6 hours ago, Rob_Ainscough said:

MSFS clouds look like thick cotton balls

 

Absolutely.
To be more accurate, dirty cotton balls.

Here are some very important aspects of aviation weather that the pictures or the videos don't convey:

- As spectacular as the visuals and the theory behind MSFS weather depiction may be, but how is the accuracy of weather worldwide?  (Not just over the eye-candy cities). If I plan a flight from Tokyo to Moscow, can I also expect accurate weather over Siberia?  FSX' online weather was lacking coverage in these parts of the world. If the source data is sparse, how good is the interpolation?

- What about the accuracy of winds aloft and temperatures at higher altitudes?

- What about smooth transitions between wind layers and zones of different wind/visibility data?  The default FSX/P3D system has had serious deficits in that aspect ever since. It was AS that eliminated this issue.

I remain confident that Active Sky, with their two decades of experience, will have a competitive edge over the default weather system of ANY simulator. In the past, Microsoft flight simulators promised a lot on weather improvements, but once you started using it, bugs became apparent, were never fixed and created demand for external weather programs. Unless MSFS2020 has some impressive and believable information to present on the things mentioned above, I am not sold on AS weather engine becoming obsolete.

15 minutes ago, Afterburner said:

 

@HighTowers

 

You all with your life in the past with these hundreds of addons. Be patient If something better comes later, you can buy it. NOW only what comes out of the box counts. You can pursue your add-on addiction later. 

These add-on discussions don't lead to anything at the moment.

Edited June 13, 20205 yr by Deleted

1 hour ago, Afterburner said:

Here are some very important aspects of aviation weather that the pictures or the videos don't convey:

 

The OP's premise opposing Active Sky to FS20 weather engine is IMHO obnoxious (and vulgar in its original title).  FS20 is still in the making whereas Active Sky has a long history of excellent services to flight simulation (including the improvements you mentioned). It doesn't make sense to oppose both except to trigger a cheap flame war. You can look forward to all the impressive innovations that FS20 may bring without demeaning older addons.  

Your post with which I don't entirely agree has the merit to bring back the topic to the weather engines instead of making the misdirection towards the cloud representation of the usual suspect.  You ask good questions to which we are still short on answers. Some remarks though :

Have you watched the two promo trailers (Asobo and Meteoblue) on weather because it seems to me that it answers some your interrogations ?  

Theory ? This aint no theory 😉. MB is a respectable company selling its weather prediction services. I've never heard anything bad about them.

Siberia ? Open Meteoblue map at their site. Plenty of data ! 

Accuracy ?  MB was created  in cooperation with NOAA and NCEP the two leading US institutions in weather prediction…

The truth is that HIFI has done a great job to answer the insufficiencies of a mediocre FSX weather engine and the total disinterest of the P3D team for what is a fundamental composent of any flight simulator.  

Bottom line ? I welcome very much that MS has called a specialist  of the weather business to bring a fresh look, new ways of injecting the weather. What is the alternative  ? Nothing à la P3D and a new version of what is a palliative to the ESP insufficiencies ?  

Edited June 13, 20205 yr by Dominique_K

1 hour ago, Afterburner said:

Here are some very important aspects of aviation weather that the pictures or the videos don't convey:

- As spectacular as the visuals and the theory behind MSFS weather depiction may be, but how is the accuracy of weather worldwide?  (Not just over the eye-candy cities). If I plan a flight from Tokyo to Moscow, can I also expect accurate weather over Siberia?  FSX' online weather was lacking coverage in these parts of the world. If the source data is sparse, how good is the interpolation?

- What about the accuracy of winds aloft and temperatures at higher altitudes?

- What about smooth transitions between wind layers and zones of different wind/visibility data?  The default FSX/P3D system has had serious deficits in that aspect ever since. It was AS that eliminated this issue.

