Wanna see the difference between Opus/ASN depictions? Try this...

[Nyxx 6,993]

No problem.

 

Thank you.

[Johan_Dees 84]

 

BTW, in all my testing, I was unable to get gusting winds depicted. I tried real-world weather, editing METARs manually (the manual weather dialog doesn't even provide an option to specify gusts, just one wind speed). I used the recommended FSUIPC version, but any changes in wind speed were veeeery slow. The only way I was able to get actual gusts was by manually inserting turbulence.

 

 

Try this:

 

MinGustTime=5

MaxGustTime=1000

MinGustRampSpeed=2

MaxGustRampSpeed=100

MinVarTime=2

MaxVarTime=500

MinVarRampSpeed=10

MaxVarRampSpeed=75

 

[jcomm 5,919]

David,

 

didn't mean to blame you for pointing out what you like in ASN... After all, it's exactly what I like, and have been liking since I started beta testing it long before the release :-)

 

I never used Opus, but some friends who use it, say the best about it.

 

They're both great weather injectors, just as FSGRW, and they're all evolving from service release to service release!!!

[Guest tymk]

Try this:

 

MinGustTime=5

MaxGustTime=1000

MinGustRampSpeed=2

MaxGustRampSpeed=100

MinVarTime=2

MaxVarTime=500

MinVarRampSpeed=10

MaxVarRampSpeed=75

 

 

Thanks! I can now see that my last paragraph was a bit ambiguous, I only referred to ASN, gusts are there alright with OPUS. My ASN trial version expired, and I'm sticking with OPUS. But, as I thought the gusts with OPUS are sometimes a tiny bit too abrupt, I'll certainly give these edits a try.

 

Tym

[Noel 4,494]

I hope sometime weather generation will be taken to the next level which as I imagine it will be having winds interact w/ cloud formation and create them on the fly.  By doing this there could be the potential to create wind-influenced swirls and other formations that you don't see much in the weather depiction programs we have nowadays.  I've tried HiFi products a few times, REX, never Opus, and find there really isn't much difference in any of them overall.  I've had fabulous results in FSX using REX E+ weather, and I know it's generally considered the weakest offering currently.

[Johan_Dees 84]

Those settings should give you gust who come in fast, or slow, take long and short bursts.

It depends a lot of the injected weather. e.g gust from 20 to 25 are barely noticable, but 15-30 gives more.

In real life gusts are unpredicable, can be fast, e.g, view shifting, or can take a while before toning down.

I found above settings working well.

[tttocs 301]

 

 

Regarding the METARs, it looks as though there's always a considerable delay with ASN, at least there was during my trial week.

 

Tym,

 

As with all things there are tradeoffs.  Opus pulls data from primary sources, while AS pulls the primary data to their servers, processes it and then makes it available.  The tradeoff is obviously that there is some delay in new wx data becoming valid in AS, while from Opus you can see it when the primary source makes it available.  On the other side of the equation, as I understand things, AS does some server side processing, and they keep their own archives while Opus can only look back 24 hours.  In practice, I don't know how much the delay impacts things.  METARs get stale in both products so any time there are changing conditions, all wx packages lag real-world.

 

BTW, this is why I cautioned about accurate depictions when doing any wx comparison, and why it's best to test with whole flights, not snapshots in time.  Most major depiction differences I've seen between any of the three packages I own (REX, Opus and now ASN) have had to do with METAR changes in between comparisons.

 

 

 

I think it's also a question of how you fly... I don't fly tubes at all, so I've never been affected by wind shifts or similar issues (although users generally report that this has now been solved in OPUS without sacrificing accuracy). For my light GA flying, OPUS simply works better. I wasn't impressed by ASN's turbulence at all, the effect in clouds tended to be exaggerated (I disabled 'Enhanced Turbulence' immediately), and there seemed to be zero turbulence otherwise, even on a hot summer afternoon over the rolling hills of Idaho.

 

The different impressions of turbulence in ASN continue to mystify me.  With basically default settings, I get kicked more by Opus than ASN in duplicate flights.  Oddly, ASN users seem divided into two camps, too much and not enough, and it sure seems like the differences are more than just personal opinion.  BTW, I'm also exclusively GA but still had wind-shift issues, and I'm on the "it's a bit tamer than I'd expect" side for ASN.

 

 

 

 

I know some users don't like turbulence effects being tied to camera DHM (BTW, Scott, you can use LCC shortcuts instead of FSX's shortcuts to control your eyepoint - this way it won't be reset by DHM :wink:)... For me, it works, and the movement is nicely varied.

 

Actually, I didn't realize that LCC shortcuts were possible until I moved to the latest Opus beta to test the cloud smoothing that was added.  When I did that, I took the time to go back through the last several month's release notes to be sure I wasn't missing some config issue that would prove problematic in my testing.   I've been flying the RA V2 piston Duke a lot lately, and that's one of the few GA VCs I have where I almost never feel the need to change eyepoint, so that's the plane I used for my direct comparison flights.

 

As mentioned, I'm still an Opus customer, despite deciding it was well worth it for me to add ASN.  I'm not one to make snap judgements and "bin" a previous product, especially one that's still in active development.  While I probably still won't chase betas and will stay with the releases for updates, I'll be keeping an eye on their developments.

