more immersive.

 

Have to admit that I've only experienced Opus on another system while I'm running FSGRW myself. I think the REX weather scope is a nice thing by the way, missing in FSGRW.

 

/ sent from a mobile thingy /

 

 

[tttocs 301]

 

 

Well the technical basis seems to differ as far as the injection process is concerned, but the actual difference, for me, would be the more consistent picture the new programs try to deliver. Seeing the weather fronts way ahead of you. I also think that, while the low vis situations in REX are good, the ones with Opus and FSGRW are more immersive.

 

There was a time when injection with REX was far more disruptive, load times were longer and all of that and I think Opus had some pretty clear advantages in the engine.  But all of that was some time ago, and all of the wx products have evolved over the last year or so.  As far as I can tell, REX running in WxPlus mode works much like Opus, I seem to fly towards wx and all of those things.  Most of the differences I see today are in small details not big presentation differences with some situations modestly favoring one, others the other.  REX remains my main wx engine in large part because they're so close and REX' long term historic wx options favor my winter flying habits more (I hate winter depiction in FSX, so usually shift to other seasons, but still want real wx, not made-up scenarios).

 

Still tempted to try FSGRW, though.  What can I say - I'm a wx junkie and much of what I've read intrigues me.  The problem is that I know from previous evaluations that I'll have to do it by buying the product.  Short evaluation situations can lead to false impressions both positive and negative.

 

Anyway, thanks much for clarifying.  Good to see you back on the forums a bit, as I've always valued your input.

 

Scott

[Guest]

 

 

compounded by sim pilots pretty much demanding that airfields match current METARs (never mind that the field I'm landing at may be an hour out of date while the next field over might be fresh), but still desiring blending in between. Both of the elements you mention as solutions are particularly problematic because they fly (pun intended) against what most pilots insist on most - that wx at the field I'm at (both landing AND departing) d*mned well better match the current METAR

 

It seems to boil down to two camps of users:

 

1.  Must be 100% accurate all the time

2.  Leave out some accuracy to ensure "fluid" weather experience (aka, no No/Off clouds, haze, etc.)

 

These two camps are why I suggested allowing the user/consumer to modify weather engine parameters to a suit their specific preferences.  But I do question the coding "depth" of the various dynamic weather engine because if they were indeed complex weather engines, it seems they would have also provided much more end user customization options.

 

I think I'm going to stick with REX for weather engine and hope future updates expand on the current workings of their weather engine.  The REX Weather engine does seem to have improved a lot with most recent build 3.7.2013.0715 ... it's good to see work progress.

 

Rob

[LHookins 3,113]

Seeing the weather fronts way ahead of you.

Could someone please tell me which weather engine didn't do this? I've been seeing it in Active Sky for a very long time.

 

Hook

[Jarkko 59]

Hello Larry,

 

With DWC enabled in AS2012, I haven't seen the same level of accuracy as with FSGRW or Opus.

 

I conducted an apples to apples test with AS2012 against Opus. Couple months ago, Dallas area had many stations reporting overcast, but a few stations reporting CAVOK. The CAVOK stations formed a sort of corridor, you could fly along.

 

With Opus it was spot on, clear in the middle, overcast to the sides. Not so with AS2012. First scattered clouds everywhere and then, BUFF, solid overcast everywhere.

 

I haven't done the same flight with FSGRW, but I've had similar experiences comparable to Opus. (I had to give up using Opus because of the wind shifts).

[LHookins 3,113]

Thanks, Jarkko.

 

I've stopped using DWC in AS2012, but when I was I was still seeing differing weather patterns in the distance. It took about two dozen flights between PAYA and PASI using different weather settings to find one that gave the best depiction. DWC still worked but not as well as Smooth Cloud Transitions which is what I finally settled on. At the time there were storms to the north of my route, and all depiction modes displayed them in the distance.

 

Ok, lets get into the "accuracy" of weather in the flight sim. Even if every METAR was perfectly up to date and totally accurate (they aren't, you know), then the best you can hope for is like watching a tropical fish aquarium through a piece of cardboard with a few random small holes in it. You may see yellow through one hole, orange through another, but there are fish in places where there aren't any holes so you can't see them and all these fish are constantly moving. The holes represent METAR stations, and each can only give you a snapshot of what was there AT THE TIME. The METAR might be reporting what was there up to an hour ago, while others report more current conditions. How accurate can your weather possibly be in changing conditions if half the stations are reporting what was there a half hour or more previously?

