Come into 34L right NOW! This was just posted. You are going to have the approach of your virtual life!I just landed in an ATR. What a rush!I had the runway in sight JUST at the strobes! Even A.I. were declaring missed approaches!Fire up FS9 right now and give it a try....You need ACTIVE SKY 2004.5 for the same weather visuals...Cheers!Mitch R.

>You need ACTIVE SKY 2004.5 for the same weather visuals...Default weather does just fine. See pic.http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/96428.jpg

Yes, as EDAM says: FS9 Real World Weather does it just fine, so I don't understand why I need Active Sky for this. By the way: the freeware FSMetar gave me the same visibility at KSEA. Time 15:15 GMT (Zulu time).And I also don't inderstand why it should be runway 34L. Do the others at the same airfield not have fog?Jozef http://pluizig.ath.cx/signature.jpg

Active Sky gave much more weather detail, you could 'see' the vapour as well as cloud and mist texture density. Active Sky 2004.5 gives much more to the depth and realism of the weather, when compared to your screen capture. I highly recommend it!I am most utterly impressed with Active Sky 2004.5. I was a very late adopter to the program--but WHAT A WEATHER PROGRAM! I certainly lost out visual impact enjoyment for delaying the purchase....sheesh.Cheers!Mitch R.

LOL! Of COURSE they do...but it was 34L that I came down upon, and just posted my actions verbatim, LOL!Cheers!Mitch R.

I think I can top that...something like a week ago I came into runway 05 at Almaty (Russia) and I was lucky I was doing a CATIII autoland because I didn't see the runway until 20-30 feet above!, although I didn't capture a screenshot or get the METAR. I was also using AS, and I must say it's an excellent program. :D

I think I am going to buy it!Jozef http://pluizig.ath.cx/signature.jpg

Go on then, impress me:-)"you could 'see' the vapour as well as cloud and mist texture density" ... sounds amazing, do you have a screen shot?I'm just trying to justify another payout for another weather program when the current one works fine.Cheers,Ian

Didn't have a chance to try it out on the simulator, but I did drive to work in the stuff and survived. Got to say AS2004 is pretty darn accurate!

Ian, Screen shots can not capture weather, as a screen shot is static, unmoving.Active Sky 2004.5 puts together layers of different cloud textures, from heavy scud, to the lightest ethereal---vapour. As you fly through it all, THAT is the SPICE! That is the 'ethereal' I type about. The FS9 weather engine is ***PRIMITIVE***, compared to AS2004.5 I am not saying that is will not create clouds for you to fly through, or a sense of fog, whatever. I am emphatically saying that it does NOT produce weather-graphics representation that one can say; "...OMG! It's just like stepping outside, or what I do fly through in the real world..."You need animation, to see the effects. A screen shot will show perhaps a section of thicker/denser cloud rendering along with lighter rendering a hundred feet away---maybe if you get a great screenie. Screen shots capture pixels, not animation. With no animation, you will NOT see what ***magic*** AS2004.5 creates by giving you a sky as accurate as whatever is out there...right at this very X/Y moment.I was a late hold-out, thinking I was happy and could make do with the weather engine of FS9. I was 'satisfied' I guess if you could call it that, for I had nothing else to compare it to except a few other weather programs I have tried that simply do not put out the depth of realism this sucker does.... Hey, I don't wish to reach into your pockets, so-to-speak, and spend your money. I can only report what I find to be rendered on my system, with my vid card, and AS2004.5. I am running now only with 1600x1200x32 bit Rez. In that rez, you can almost reach out and 'feel' the moisture on your face... (big a** smile)!!!!You have to buy, or if there is a demo, do it that way. I don't think that anybody who has AS2004.5 is going to give me grief in my assessment of its capabilities..., but then again, I could be wrong, lol.Your choice to get your feet wet, or keep 'em dry, :) If you are happy with the generic, then by all means, carry on!!!! :)Cheers!Mitch R.

