That was long but also very informative. :smile:

 

Bernd, you may have to ask the Avsim mods for a commercial tag on your user name. Don't worry, this isn't a bad thing but just reflects that you are a developer, roughly spoken.

That was long but also very informative. :smile:

 

Bernd, you may have to ask the Avsim mods for a commercial tag on your user name. Don't worry, this isn't a bad thing but just reflects that you are a developer, roughly spoken.

 

Thanks, I'll do that .

 

Bernd

How is FSGRW handling cirrus? I turned cirrus off in OpusFSX because it suddenly appeared or disappeared depending on my position. (Whenever I fly out of ENBR the cirrus always pops up when I cross a certain mountain: odd and annoying. Does FSGRW also have popping up cirrus...?

 

BTW Nice info Bernd about how the weather is being updated:  clever solution.

 

Actually NO cloud layer should suddenly appear or disappear with FSGRW, you will see the weather as you approach it (also Cirrus). We have real-world data sources that we use to determine where Cirrus layers are in reality (no 100 % "guess" of course, but we analyze atmospheric parameters and choose to place cirrus clouds where the atmospheric conditions indicate them to be).

 

Bernd

Thank you Bernd for a great post!

 

Others already mentioned, that FSGRW feels more "real". Here is my take on that.

 

I got to fly an ultralite on a warm summer day with alot of wind movement. Even with the controls centered, the nose of the aircraft swinged from left to right (not just up and down). It was hard to keep her on the center line. After that experience, sim flying felt more like driving on rails.

 

When I tried FSGRW for the first time, it had some of the same feeling that I felt in the ultralite (of course much more subtle when flying jets).

 

The wind is constantly chageing and moving. This is what makes it feel more real (at least for me).

Thanks, I'll do that .

 

Bernd

 

 

Actually NO cloud layer should suddenly appear or disappear with FSGRW, you will see the weather as you approach it (also Cirrus). We have real-world data sources that we use to determine where Cirrus layers are in reality (no 100 % "guess" of course, but we analyze atmospheric parameters and choose to place cirrus clouds where the atmospheric conditions indicate them to be).

 

Bernd

Funny, I often have the problem of haze layers appearing and disappearing. Almost every flight I move from a lot of fog/haze to none with FSGRW. If I'm flying at 8,000 feet, I may not be able to see the ground and then--boom--the sky is clear with only some light cirrus. It's a sudden snap on then 5-10 minutes later a snap off. It's quite annoying. I otherwise love the product. How can I get the smooth weather you describe? I'm using all default settings with dynamic weather.

Alright, so I just did a full test flight in the demo version of FSGRW in the NGX from EHRD to LSGG. This means that I did not use dynamic weather updates, but I used the weather file I downloaded earlier today.

 

What I did like:

- Easy and straightforward flightplan setup. I could very easily find the numbers I need to plug into the NGX its FMC (average winds and TOC temp)

- Great diversity in cloud formations and mix in stratus vs cumulus

- I have seen zero cloud shifts/popping and the like

- Nice turbulence and wind effects that actually have an impact on the aircraft (especially on approach, where light turbulence was reported in the flight plan, it was a whole different experience landing the plane as compared to Opus).

 

What I did not like as much:

- Slight S-turn effect and up and down nose pitching during initial descent (what WebMaximus mentioned earlier). 

- Engines continuously powering up and down due to wind variations (I guess that is the price one has to pay for nice wind effects..). Not sure how these are handled by a real world NGX though.

- As I was using historical weather, I had to minimize FSX and look up the METAR for LSGG in FSGRW. Although I was lucky today and I could go back into FSX, I sometimes encounter SweetFX related CTDs. Here's what I like about Opus, which allows me to look up weather reports within FSX.

 

One other point that I noticed again is the weather depiction at EHRD. This is not necessarily a point for 'what I do not like' as I have the feeling that this is more an 'error' due to the nature of the data source rather than FSGRW.

This is what I noted in an earlier post, the METAR reports a few clouds in combination with light rain and visilibty 9999. in FSX, I see rain with blue skies (BUT after climbing above a few thousand feet, I noticed that there WAS some kind of haze/fog layer present as the skies got more clear at that point, but the effect on the ground was just not strong enough in my opinion, since I could clearly distinguish the clouds from the  blueish sky). I would imagine that the weather engine interprets the METAR as such, but in real life, the skies have been completely grey all day (as if there was a complete overcast) so I guess this is has something to do with vertical visibility or something. Hope that you guys understand what I try to explain here . Any ideas on this?

 

So.. Yes, I was really impressed. Great work on FSGRW! Guess I am going to have one more night of sleeping over this, but I think that tomorrow I might purchasing yet another weather engine after ASE, REX, and Opus.... And that while after I bought Opus I told myself not to spend any more money on this .

 

With stratus clouds being used more often, I might also need to start looking for some nice stratus texture.. If anyone has a suggestion, please let me know

I'm very happy with the AS 2012 textures both for clouds and sky. Let me know if it's of interest to you and I can check the exact names of the textures I have currently selected, can't remember the names in my head.

Opus will have to update the weather at your location will will result in sudden cloud changes (depending on how different the weather between JFK and LGA is - from my research there can be big differences between these two stations sometimes). You can check that by positioning your aircraft at JFK, injecting weather with Opus and then check the weather in the weather menu of FSX - you'll see that LGA has the same weather, even though METAR says something different! Regarding your "smooth" and "accurate" weather change question: weather themes won't help you either, because FSX can't smoothly change from one weather theme into another: you inject it, and it's there.

 

Hope that helps, if you have additional questions, feel free to ask.