 

As for your Dallas area weather situation, I live in the Dallas area so I keep pretty close tabs on it. You can get some fairly odd weather reports from METARS at times. Sometimes it doesn't make any sense at all. There's one station south of Fort Worth that always reports 7 nm visibility. And things change constantly, sometimes a lot.

 

I've quit looking for an accuracy that can never exist, and prefer a believable weather. I look outside the aircraft and say, "Is what I'm seeing consistent with a half hour old METAR?" If I'm flying from Addison to Bonham and see storms in the distance (turns they were over Mineola 60 nm away) is this a reasonable depiction of the real world weather? Most of all, is it attractive, with no cloud popping or the entire sky changing at once, and do we have good transitions between weather changes? So far I'm getting what I want from AS2012.

 

There was once a weather program that had me constantly yelling "They can't DO that, it WON'T WORK!!" Since the release they've made a few changes and some of these have been fixed. Contrast this with FSGRW where everything I read makes perfect sense, seems like great ideas, and should provide a superior depiction of the real weather.

 

I'll eventually try FSGRW, not because I'm not happy with AS2012, but because they have a good possibility of doing a better job. I won't be trying REX or Opus, however, although many people will prefer them.

 

Hook

 

Edited to fix screwed up formatting.

[gheeD 62]

I like what I see with FSGRW... Except just now; flew around Helsinki with dynamic most current weather, looks appropriate otherwise but i see lightning in the distance! Checked the 24H thunder radar for finland; nothing in the proximity of Helsinki earlier today, or even forecasted. So something with FSGRW's weather reports was wrong... But i'll keep testing and observing the weather

[Guest]

 

 

I've quit looking for an accuracy that can never exist, and prefer a believable weather.

 

I thought about giving FSGRW a try but OpusFSX gives me good looking skies and different ones everyday, well, depending on the weather, of course, but a least it's a real surprise everyday what the weather will be like, and that's all I care about. I usually fly in Norway and I have no clue what the weather is like at this moment, so... why should I care if it is accurate or not? I just want it too look good and surprise me. OpusFSX does that and I own it so why spend money on something else. The idea that it may come close to reality is nice but that's all.

 

And btw I use OpusFSX because it performed better (faster) than ASE (don't own AS2012) and because the skies looked more interesting and 'steady', meaning you can load all kinds of weather in a large area and actually fly towards it (but from what I've understood reading the posts above this might have been because I used DWC which results in the same kind of weather all over the globe). Anyway, I am 100% sure that I won't see a difference when I use either OpusFSX or FSGRW while flying so... why spend money on it.

 

 

Well, I'm not Jeroen, but from my perspective - leaving cameras out of the equation and just addressing the wx engine, setup is pretty straightforward.  Defaults work well and for the most part will only require change to address specific issues or tastes.

 

If you want to set up camera views, as expected that's a bit more involved.

 

Scott

 

Well, I am ^_^ but you took the words right out of my mouth. I have no idea where 'brutal' comes from in this regard...!

[Jarkko 59]

looks appropriate otherwise but i see lightning in the distance! Checked the 24H thunder radar for finland; nothing in the proximity of Helsinki earlier today, or even forecasted. So something with FSGRW's weather reports was wrong...

Good that you mentioned this! This has to be reported to FSGRW developers. We had to fight tooth and nail to get this "fixed" in Opus.

 

Long story short, FSX will render thunder storm, when there is CB mentioned in the METAR. Especially in the Northern Europe, airports will append CB in the METAR if there is convective weather and/or severe icing (but not lightning). In the US, they report CB when lightning is present.

 

This is the reason why couple of the weather engines have the "suppress thunderstorm when CB reported" option.

 

Without this option, you will get thunderstorms all winter long in Finland

[tttocs 301]

 

 

Ok, lets get into the "accuracy" of weather in the flight sim. Even if every METAR was perfectly up to date and totally accurate (they aren't, you know), then the best you can hope for is like watching a tropical fish aquarium through a piece of cardboard with a few random small holes in it.

 

Sure, of course.  I mentioned this issue when I replied to Rob a while back.  Thing is, most of the better wx products do address this and do a fairly good (and gradually improving) job of interpolating between stations these days, and/or offer options to help balance between strict adherence to METARs vs smoothness.  For all the drawbacks you mention, though, I still prefer a system that relies on actual reports (with full recognition of their limits) and adheres pretty strictly to those reports at departure and arrival airports.  It just feels better to see the wx outside my cockpit match the report I'm getting from the actual station.

 

Scott