Install it and be prepared to have a big smile etched upon the kisser, with words like 'Geez...OMG!...wow...whew....lookatthatwillya...' emanating from the den/family-room......everybody else in the house upon hearing your expressions might respond with: "..he NEEDS a life...the guy needs a life...".Don't ask how I know, OK? LOL!Great hobby, ain't it?You DO need an active job or great pension pay-out to keep up with it, LOLOLOLOL!Sigh....Cheers!Mitch R.

Hehe. I know that feeling. A few days ago I flew a noon flight from Bergen to Oslo Gardamoen with a 737-600 for SAS. Around Oslo there was heavy fog and I tell you I was glad that the Aircraft was capable of a Class 3 approach. The visibility was down to 100 meters. I saw the runway the moment the Aircraft began to flare. Spooky!Oh and Almaty is Kasachztan and not Russia. ;)

Sounds like the experience I had, very spooky yea...and yea you are right, I forgot. :)

Hi Mitch,Great to see you back in the forums!I know exactly what you mean. Yesterday I flew a trip from Missoula (KMSO) to Coeur d'Alene (KCOE) and spent most of the time admiring the weather around the ATR 72-500, up ahead and down below..LOL!For instance, I was convinced, for a time, that I was looking at huge glaciers on the ground (unfamiliar area) before I realised that what I was seeing was in fact low altitude cloud hugging and blending beautifully with the mountainous terrain. A big thank you must go to Chris Willis as well as the ActiveSky team.It was a superb flight but I was nearly caught out at the end when the weather closed in all of a sudden during my descent. I tend to fly VFR so was more than a little relieved to break through into clear air just a few minutes before landing - phew!The only problem is that having seen and experienced it I am finding it very difficult to make any compromises in terms of performance hit versus eye candy. Eye candy wins everytime :)I have to have it all and despite this, at times, unrealistic approach my humble rig chugs along faithfully and continues to deliver the goods for its hypersalivating user :-lolCheers!MikeP4 2.4GHz (400FSB), 1Gig PC2100 DDR Crucial, ATI Radeon 9800 Pro 128MB (Omega 2.5.90), SB Audigy (5.12.0001.0443), Hyundai ImageQuest Q17 17" TFT LCD 20ms Monitor (1280x1024x32), Gigabyte GA-8IRXP MoBo, Ultra-Quiet PSU 400W, WinXP Home (SP2), DirectX 9.0c, AGP Aperture = 128MB

Thanks for the back-slap, Mike! :)I spent the Summer on my GoldWing mostly, so was pretty much absent, but Fall is here, and Sim'ming Season starts in a big way, lol!Before I finally gave in and purchased a new system, I didn't know exactly how much eye-candy FS9 could offer as I had the thing choked back to less than half on all sliders. I also only ran it at 1024x768.I now enjoy the sim with all sliders and features at 100 max, as well as 1600x1200x32 bit. I have the sim locked to 30 FPS and it stays there pretty much with anything I throw at it, even Simfly's Toronto, with dips to 29.2. I have no complaints. None. Dell XPS Gen III rocks!I find now that it is the ***eye-candy*** that sets up the mind for an 'as real as it gets' virtual flight experience.The Radeon X800XT PCI-Express card doesn't hurt things any, let me tell ya....I always had blur and fuzz with my Celery 1.4 GB/Geforce2 32 meg team. Now...I have clear, crisp, imagery where even the gas-station signs are visible from altitude. I find that amazing. You absolutely don't know how bad a system can hold back what the sim can offer in the way of graphics until you get something that can keep pace with FS9 and really show it off. Before now, I never had anything to do so. I'm still on a up-grade 'high', LOL!I'm totally sold on AS2004.5 as my wicked weather weapon-of-choice. It makes all the others look pale. Should I buy some stock options?!? Geez....maybe I should, LOL!Cheers!Mitch