I remain confident that Active Sky, with their two decades of experience, will have a competitive edge over the default weather system of ANY simulator. In the past, Microsoft flight simulators promised a lot on weather improvements, but once you started using it, bugs became apparent, were never fixed and created demand for external weather programs. Unless MSFS2020 has some impressive and believable information to present on the things mentioned above, I am not sold on AS weather engine becoming obsolete.

As far as upper wind data, that is always based on computer forecast modeling rather than real-time observations, and that is true in real-world aviation as well as flight simulation. As far as weather data in remote locations (with no local observations), that also comes from computer modeling.

Active Sky is an end-user of computer model data, doing their own interpolation on their servers as well as “on the fly” within the sim. Meteoblue by contrast is a source of forecast model data, since they specialize in producing high-resolution multi-layer atmospheric models and real-time data for commercial clients as well as the general public via their various apps and web site. I would think that the detail and resolution of the data they could provide to MSFS for any specific geographic location and altitude would far exceed anything Active Sky could currently do.

Meteoblue already provides a lot of aviation-specific real-time and forecast data in their smartphone apps, and on their web site, and have been doing so before their involvement in the MSFS project.

When planning flights in the sim in US airspace, I often use the FAA’s own aviationweather.gov web site, to look at various METAR reports and upper air charts. One chart I always check is the “depiction” chart showing areas where the current weather is VFR, IFR, or Low IFR. The MeteoBlue app has a similar depiction chart, but the coverage is worldwide, not just for the US. Likewise for upper winds and temperatures.

I do currently use Active Sky in P3D, it is by far the best weather engine for that platform, and probably always will be.

As far as how the weather data actually gets injected into the sim, I assume that is something that Asobo is responsible for — using the data that Meteoblue provides.

FSX and P3D have always suffered from problems with shifting winds and sporadic incorrect temperatures or pressures aloft when weather is injected using simconnect. Active Sky gets around that problem by bypassing simconnect and taking direct control of the atmospheric environment by directly accessing the weather DLL. It’s basically a “hack” (just as FSUIPC was in its early days), but it is a hack which has been of great benefit to end users flying in the sim.

Since (hopefully), MSFS has a completely new atmospheric model, built from scratch, I would think that such hacks won’t be necessary. Only those currently participating in the alpha would know how “stable” the injected weather is in MSFS.

2 hours ago, Afterburner said:

I remain confident that Active Sky, with their two decades of experience, will have a competitive edge over the default weather system of ANY simulator.

With all due respect to HiFi Sim, I think the capabilities of Meteoblue in weather modeling are on another level, not even comparable.

4 hours ago, RALF9636 said:

Seriously, I don't get why this subscription topic is brought up over and over again.

I think it’s very simple, honestly. People here have gotten used to a single business model: small, niche community that is willing to pay high prices for a large number of addons that bring incremental improvements. Now you have the arrival of a radically different business model: a very large market that is mostly only willing to pay low prices for addons that add stuff that’s actually new (planes, airports, etc., not fixing core functionality) — i.e. the overwhelmingly dominant gaming business model for the last decade.

And it’s simply greeted with disbelief, because to accept that this is a workable model means accepting in some sense that we’ve been overpaying for, well, everything for all these years.

James

Edited June 13, 20205 yr by honanhal
Typo

It is indeed just amazing how people still raise this subscription fear-mongering. Open your eyes, MS is a trillion dollar company that has a very simple model for its gaming business: either you buy it or you subscribe to game pass and get ALL of the game/simulator content included.

MSFS will be launched for Xbox for Christ's sake! How unrealistic would be to expect the typical console gamer to pay an additional subscription for weather??

I recognize the good-will and competence of Rex/Hi-Fi, but a major software house and first-hand developer will generally be able to accomplish much more with native tools than small third-parties using the SDK.

 

Edited June 13, 20205 yr by GCBraun

4 hours ago, Afterburner said:

Unless MSFS2020 has some impressive and believable information to present on the things mentioned above, I am not sold on AS weather engine becoming obsolete.

Either you did not actually watch the latest video, or you fell asleep during the presentation, otherwise you would not have to ask these questions.