 

Bernd

 

That's why I'm using now FSGRW instead of OPUS which is almost not used any more for that same reason as you mentioned.

Also like the turbulence and wind effects as they compare more to my real world flying memory.

Had some issue with FPS and memory footprint, but that was due to your advice in the manual to set cloud draw distance to 12.

Since changing that one to a more reasonable setting and wx.bin file to original performance is the same as with OPUS... 

Far less the effect of cloud changing as seen in OPUS :-)

 

 

to your advice in the manual to set cloud draw distance to 12

 

Are you sure 12 -- so 150 mi ... I can see a big FPS hit there and VAS.  FSGRW recommends 150mi?  Interesting, REX recommend 100mi (7).

 

Bernd, thanks for the detail response ... can you confirm that a cloud draw distance value of 12 is needed to get the best results out of FSGRW?

I'm using 100nm with FSGRW with no problems and it is using around 100-150mb ram.

 

 

So armed with this information, it is impossible to do a real world weather front? The best you can do is utilize a limited number of weather stations in such a way as to "fake" a weather front (providing those weather stations are situated in such a manner as to facilitate) and it can't be dynamic.

 

Taken at face value, everyone "fakes" it at some level based on what's always going to be less than complete information, but different packages offer some unique ways to get as close as they can to what's real.  See the description I posted of my flight from the other night with Opus (though I've certainly experienced similar with REX in the most recent versions).  Perfect?  No.  A reasonably accurate depiction of real-world wx as indicated by satellite and live radar when flying across changing conditions?  Very much so, despite the obvious limitations.  Smooth?  Again, not perfect but very good.  BTW, I followed that flight the next evening with a continuation from KGCN to KCOS - Colorado Springs, CO.  The results were similar, with the biggest issues being minor discrepancies based largely on obvious reporting holes.  But the big picture remained very good to excellent.

 

If smoothness is your guiding light, there are ways to accomplish this with almost every package out there.  If being a bit more accurate is your preference, you'll likely have to trade off some smoothness at some point.  As with most things in life, there are tradeoffs to be considered on the human side of perfection.

 

 

 

Hope that helps, if you have additional questions, feel free to ask.

 

Bernd, thanks so much for the detailed explanation of how your product is working around the limitations of wx information, updates and what FSX can do.  I hate the thought of buying yet another wx package, but I'm even more convinced that I have to try your approach.  As mentioned, I've already learned it's all or nothing.  A true evaluation of a wx product takes time and a multitude of conditions so an evaluation copy just won't do, but you and your users have about convinced me that your package is worth the money to try.

 

Scott

I have just tried the demo, @ LPMA with default Cessna. I was really impressed how realistic the approach was. Stick and rudder instead of descending on rails. Very impressed so far. Found some of the settings confusing, but that aside, I will do some more flights and then make a final derision.

Some have mentioned S turns with the NGX, that concerns me a bit. so will need to see how the NGX performs.

Also of note, most of the defined approaches seem to be Europe only, and as I do a lot of flying in Oceania, this feature won't be available there, so I could be wasting my money/time.

 

 

Perfect? No.

 

Agree with most of what you said Scott, but to be clear I'm not looking for perfection, and faking it is fine also, but what I don't want is the on/off processing (i.e. clouds, no clouds, haze, no haze) over 100mi radius (or whatever cloud draw distance is set at).

 

 

 

Actually NO cloud layer should suddenly appear or disappear with FSGRW

 

But others have suggest this does (here and in other forums) so I'm a little bit confused.  But your involvement in this thread and detail input has certainly peaked my interest in your product.  I'll research FSGRW some more and search for some video ... if you or anyone has some links to FSGRW videos showing the product in action and what settings were used that would be most appreciated.

 

Thanks, Rob.

I'm very happy with the AS 2012 textures both for clouds and sky. Let me know if it's of interest to you and I can check the exact names of the textures I have currently selected, can't remember the names in my head.

 

I just installed AS2012 again and I actually forgot how nice their textures look. If you would like to share which textures you are using, I will install them as well and have a look at them!

I just installed AS2012 again and I actually forgot how nice their textures look. If you would like to share which textures you are using, I will install them as well and have a look at them!

 

Yeah, I think I've tried all textures there are both freeware and payware ones and I've settled with the AS2012 textures. Might also mention that I use a resolution of 1024 for both clouds and textures and 32-bit textures.

 

These are the textures I'm currently using which I find give me great results together with FSGRW.

 

Clouds

 

Stratus - 03 Defined

Cumulus - 05 Sight

Cirrus - 03 Intrigue

Wispy - 04 Wisp

 

Sky

 

Dawn - 03 Edge

Day - 51 Conventional

Dusk - 32 Aerial (I find this one absolutely amazing !!)

Night - Clear

 

Water

 

Inland Blue - Dark Water

Inland Brown - Puddle

Waves - 28 Aqua

Ocean - Deep Blue

Tropical - Default

That's why I'm using now FSGRW instead of OPUS which is almost not used any more for that same reason as you mentioned.

Also like the turbulence and wind effects as they compare more to my real world flying memory.

Had some issue with FPS and memory footprint, but that was due to your advice in the manual to set cloud draw distance to 12.

Since changing that one to a more reasonable setting and wx.bin file to original performance is the same as with OPUS... 

Far less the effect of cloud changing as seen in OPUS :-)

+1

 

but no FPS issues here.

I like the less change of clouds and less windshifts versus Opus.

Also FSGWR displays real world situations way better because they use stratus clouds where they should be and do not only use cumulus for most situations like Opus does.

 

For screenshot flyers the use of cumulus may be ok because this is looking more dramatic and spectacular, but this isn't the weather I can see when looking out of my window. :wink: