OK this is confirmed as not working on my network install test now too, so its not just you. My locally running ASN install works perfectly in this case. Reported.

 

Andy, it works here. Did you add the line into FSUIPC.INI that Pete advised in the instructions...

 

FSUIPC4 now cooperates with "Active Sky Next" (ASN). Two specific changes apply: first the hooks

normally applied into the FSX/P3D weather system for FSUIPC's smoothing actions are not

performed when ASN is active, as it uses those hooks itself. Second, by adding a parameter to the

[General] section of the FSUIPC4.INI file, thus:

ASNplanWX=<full path to ASN's active plan weather file>

 

LATER: Sorry, I'm not sure that relates to automatically loading the FSX plan into ASN but I can confirm it's working for me on a WideFS setup.

I just tried what happened with Opus with overcast effects.

When overcast is reported and you are approaching the overcast layer from above, you will have full visibility to the ground. Only when you get close to the layer where the overcast is supposed to be, visibility gradually starts to reduce. When under the layer, you can't see clear skies. But from above it is extremely unrealistic. If overcast conditions apply, you shouldn't be able to see through the clouds, not from below nor from above. 

 

 

In real life, does an Airbus do its flight at FL170 to avoid that heavy headwind? It was only about 65 knots there

 

Highly doubtful... what you would gain in less headwind you would lose in true airspeed at that altitude.  Additionally, 65 kts at FL170 is probably a lot bumpier than than 183 kts at FL320.  Dispatch would probably look to see if the wind was better at higher altitudes or route the flight into an area with more favorable winds... those kind of flight level winds are getting into Jet Max territory.

 Dispatch would probably look to see if the wind was better at higher altitudes or route the flight into an area with more favorable winds... those kind of flight level winds are getting into Jet Max territory.

That is what I did, I looked up and used FL400 even though it took 10 minutes to get there. Was inly 135 up there

That's all well and good but we are talking about a simulator here, not real life. In the simulator, AI uses a specific runway which in FSX is determined solely by wind. Of course in real life other factors like equipment failure comes into play, but that doesn't happen in FSX. If you want to fit into the AI traffic pattern (and not everyone uses AI, I get that) you need to be using what FSX has computed to be the runway in use. Of course you can request different runways and such anyway, this is just an idea to help expand briefing functionality.

 

I don't see why you're arguing against it, it's not like it would be subtracting something from the software.

 

Ah well.. I'm not going to bother discussing this further.  I try to explain the way things are done in the real world, in a thread praising a weather generating program of how realistic it is able to produce real world environments and conditions, and then you say you want something done in an entirely different and unrealistic way because "it's a simulation and not real life" than I won't even bother pointing out the irony and I will simply give up.

My experiences;

 

Uncompromised weather updates.

Not a single wind shift

Pure overcast conditions

wonderful in-and-out of cloud transitions

A fast and responsive interface

current conditions page loads the conditions of any ICAO the millisecond you type it

turbulence simulation that surpassed any other weather app as of late.

SIGMETS NOW ACTUALLY MATTER!!

No S-turns

 

Here I am approaching a storm in the middle of the Caribbean

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ah well.. I'm not going to bother discussing this further.  I try to explain the way things are done in the real world, in a thread praising a weather generating program of how realistic it is able to produce real world environments and conditions, and then you say you want something done in an entirely different and unrealistic way because "it's a simulation and not real life" than I won't even bother pointing out the irony and I will simply give up.

 

I think there is a misunderstanding here (and possibly mine!).  If you are descending, and using the FSX/P3D Atc, you will call them up and request landing.  They will assign you a runway, and then you have a choice to request a different one as long as it is in active use for arrival.

 

I think what Molleh is trying to say is that it is nice to have that information available from within Active Sky.  Unless you are flying with some entity that can assign you a STAR based on the traffic flow and runways in use, it is very nice to have this information in hand long before you come in range of the FSX ATIS or can call them up on the horn to request a landing.  You want to know how to construct your flight plan earlier than that.

I think there is a misunderstanding here (and possibly mine!).  If you are descending, and using the FSX/P3D Atc, you will call them up and request landing.  They will assign you a runway, and then you have a choice to request a different one as long as it is in active use for arrival.

 

I think what Molleh is trying to say is that it is nice to have that information available from within Active Sky.  Unless you are flying with some entity that can assign you a STAR based on the traffic flow and runways in use, it is very nice to have this information in hand long before you come in range of the FSX ATIS or can call them up on the horn to request a landing.  You want to know how to construct your flight plan earlier than that.

 

I believe he wanted the expected runway at forecast arrival to be included as part of the weather briefing prior to departure which, as I pointed out, is never given in the real world because it is based off a multitude of factors.  Either way, the weather briefing will give you the forecast environmental conditions at your expected time of arrival.  Based off that, you can easily plan and rather accurately predict what the runway in use is (for arrival planning purposes).  However, don't be shocked if it changes - weather forecasts get exponentially inaccurate the longer the forecast time is away from the latest observed.

