Glenn, I'm confused.  I've been an Opus customer for the better part of a year or so and have enjoyed using it, but as a user my impression is still that up until now, good simulation of turbulence was dependent on having cameras set up - a view that has been re-enforced in my mind by comments from the developers themselves about the role of DHM and Bump aircraft working in concert with wx injection, and until now DHM and Bump have only been available with camera views set.  Would you disagree with this?

 

I'm looking forward to seeing how things work with cameras no longer required, but this is a new thing for Opus.  I don't think anyone is intending to misrepresent what Opus does and doesn't do in this discussion.

 

Thanks,

 

Scott

 

To enable 'bump aircraft' its true that you have to have DHM enabled. However, bump aircraft is NOT a camera effect. Its just that up unitl now, the two effects were tied together. Bump aircarft actually affects the airframe itself. In conjunction with this the acclerometer data also fed into the camera system and added camera shake as part of the turbulence equation.

 

With the new beta version coming up, Opus are simply removing the tie in with DHM on the bump aircraft option. Before you were required to use both in conjunction with each other. Now you will be able to select 'bump aircraft' seperate from the camera system.

 

Its no different, just the features are being seperated.

 

This really only affects people who may have been using Ezdok as the camera system as then by default, DHM and the 'bump aircraft' option would be switched off.

 

I think the developers have been very clear. For the best possible simulation of turbulence you should use both the DHM camera 'effect' AND the 'Bump Aircraft' option. However, the 'bump aircraft' option is not a camera effect but it DOES feed into the camera effect. They will now be offering the user the ability to seperate these two functions with this new beta version. Everybody wins!

I asked about the behaviour of saved weather files because when you save the weather with OpusFSX you can load it anywhere else and it will always be the exact same weather: seems FSGRW does this differently.

 

I also read about FSGRW resulting in bumpy flights: afaik FSGRW does not have motion effects but when there is a wind shear somewhere your plane will suddenly move, I suppose. I wonder what exactly the difference is between motion effects due to weather and motion effects like OpusFSX or Accufeel give you... I know OpusFSX effects shakes your VC all the time but it's never really clear when a certain effect is weather related or no. (Anyone knows what I mean here...?)

Hi Jeroen!

I am not sure weather or not You by now have consulted the FSGRW forums and i sadly can't help You out with Your question here.

But may i suggest to keep it pragmatic and simply download the demo version, fiddle around with it a bit and if You like it take it and if not leave it?!

I know this may sound a bit straight forward, but i hope it is not misunderstood or seen as any kind of negative response or so.

But i did it that way and i am no expert at all and i liked very much what i experienced even with FSGRW in "demo mode" solely.

The demo version of FSGRW is easily installed and - if wanted - removed/uninstalled again.

I also have OPUS and depending on what flight or route i intend to take or whatever mood i am in, i either use OPUS or FSGRW now together with my favourite REX textures whenever flying in FSX nowadays and i really consider myself to be a very happy camper to have these choices.

Cheers, Christoph

:smile:

+1 - now using FSGRW with Accufeel v2.09 + EZdok.

Was using Opus for weather and cameras and was happy for a time but this is definitely a level higher.

+1 - now using FSGRW with Accufeel v2.09 + EZdok.

Was using Opus for weather and cameras and was happy for a time but this is definitely a level higher.

That's great and I take it from what you write you're happy with the combination of Accu-Feel and FSGRW?

 

I'm very tempted trying out Accu-Feel myself because it seems to be a very cool product adding lots to the immersion factor.

 

 

But may i suggest to keep it pragmatic and simply download the demo version, fiddle around with it a bit and if You like it take it and if not leave it?!
I know this may sound a bit straight forward, but i hope it is not misunderstood or seen as any kind of negative response or so.

 

No offence taken!  ^_^ My only problem is that I can only (easily) test a weather engine when I can compare what I see on my PC with what I see outside of my window! But... the weather is too good here all the time! I am waiting for a change in weather before I can simply test this program. Yes, I can load weather in another location and check the internet if the weather is about right, but nothing beats comparing the simulated weather with the real weather outside my window...  ^_^

^{Anybody using Flight Environment Extreme from flight 1 for the cloud textures?}

^{Anybody using Flight Environment Extreme from flight 1 for the cloud textures?}

 

Not anymore, but I wonder what that has to do with this topic...?

