Amazing.  Looks like the other simulators will be obsolite.

 

I feel bad for P3D who has done lot of work in the sim the got from MS

18 minutes ago, wan2fly said:

Amazing.  Looks like the other simulators will be obsolite.

 

 

Why do we have to bring this up ever so often...I really hope other sims dont become obsolete because monopoly is ugly.

19 hours ago, Noooch said:

What I understood is the in-game weather engine recreates the real weather based on real atmospheric conditions. For example it won't display a visibility of 4mi because the metar said so, but because the real atmospheric conditions made the weather engine display a visibility of 4mi.

And this is the main difference between this and the traditonnal 3rd party weather engines like Active Sky.

If you consider this, you can't have unwanted effects of clouds popping even if a new metar is updated but the entire atmosphere will change and clouds will form or dissappear smoothly.

Of course this is what I understood and I may be wrong.

Yes I understand that, but that works as long as the sim can produce clouds on its own. Real world cloud placements will be slightly different than what the Sim has in mind as the weather engine can never be a 1 to 1 recreation of the real world's "engine". Just for the sake of argument let's say the sim wants to produce 100sqkm of clouds based on given condition, but real life wants to produce 150sqkm (obviously it has more data). At the next update interval the sim produced its 100sqkm of clouds following its environment engine but the real life satellite map dictates the sim to produce the 150sqkm cloud cover. The longer the update intervals the greater the differences. These are just potential flaws I see when using satellite imagery for cloud placements. That being said if that's the case I am sure they have it sorted out. If not I don't need cloud placements to reflect the current real world cloud placements and let the engine produce its own clouds. Hope that gets my point across better. 

Inferring cloud cover of the various types is not an easy task - sometimes not even plausible - using satellite imagery ( in different channels ), even compound with radar data.

Apart from METAR / SPECI and PIREP, and access to a rw meteorological network ( weather sensors, tunderstorm sensors, ... ) there's no way to "paint the weather" aloft other than based on forecasts from weather models.

Aerowinx PSX is going to get, in it's next version, a rather detailled ( as usual with everything on that sim ) merge from data gathered from observation ( aviation only ) and forecast that is based on the weather reported at various levels in a given operational flight plan ( created using one of the sim or professional tools available ).  A "tunel" will be created along the aircraft route, and at lower levels merged with METAR data. It also incorporates SIGMET and AIRMET.

For VFR experience any flight simulator should also benefit from GAMET. GAMET are actually created mostly for GA, so for those who like to fly L&S that's the way to go.

But even if complemented with satellite and radar data ( I believe only satellite will be the case at most ), a weather engine will have to infer most of what it paints by assimilating GRIB from weather models, preferably the best ones.

From what I saw in that video, it looks like their focus on "humidity" is interesting, but rather limited, and I didn't find any consideration on non-isa pressure rates 😕 so we're probably going to get more of the same in that respect, meaning that the famous "from high to low" will not apply temperature-wise ( there's the two sides as you know, the pressure and the temperature... ).

They also talk about rising & sinking air currents - looking fwd to see how much forms they consider: thermal, terrain-induced, frontal, convergence, ...

But honestly, I just want to know if it Uninstalls easily 🙂

 

 

 

Edited October 28, 20196 yr by jcomm
typos and additional comments...

1 hour ago, jcomm said:

From what I saw in that video, it looks like their focus on "humidity" is interesting, but rather limited, and I didn't find any consideration on non-isa pressure rates 😕

I am no meteorologist but at the 7’52’’ mark the menu shows that ISA, Temp and Pressure are used as variables.

Edited October 28, 20196 yr by domkle

8 hours ago, domkle said:

I am no meteorologist but at the 7’52’’ mark the menu shows that ISA, Temp and Pressure are used as variables.

Yes, but that's just the typical way used also in professional sims - you set ISA as a deviation ( in Temperature ) from standard atmosphere.

At sea level, should be 15C on a standard day, so if it's 12 it's ISA-3...

Problem is how pressure varies with "true altitude"... 

In other words, would be great if they calculated QFF too...

Edited October 28, 20196 yr by jcomm

13 hours ago, jcomm said:

Inferring cloud cover of the various types is not an easy task - sometimes not even plausible - using satellite imagery ( in different channels ), even compound with radar data

 

I understood sat/radar data give cloud density, top height, and maybe also water content/rain, is it correct? Compounded with a meteorological network (which MFS/Azure could possibly have access to), wouldn't those data allow some decent reconstruction of cloud cover? Say distinguishing towering Cu or CB, vs stratus clouds, vs cirrus clouds, etc.

1 hour ago, Murmur said:

I understood sat/radar data give cloud density, top height, and maybe also water content/rain, is it correct? Compounded with a meteorological network (which MFS/Azure could possibly have access to), wouldn't those data allow some decent reconstruction of cloud cover? Say distinguishing towering Cu or CB, vs stratus clouds, vs cirrus clouds, etc.

Yes, specially if they have access to products like that from our Spanish friends SAF - SAFNC  CT ( Cloud-Type ) product - very good!

http://www.nwcsaf.org/ct2

15 hours ago, jcomm said:

But even if complemented with satellite and radar data ( I believe only satellite will be the case at most ), a weather engine will have to infer most of what it paints by assimilating GRIB from weather models, preferably the best ones.

 

 

@jcomm, these are the questions I was getting after in my thread asking what weather data Asobo plans to assimilate to recreate the atmosphere, albeit you've articulated it much better than I ever could. 

It's not clear to me where Asobo plans to get aloft data (Temp, Pressure, humidity, clouds, winds, water vapor, polltuants, others?). It sounds like GRIB data from various weather model forecasts. Then, how is that forecasted data combined with real time surface data to give an accurate representation of weather in the sim? Or is it combined? Does the sim just use forecast data down to the surface to render weather in the sim? For a sim that offers real time weather, I feel like people will complain if it's raining near their house but not presented in the sim.

Ultimately the secret sauce for weather and atmosphere is up to Asobo. I guess maybe developers will get more insight in an SDK. Personally, I don't care how they do it, presenting environments like those seen in the previews will be more than enough for me and I'm sure Asobo has a cool solution

It's complex gewilson.

Observation is very limited in area ( radius of 10 km around the station ), and depends very closely on the kind of airspace organization. In the USA since transition altitude is FL180 everywhere, and MSA is so high, that means METAR cover cloud phenomena much higher than typical European METARs.

I remember one day the pilot of a flight from Lisbon to Paris reporting clear weather in Paris, as I was expecting a overcast mant of altostratus based on the forecasts... and indeed we arrived there and confirmed the forecast 🙂  The "mant" was probably around 10,000', and TA should be 4,000'...

I believe it'll always be a merge from METAR to the upper level foreacast layers. It is very interesting to follow the description of how Hardy Heinlin implemented it for Aerowinx PSX next version which will include this and also the NG FMC for the 744. You can check it here:

http://aerowinx.com/board/index.php?topic=4817.0

It's a longish thread, but very worth reading through, specially because of the solution Hardy chose to implement this feature.

Of course in PSX there aren't sophisticated cloud visuals. When you have a cloud layer, irrespective of it's reported coverage, it is always represented a a solid / overcast one ...

Edited October 29, 20196 yr by jcomm