 

Real world weather briefings don't include the landing runway either, but they do give you the forecast conditions at your ETA so that you may do your own planning (including arrival) specific to your operational limitations, as every operator has their own specific limitations and operating procedures and it would be irrelevant to tell someone that the airport is using a specific runway; as a different operator may have to use a completely different runway for different reasons or restrictions.  That isn't in any different in FSX than the AI using a different runway from which you land on. 

I just tried what happened with Opus with overcast effects.

 

When overcast is reported and you are approaching the overcast layer from above, you will have full visibility to the ground. Only when you get close to the layer where the overcast is supposed to be, visibility gradually starts to reduce. When under the layer, you can't see clear skies. But from above it is extremely unrealistic. If overcast conditions apply, you shouldn't be able to see through the clouds, not from below nor from above. 

Arjen

 

This is exactly the same experience as me in testing tonight.

 

Theres alot of fog around in Eastern England tonigh and i've just flown a short flight from EGUY to EGXC using default Cessna and default FSX ATC.

 

The Opus experience v the ASN experience was "night and day" different with ASN knocking Opus out of the park!!

 

Opus: I could see the ground from climb, to cruise at 4k ft, and then all the way down to about 800ft  before the fog closed in....ATC gave me visual for R07 and I could actually see Coningsby R07 from 8 miles out despite the METAR giving a 200 meter visibility.

 

Like you it was only when in or below the low vis that the low vis was displayed.

 

ASN: climbed through fog and broke out on top about 3300 ft....saw only fleeting glimpses of any land whilst at cruise again at 4k feet. ATC again gave me visual R07.....but no chance of finding it visually and at 8 miles out and descending to 2k feet it was total fog. I followed GPS and still couldnt find it!!

 

Eventually I slewed to 150ft and using the GPS still struggled to find the runway but what an experience it was and I'm hooked on ASN - amazing!!

 

As always with FSX though, the downside is that I get unacceptable frame drops using ASN, that I just don't get with Opus - from a solid 30 down to 12-15 in regular blips - I can only assume is due to the amount of cloud ASN renders.

 

Anyone else seeing this??

 

Steve

Weather stations are not tied to airports.  Weather stations are simply stuck at a certain location, given a coded identifier, turned on and told to report weather.  They don't even adjust for sea level reporting - they simply report cloud bases based on how far above the station they are (AGL).  They aren't complicated machines, and they certainly have no idea what runways might be in use.  What runway is in use can't simply be based off wind direction - you must take into account runway length, width, contamination, navigational approaches, inoperative equipment (both on the airport and in the aircraft), etc.  The point is that for a weather program to guess a runway simply based off wind would be very inaccurate and extremely unrealistic.  You have to take all the information you have available to you and decide for yourself what runway you should use, even regardless of what ATC says or tries to get you to do.  You, as the PIC, are the final say.

Yes but if your a 737 going into Klax you know all the information except what runway favors the wind, same goes for a c152 just about anywhere,

 

EFB supplies a runway based on the wind. Its not that hard.

 

That sort of info is good for vatsim flyers in particular

OK this is confirmed as not working on my network install test now too, so its not just you. My locally running ASN install works perfectly in this case. Reported.

Ok, thanks for the heads-up Andy!

Yes but if your a 737 going into Klax you know all the information except what runway favors the wind, same goes for a c152 just about anywhere,

 

EFB supplies a runway based on the wind. Its not that hard.

 

That sort of info is good for vatsim flyers in particular

 

Well, 1) you know the forecasted environmental conditions expected at your estimated arrival time, and 2) you have charts for the airport you're flying into.  Can't you put the two together?  Heck, you're most likely doing it already by planning the STAR during the flight planning phase.  You can still plan for a specific runway either way.

Not if your a newb . I think its a great idea because its so easily available

I just tried what happened with Opus with overcast effects.

 

When overcast is reported and you are approaching the overcast layer from above, you will have full visibility to the ground. Only when you get close to the layer where the overcast is supposed to be, visibility gradually starts to reduce. When under the layer, you can't see clear skies. But from above it is extremely unrealistic. If overcast conditions apply, you shouldn't be able to see through the clouds, not from below nor from above. 

 

Hmmm, that's strange. Today I took off from KHQM, fog and overcast conditions. I used OPUS for the weather and I saw nothing like you experience. I did see a nice and solid overcast, also from above...

The "expected" runway in use is something that can be looked into. For me, when I plan a flight, I get the relevant Comm frequencies into the stack. I look at the current destination weather. AS I am flying, I periodically tune the destination ATIS - when I pick it up I get the active runway. I'm at least 30 miles out or more so I don't see what advantage knowing the expected runway is at takeoff.

 

It might just be a nice touch though.

 

Vic