 

 

Anybody using Flight Environment Extreme from flight 1 for the cloud textures?

Im using it with FSGRW. Find it just as good as REX clouds B)

Not anymore, but I wonder what that has to do with this topic...?

 

You are discussing weather engine, are textures for the weather engine also not relevant?

You are discussing weather engine, are textures for the weather engine also not relevant?

 

Only if you're trying to hijack the thread, but having said that it's certainly a good topic starter.

Tried fsgrw, seems great, but so is also Opus, so I am sticking with it. Love the fact that opus offers realistic cameras with dhm and integrated with live weather. Turbulence effects also good, perhaps slightly less pronounced than fsgrw, but not worth paying another 60 usd.

 

Finally I like opus weather reports.

No offence taken!  ^_^ My only problem is that I can only (easily) test a weather engine when I can compare what I see on my PC with what I see outside of my window! But... the weather is too good here all the time! I am waiting for a change in weather before I can simply test this program. Yes, I can load weather in another location and check the internet if the weather is about right, but nothing beats comparing the simulated weather with the real weather outside my window...  ^_^

I see!

And i can fully understand that!

... by the way - and no kidding: I did it the same way!

Which means that the bad weather during these specific days of testing FSGRW were bad for anybody else, but not me! Well: Another one of those crazy flightsimmers i assume :lol:

Anyways: Whenever You will test it: Have fun with it then!

Cheers, Christoph

 

 

Tried fsgrw, seems great, but so is also Opus, so I am sticking with it. Love the fact that opus offers realistic cameras with dhm and integrated with live weather. Turbulence effects also good, perhaps slightly less pronounced than fsgrw, but not worth paying another 60 usd.

 

Finally I like opus weather reports.

 

Indeed: 

Opus is great as well no doubt about that at all!

And the OPUS weather reports in flight may ironically be not the most advanced feature out of all the many great features OPUS has to offer, but i also consider it to be one of the most useful and best features currently available whenever flying with real weather in the sim nowadays!

Really like these "in-sim" waether reports very, very too!

Cheers, Christoph

I am constantly switching between Opus (latest bump beta) and FSGRW and both are great, but FS has taken the lead imo. The latest OPUS beta with bump enabled needs work still. 

 

For those enjoying FSGRW, has anyone noticed sudden and drastic visibility changes when climbing or descending. This is not really an issue with Opus as it seems to handle visibility layers differently. I have tried selecting and deselecting visibility options in FSGRW but does not help. I will try to post this concern in the official forum and see what they have to say. 

I decided to stick with OpusFSX for now. The thing is that I like different weather everytime and good looking weather. OpusFSX gives me that. FSGRW may be even more realistic but that's not the main reason why I have a weather engine. If I am not mistaken FSGRX also does not have an ingame weather report (correct me if I am wrong) which I use all the time with OpusFSX.

 

I wanted to install the FSGRW demo but cancelled it when I found out it needs .Net 4 which I don't have yet and which I rather not install (I like a clean system). So I started FSX again with OpusFSX and I was greeted with an encredible good looking sky... and I thought 'Why the heck should I spend 39 euro's when I've got this already?' You have to draw a limit somewhere and this is one. ^_^

Its a fair call, dont forget weather can be the most boring part of your flight 90% of your time.

 

The selling point for me was that fsgrw does not use mostly puffy CU clouds to give you an impression of a sky with weather, but it actually is nit afraid to show you the more boring stratus or strato cu where it is appropriate.

 

Also, for what I read; it is the only weather engine that gives you proper horizontal layers of cloud and wind, the differences can be very marked, but yiu don't get abrupt wind shifts that will kill your flight experience.

 

I bought it, and after a flight in fairly benign conditions you tend to think there really wasnt much to talk about, bsut thats how it is in the real world. But flying in weather fronts, storms and jet streams are a whole different game, you get the turbulence, proper cloud depictions at a horizontal and vertical level, and no wibd shifts. No need to adjust anything, no need to put a global wind layer to get rid of windshifts, it is a simple little program that does the job, and in my eyes and my preference only, it was money well spent.

Can only wonder what this sort of competition will do to lift the bar in the weather engine market in months to come.

 

Sent from my GT-I9305 using Tapatalk 2