 

Scott

[Guest tymk]

Hi Scott,

 

Thanks for the reply, lots of useful and balanced insights, as usual. I'm sorry if I came across as an ASN basher/Opus fanatic, that was never my intention, although I do admit that a certain poster's rather biased comments may have affected the way I worded the reply.

 

 

 

As with all things there are tradeoffs. Opus pulls data from primary sources, while AS pulls the primary data to their servers, processes it and then makes it available. The tradeoff is obviously that there is some delay in new wx data becoming valid in AS, while from Opus you can see it when the primary source makes it available. On the other side of the equation, as I understand things, AS does some server side processing, and they keep their own archives while Opus can only look back 24 hours. In practice, I don't know how much the delay impacts things. METARs get stale in both products so any time there are changing conditions, all wx packages lag real-world.

BTW, this is why I cautioned about accurate depictions when doing any wx comparison, and why it's best to test with whole flights, not snapshots in time. Most major depiction differences I've seen between any of the three packages I own (REX, Opus and now ASN) have had to do with METAR changes in between comparisons.

 

You're absolutely right, I'm familiar with the way Active Sky collects and distributes weather data, and I applaud them for making the effort (and incurring the expense) to run a dedicated server network with lots of historic data. If I was looking for a weather engine without owning a decent one, I'd have a tough time choosing.

 

I also realized that switching back and forth between two engines to compare depiction at a specific point in time only doesn't really work. I wish I hadn't wasted some of the trial time before starting to just fly and see how things work over the span of an entire flight.

 

 

The different impressions of turbulence in ASN continue to mystify me. With basically default settings, I get kicked more by Opus than ASN in duplicate flights. Oddly, ASN users seem divided into two camps, too much and not enough, and it sure seems like the differences are more than just personal opinion. BTW, I'm also exclusively GA but still had wind-shift issues, and I'm on the "it's a bit tamer than I'd expect" side for ASN.

 

I'm actually beginning to regret that I didn't wait for all the teething problems to be resolved before using the trial. One big plus of the turbulence depiction in ASN is that it seems to interact more 'physically' with the airframe than what Opus does. For example, the turbulence in Opus never seems to trigger the airframe squeaks on the A2A Cub or the wind noise effects on some other planes (including the RA Legacy or Duke V2), while ASN does. How realistic do you find it, based on your experience?

 

On the other hand, I tried flying on hot days in Idaho and Australia with ASN, but never got any of the thermal, ridge lift and other effects. Perhaps there is in fact something that prevents these effects from working correctly on certain systems.

 

 

 

Atually, I didn't realize that LCC shortcuts were possible until I moved to the latest Opus beta to test the cloud smoothing that was added. When I did that, I took the time to go back through the last several month's release notes to be sure I wasn't missing some config issue that would prove problematic in my testing. I've been flying the RA V2 piston Duke a lot lately, and that's one of the few GA VCs I have where I almost never feel the need to change eyepoint, so that's the plane I used for my direct comparison flights.

 

Ah, the Duke... I have the V2 in my hangar, I just couldn't resist buying it. I've hardly flown it so far, it's a bit beyond my skill level to fly it properly and realistically (which I prefer to do). As with the Legacy, you can just sit in the VC and admire the attention to detail. No tweaking needed whatsoever... I wish my simming time wasn't so limited these days...

 

 

 

As mentioned, I'm still an Opus customer, despite deciding it was well worth it for me to add ASN. I'm not one to make snap judgements and "bin" a previous product, especially one that's still in active development. While I probably still won't chase betas and will stay with the releases for updates, I'll be keeping an eye on their developments.

 

And I'd probably have just purchased ASN, because I loved many things about it. However, I've invested too much time into setting up myriads of cameras in Opus, and using the two side-by-side (ASN for weather, Opus just for cameras incl. head movements) would simply get too complicated. Besides, I was afraid I'd be too tempted to start comparing the two again, and that'd quickly eat into the little simming time I have.

 

I'll surely keep an eye on how ASN develops, the thermal and up/downdraft features could really be great for some mountain/bush flying...

 

Tym

[GHarrall 494]

When the next version of opus comes out I will buy it. As Opus was a good step up over AS2012. When you repeatedly post that "honesty" you cannot see the difference it make be lol because ASN is a good step up on opus weather engine.

 

I look forward to the next Opus or even REX might pull something out the bag. I don't really care who it is I just like progress and try to use the best there is. Unlike you I can see the differences. Be it opus REX who ever.

It just bugs be when people cannot see the gains ASN have made.

For the first time we have, no redraw of clouds, true turbarlance and a real radar, that alone is worth the price, so when you repeatedly say " I cannot honesty see any difference in opus and ASN" I dispair at what you really see and you have the nerve to say I cannot see two feet in front of me! Lol

I will support them all if it means we keep getting better weather engines, bring it on.

 

Dave, again, for the type of flying I do I do not see any justification in moving to ASN. I have rarely suffered a wind shift issue nor have I had major problems with cloud popping. In fact, with the latest beta of Opus it seems even better.

