Found a nasty bug when, under certain circumstances, the METAR visibility wouldn't deploy when re-entering 8.000ft. Better get 1.1!

 

Thanks!

 

You may want to keep your initial post and thread title up-to-date with the current version number and release date.

Thanks!

 

You may want to keep your initial post and thread title up-to-date with the current version number and release date.

I can't edit the post anymore. I don't think that it's required as the link always leads to the latest release.

I can't edit the post anymore. I don't think that it's required as the link always leads to the latest release.

 

Oh, I see.

 

Well, then maybe add the current version number to your signature, because not everybody will regularly check your website, and update posts in such threads tend to get overlooked. (Remember that several people did not even notice that NOAA 2.3 was required later, after beta 3 was updated to beta 4 and 5).

Ask Tony to pin it

Any recommended 'cloud area covered' in SMP, to go with Ventura Sky? 

Very nice plug in!

 

As we gain altitude, are we supposed to see a lengthening of visibility?  When I fly airliners over the clear US Southwest, there are often high visibilities.  Will this support those on CAVU days?  If not, no worries, just trying to understand the capabilities.

 

Also, do you anticipate any ability (like RTH) to alter intensity/visibility of lights?  That's a good option for foggy days with the intensities up to max  (and it helps me find traffic in X-Life sometimes!)

Thanks SO much for your contribution to the hobby!

Bill

KGSP

Amazing work. Is there any future plan  Ventura Sky to work with FS Global Real Weather except NOOA ?

they announced a big update ( inclunding turbulence at last)   for the next week.

thanks

Will also throw myself in the FSGRW pile. Would love support for that as well

FS Global Real Weather except NOOA ?

 

Will also throw myself in the FSGRW pile.

 

If you look at the development thread or read the sections in the manual on how this script works, you will recognize that this is not possible. NOAA works differently from FSGRW, and NOAA is available as source code, so frontendrob was able to match his own script exactly to what NOAA provides.

 

If I were him, I'd also reject any wishes for user-customizable lights. I think some users have not yet fully understood what VenturaSky is.

 

VS gives you one finished look, where the whole point is that, depending on taste, it looks good without customizing. This includes the look of lights. If users start to customize the lights, the other parts of VS will look wrong, so there were options needed for that, too. But then you would get just another RTH, not a complete, fine-tuned experience.

 

VS concept is fine as it is.

If you look at the development thread or read the sections in the manual on how this script works, you will recognize that this is not possible. NOAA works differently from FSGRW, and NOAA is available as source code, so frontendrob was able to match his own script exactly to what NOAA provides.

 

What a shame. I'll go back to my old setup then.

What a shame. I'll go back to my old setup then.

 

I was also using FSGRW for long, but since I have VS installed, I find it hard to go back.

I assume it is required to use Python 2.6 or 2.7?

 

EDIT: because in my infinite wisdom I decided to install v3.5 and it doesn't seem to work..?

 

EDIT: Changed to 2.7. No difference,

If you look at the development thread or read the sections in the manual on how this script works, you will recognize that this is not possible. NOAA works differently from FSGRW, and NOAA is available as source code, so frontendrob was able to match his own script exactly to what NOAA provides.

 

If I were him, I'd also reject any wishes for user-customizable lights. I think some users have not yet fully understood what VenturaSky is.

 

VS gives you one finished look, where the whole point is that, depending on taste, it looks good without customizing. This includes the look of lights. If users start to customize the lights, the other parts of VS will look wrong, so there were options needed for that, too. But then you would get just another RTH, not a complete, fine-tuned experience.

 

VS concept is fine as it is.

Hi Mario,

 

After a number of comparative flights, I'd agree, VS is a very good "one-stop" solution to a great looking and performing XP.  I fully "understand" the initial VS "concept", so please don't be condescending in tone.

 

Having said that, given that airport runway light intensities can be changed--I still think a small option for light intensity would be an appropriate addition to a strong product.

 

Thanks

 

Bill

Will also throw myself in the FSGRW pile. Would love support for that as well

 

I will look into FSGRW support at some point. I never used it and don't know how it sets visibility in X-Plane.

 

 

Very nice plug in!

 

As we gain altitude, are we supposed to see a lengthening of visibility?  When I fly airliners over the clear US Southwest, there are often high visibilities.  Will this support those on CAVU days?  If not, no worries, just trying to understand the capabilities.

 

Also, do you anticipate any ability (like RTH) to alter intensity/visibility of lights?  That's a good option for foggy days with the intensities up to max  (and it helps me find traffic in X-Life sometimes!)

Thanks SO much for your contribution to the hobby!

 

Bill

KGSP

 

Above 10.000ft, you will gain visibility with every foot you climb. At 40.000ft, your visibilty is about 100nm. If you'd like to gain more (and reach 100nm earlier), you may set "alt_gain_factor" to a lower value than 4.0, see http://venturasky.com/?/resources/tweaking/

I will look into the possibility of dynamically controlling the gain_factor by other weather factors.

 

 

 

Amazing work. Is there any future plan  Ventura Sky to work with FS Global Real Weather except NOOA ?

they announced a big update ( inclunding turbulence at last)   for the next week.

thanks

 

I think NOAA is a great, free and configuration-free (Ventura Sky is all about not having to open menus, adjust settings ect.) solution for real weather. As VS only uses a single input from NOAA (visibility) however, and if FSGRW is willing to add support for VS, it should be super easy to implement FSGRW support. 

 

 

 

Any recommended 'cloud area covered' in SMP, to go with Ventura Sky? 

 

I think 6.000 is a good baseline. It has the most detailed puffs and in general, the draw distance is overrated - even at the highest setting, it still leaves a lot to be desired in terms of "complete cloud cover to the horizon" - I think this needs a better solution than just more puffs, and I am pretty confident that SMP will come up with something in that direction.

 

 

 

I assume it is required to use Python 2.6 or 2.7?

 

EDIT: because in my infinite wisdom I decided to install v3.5 and it doesn't seem to work..?

 

EDIT: Changed to 2.7. No difference,

 

Installing Python can be tricky. I suggest you remove Python completely, and use the "Win Net Install" of all required components that Joan offers: http://x-plane.joanpc.com/plugins/xpgfs-noaa-weather

Hi Mario,

 

After a number of comparative flights, I'd agree, VS is a very good "one-stop" solution to a great looking and performing XP.  I fully "understand" the initial VS "concept", so please don't be condescending in tone.

 

Having said that, given that airport runway light intensities can be changed--I still think a small option for light intensity would be an appropriate addition to a strong product.

 

Thanks

 

Bill

 

Relax guys. I will took into further light optimizations. Things is, I won't do something that looks good in one situation, but will look bad in another - and that's what I often see with light hacks. It probably requires a some code to control the lights in a good way. So it's not a quick thing.