38 minutes ago, sidfadc said:

If Asobo can fix the grainy popcorn clouds and METAR representation then in my opinion I have no need for Active Sky. 

Exactly!

Why must we now want to spend more money than we already paid?

I used Active Sky for both FSX & P3D but it was a necessity. 

Now not so much...

I’m going to be patient and hopefully not spend the hundreds of not thousands I spent before.

I’ll gladly pay for add on aircraft, for instance, that deliver much more than default (i.e. A2A level) but not for minor improvements that are subjective, such as weather, when default is more than good enough!

@Cmcollazo71 @sidfadc  that's the issue.  We don't think they can fix METAR representation to an acceptable level. Apparently they're going to stick with forecast models.  You guys can correct me if I'm wrong.  In fact, I hope I am, because in all honestly, there shouldn't be a need for a 3rd part weather generator at this stage of the game.

 

24 minutes ago, Jeff Nielsen said:

Meteo Blue doesn't have any better sources for data than anyone else. Hi-Fi has refined their methods for several years now, and probably don't need Meteo Blue for this.

I don't think you are understanding the issue here.

1 hour ago, HUSSAR said:

now that we know we’ll never have MSFS developer support or SDK access

The issue appears to be that Asobo and Meteo Blue have partnered in such a way that the current weather engine is hard coded into the sim and kept tight.  That goes way beyond the data.  The same type of lockout appears to separately be in place in regard to 3rd avionics developers as well.  Both will literally need to hack their way in, and then future MSFS updates will likely require additional hacking.

 

Edited December 5, 20205 yr by fppilot

Wow! Bold stuff here. Pretty hard to imagine a 3rd party messing with the weather generator in this platform and getting it right without performance issues. Setting your goals high with big dreams sometimes works. Let us see.

4 minutes ago, fppilot said:

I don't think you are understanding the issue here.

The issue appears to be that Asobo and Meteo Blue have partnered in such a way that the current weather engine is hard coded into the sim and kept tight.  That goes way beyond the data.  The same type of lockout appears to separately be in place in regard to 3rd avionics developers as well.  Both will literally need to hack their way in, and then future MSFS updates will likely require additional hacking.

 

I do understand the issue.  Exactly what you said.  It should have been broken up so it could be refined and/or fixed as needed.

The bottom line is still the same.  Any way you slice it, we need accurate conditions.  It can be done.

54 minutes ago, MarcG said:

Sounds like Damian has a chip on his shoulder.

Not sure how you come to that conclusion

Unreal weather mod already provides metar based wx and its free and not a stuttery situation at all as it transitions smoothly based on user parameters. Good luck to AS but I highly doubt I will look at paid weather addons for this sim unlike my previous fsx and xplane times.

I’m happy with the default engine. The less programs I have running in the background the better. To each their own though...

Early on I was concerned that these deals could be an issue for 3PD's. It is quite possible that the agreement between Meteo Blue is an exclusive contract, and the sim was designed in a matter that makes 3rd party weather development complicated. Over time, I think we will discover more of these issues. Seeing that the Aerosoft CRJ is right around the corner, I wonder if Aerosoft was given some sort of early or exclusive access to the sim. Of course, this is wild speculation.

Specifically related to the Meteo Blue issue, I've also been thinking that MSFS isn't just a sim/game. It is also a showcase/proof of concept for the tech (Azure, Blackshark, Meteo Blue, Bing...). I'm guessing that they are less concerned with the revenue from MSFS and more interested in the revenue resulting from the technology. Having a bunch of redundant 3rd party commercial addons mucking up the sim and possibly outshining the included tech probably wont help sell the tech they are showcasing.

44 minutes ago, Jeff Nielsen said:

We don't think they can fix METAR representation to an acceptable level.

What’s an acceptable level?

In Level D simulators the weather is not real world current but a representation for the training/testing at hand.

Why insist then on a home sim/game absolute fidelity to current conditions. 

It would be neat, but more money for an incremental improvement? I don’t see the point.

I fly with the weather as presented. I don’t verify it against a METAR or even a look outside and deal with weather as presented.

Checking against the actual conditions is like having a perfect smooth flying experience then checking FPS and worrying about hitting a predetermined number in your head.

Weather is unpredictable, let the unpredictable weather generated in sim be what it is. Why insist on exactitude?

In other words, “don’t let the perfect get in the way of the good.”

Edited December 5, 20205 yr by Cmcollazo71

it all comes down to what the individual wants out of the weather. If you look outside and see the sun and jump in to the sim and see the same and are happy - then you wouldn't appreciate a real weather engine. However, if you are interested in ACCURATE weather with accurate winds aloft and temps etc, it's a different story. Frankly, the weather in MSFS is awful. The current addons have done little to improve this. For those who use weather to calculate fuel burn etc, the current weather makes it extremely difficult if not downright impossible to accurately plan a flight.

As I said, if you just want to jump in and get pretty clouds and rain when it's raining, that's ok but some of us want greater accuracy. As to it being too difficult to accomplish, they said the same thing about FSX and P3D, yet HiFi's work in that area is second to none.

Not to forget Historical Weather.

1 minute ago, Cmcollazo71 said:

What’s an acceptable level?

In Level D simulators the weather is not real world current but a representation for the training/testing at hand.

Why insist then on a home sim/game absolute fidelity to current conditions. 

It would be neat, but more money for an incremental improvement? I don’t see the point.

I fly with the weather as presented. I don’t verify it against a METAR or even a look outside and deal with weather as presented.

Checking against the actual conditions is like having a perfect smooth flying experience then checking FPS and worrying about hitting a predetermined number for in your head.

Weather is unpredictable, let the unpredictable weather generated in sim be what it is. Why insist on exactitude?

In other words, “don’t let the perfect get in the way of the good.”

There's NO reason why we can't have 'reported' WX at the airport...NONE at all.  We've had it for quite a while.  At the very least it needs to match with the online networks.  Again, we've had this for quite some time.  It may not match at the 'exact' time as the real world, but it needs to be consistent.

7 minutes ago, Ianrivaldosmith said:

The less programs I have running in the background the better.

And then there’s also good point by @lanrivaldosmith 

7 minutes ago, Jeff Nielsen said:

There's NO reason why we can't have 'reported' WX at the airport...NONE at all.

And if this is the case why would not Asobo bring this in time?

Its a 4 month old release after all.

Why rush out to pay for what you can get the included in the price of admission?

I’m all for supporting 3PDs, but not for something this minor.

Plus by the time AS get something out (considering they’re swimming upstream) Asobo may have implemented something similar or better, who knows?

Edited December 5, 20205 yr by Cmcollazo71

Just now, Cmcollazo71 said:

And if this is the case why would not Asobo bring this in time?

Its a 4 month old release after all.

Why rush out to pay for what you can get the included in the price of admission?

I’m all for supporting 3PDs, but not for something this minor.

Plus by the time AS get something out (considering they swimming upstream) Asobo may have implemented something similar or better, who knows?

We've been over this already.  They're using forecast data.

I'm in the boat with most others, the less apps in the background the better, and I hope ASOBO can fix it, but it doesn't look they can without a major re-write.

We're talking about very-very basic/MAJOR issues here.  Winds, ALT/QNH, TEMP/DP, VIS, etc..  These need to be fixed....lol.

Now, as others have said, can AS deliver without hitting the user's performance?  That's the million dollar question.