 

Maybe for you at 39,000 feet in a 737 the added features of ASN make it 'night and day' difference but for me, I honestly do not see any huge improvment from what I get with Opus. If those differences that are there are of huge importance to you.....great!!!! Im pleased for you. BUT, there will be Opus users like myself, who for thier own set of circumstances will not get a huge 'wow factor' from trying ASN.

Paramount importance to me is low level depiction as that is what I do both simulated (for the most part) and real world. Just for the record, I have yet to see forecasted winds match actual conditions in any of the flighplans I have filed in the real world. I wish they did, it would make life much easier!

I have no interest in a weather radar and I get all the turbulence I need with DHM and bump aircraft in Opus. Again, not so much a concern at low levels anyway.

 

Is ASN a great weather program - Yes!

Does it raise the bar in some areas - Yes!

Does it have all the features of the competition? - No!

Does the competition have all the features of ASN - No!

 

Is choice good? - Yes!

 

We arent all 737 jockeys.

[tttocs 301]

Thanks for the reply, lots of useful and balanced insights, as usual. I'm sorry if I came across as an ASN basher/Opus fanatic, that was never my intention, although I do admit that a certain poster's rather biased comments may have affected the way I worded the reply.

 

No worries - I didn't think you'd come off that way at all.

 

 

 

You're absolutely right, I'm familiar with the way Active Sky collects and distributes weather data

 

Just one more thought on the delay issue, as I've been doing a bit of looking since.  If someone was seeing delays of hours, something must have been wrong that day as I'm seeing METARs available in ASN shortly after they're issued with fresh loads.  I'm deliberately a bit vague here, as I haven't quite caught a new one right as it's issued to check for exact numbers but, for example, a quick check around my home state of Colorado seemed to show that every METAR ASN had at that time was the current one.  I know there is a delay, but it doesn't seem to be a significant one, absent problems.

 

 

 

One big plus of the turbulence depiction in ASN is that it seems to interact more 'physically' with the airframe than what Opus does. For example, the turbulence in Opus never seems to trigger the airframe squeaks on the A2A Cub or the wind noise effects on some other planes (including the RA Legacy or Duke V2), while ASN does. How realistic do you find it, based on your experience?

 

As noted, I find it generally a bit more subdued than I'd prefer but still very good.  As for ridge lift and thermals on hot summer days, last week I set up a VFR flight in the Carenado 337 from KGXY to KCYN in July.  This is a flight I've done a number of times, which takes you from the eastern high plains of Colorado, over the Front Range and down the Colorado from its headwaters in Rocky Mountain National Park all the way to just outside Canyonlands NP.  When flying this route IRL in the summer, I would always be up and out about dawn, as afternoon T-storms developing over the ridges are the norm, not the exception, and even on drier more stable days, you will get kicked around as the day progresses.  For the test flight I waited until mid-morning so that I could take a bit of punishment.

 

The wx depiction was as expected, with cumulus gradually developing over the ridges due to orographic lifting, and there were nice, if a bit subdued, up and down drafts in those areas.  Once away from the early build-ups, however, the turbulence level was a bit disappointing.  In that terrain, altitude and conditions IRL, I would normally expect to see light to occasional moderate.  What I got was more like occasional light.  On the other hand, last night I flew from near Calgary in Alberta to Bozeman MT in August and I did get some nice steady bumps with only widely scattered light cumulus in the area.  I was a bit higher at 15,000 in the Duke, but it felt very much like a summer day at modest altitude.  I haven't yet looked to see why one flight was a bit more as expected than the other.

 

I should stress, however, that both were good.

 

 

 

Ah, the Duke... I have the V2 in my hangar, I just couldn't resist buying it. I've hardly flown it so far, it's a bit beyond my skill level to fly it properly and realistically (which I prefer to do).

 

It is an absolute joy to fly, and has taken over as my favorite plane - and like you I like to fly 'em like I would IRL.  When you get the time to get comfortable with it, I can't imagine you won't fall for it too.

 

 

 

Besides, I was afraid I'd be too tempted to start comparing the two again, and that'd quickly eat into the little simming time I have.

 

I've fallen into that trap in the past as well, so I understand.  This go around, I set a time limit on my comparisons before getting back to just enjoying flying.  Back to doing that now.

 

Scott

[Nyxx 6,993]

Happy to put this in the past Glenn, have a Good Christmas and new year.

[GHarrall 494]

Same to you Dave.

 

Its good that we are a passionate bunch about this hobby.

[dji13 7]

Hey i just bought ASN And i decided that i won't buy Ezdok since i have Opus. So i gave it a try but i only get shaking on ground. I feel like Opus Live Camera is not reading the weather correctly. Maybe it has to do with the sequence that i open the programs at. I first load my flight and then i open Opus-->Disable Live Weather-->Open ASN.

Please Help

Thanks

Daniel

[GHarrall 494]

I don't think the Opus camera will react to weather other than that provided by Opus. I could be wrong though.

[dji13 7]

I don't think the Opus camera will react to weather other than that provided by Opus. I could be wrong though.

Can someone Please confirm this?