Alternatively, perhaps actually reading about the history of Meteoblue's service might provide a better view of their reputation and quality:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meteoblue

I indeed watched the latest video, and I do have a high esteem for Meteoblue as a source for weather information. But the question remains how well will Microsoft actually implement the weather in the simulator from the given data, especially the points that I outlined above. We will know once the new sim will be released.

I will be more than happy if the default weather engine turns out to be so good that no add-on will be needed. When I mentioned AS having a competitive edge over default sim weather, I didn't necessarily mean that the weather graphics in P3D is currently better than in the upcoming FS2020, but rather that AS has the experience to improve the weather in a given simulator. It is not a coincidence that in all MS/P3D simulators during the last 20 year (and recently also XP), users ended up buying weather add-ons, and almost no one looked back to reverting to default weather.

Another benefit I see from using Active Sky: If there are problems, you can contact their support, and I personally got help when I needed. If there are shortcomings in the default weather engine, who do you consult?  The MSFS team?  How quickly will they respond?

1 hour ago, honanhal said:

I think it’s very simple, honestly. People here have gotten used to a single business model: small, niche community that is willing to pay high prices for a large number of addons that bring incremental improvements. Now you have the arrival of a radically different business model: a very large market that is mostly only willing to pay low prices for addons that add stuff that’s actually new (planes, airports, etc., not fixing core functionality) — i.e. the overwhelmingly dominant gaming business model for the last decade.

And it’s simply greeted with disbelief, because to accept that this is a workable model means accepting in some sense that we’ve been overpaying for, well, everything for all these years.

James

What's odd is the advocacy to perpetuate the current overinflated ecosystem;. The day of having to load, maintain, and execute 15+ applications to generate a realistic flight environment are coming to an end.  Reloading the simulator could occur in minutes vice hours/days.  Shouldn't this paradigm shift be a source of celebration?  I understand the motivation of the add-on developers (three in particular) who continue to spread misinformation (e.g. SDK won't available for months, subscription service, NASA super computer, etc...) and/or attempt to deny what our eyes can clearly see; however, I don't understand why some others are against said inclusive model!?    

12 minutes ago, Afterburner said:

 

It is not a coincidence that in all MS/P3D simulators during the last 20 year (and recently also XP), users ended up buying weather add-ons, and almost no one looked back

Difference is "default" fs2020 weather seems to be on another league for it's time...compared to fsx or other FSs default weather at their times.

Edited June 13, 20205 yr by marty2756
Correcto quote

4 hours ago, Afterburner said:

I remain confident that Active Sky, with their two decades of experience, will have a competitive edge over the default weather system of ANY simulator. In the past, Microsoft flight simulators promised a lot on weather improvements, but once you started using it, bugs became apparent, were never fixed and created demand for external weather programs. Unless MSFS2020 has some impressive and believable information to present on the things mentioned above, I am not sold on AS weather engine becoming obsolete.

I remain confident that Meteoblue, a company with 35 years of global weather analysis and technology for many major companies and governments teamed up with one of the richest companies in the world -and one of the first to develop flight simulators - will have a competitive edge over a third party developer.

5 hours ago, David Roch said:

Absolutely.
To be more accurate, dirty cotton balls.

Bit like the real thing really.

I think one of the problem is folks are comparing cloud depiction in MS2020 with cloud depiction in P3D, X-Plane with or without addons.

Best to take a look at MS2020 and compare to real world. I think they're pretty spot on on a lot of levels.

 

 

6 minutes ago, Theboot100 said:

I remain confident that Meteoblue, a company with 35 years of global weather analysis and technology for many major companies and governments teamed up with one of the richest companies in the world -and one of the first to develop flight simulators - will have a competitive edge over a third party developer.

Agree, they should...   And yet, the history of MS FS, is that MS never provided more than the basic platform which many addon developers added attractive new content for..  This is very likely going to be the case again, I would suspect..  And that is not a bad thing  🙂