1 minute ago, Noel said:

I don't see RW METARs as having anything to do with 'flight planning'--what does matters is being able to see what in-sim METARs are for flight planning.  That in-sim does not *perfectly* match RW should have zero do with planning your flight in your simulator.

Folks who are using the sim with EFB apps like Foreflight for practice / training will disagree.  Same with folks flying on a network like Vatsim or IVAO, where it really helps if everyone is seeing the same weather. 

RW METARs are also relevant in terms of flight planning via stuff like SimBrief, especially to sync up with all the other simulators and weather applications. That pulls real-world plans, based on current airport METARs to give you SIDs, STARs and relevant runways, if I'm not mistaken. Something that is used and recognized across multiple platforms and online networks. I'd personally hate if MSFS suddenly went its own way, to deviate from it all just to create its own little bubble and suddenly you don't match up with what online ATCs are using, what real-life flight plans are saying, what other users of other platforms are seeing.

It's a universally used standard and because Asobo's (or Meteo's) very first iteration of it doesn't blow us away, isn't a reason to sit here and argue for it to be abolished completely. That's silly to me. 

10 minutes ago, Stearmandriver said:

Folks who are using the sim with EFB apps like Foreflight for practice / training will disagree.  Same with folks flying on a network like Vatsim or IVAO, where it really helps if everyone is seeing the same weather. 

Makes sense--so perhaps this is why Asobo decided to start w/ implementing RW METAR based weather.  For me I'd be happy w/ the popup example above where I could enter any ICAO and see what in-sim weather is at that moment in time.

To add to my knowledge base, seeing the in-sim METAR in a popup as in the example above, what else would you be needing to look at in an EFB for practice/training?  

Edited November 20, 20214 yr by Noel

1 hour ago, regis9 said:

I think a blend of modelled weather and METARs is absolutely the right way to go.  Just give them time to refine it.  Being able to rely on real world METARs really is important for flight planning.

There are always going to be technical limitations to this that I don't see how they can work around.  For example, a mountain valley airport may have a METAR reporting 0 visibility due to an isolated pocket of fog sitting over the airport.  When you climb out of it at 100 feet, it's severe clear everywhere.

What would an algorithm do in this case?  How would it know to transition this when on an approach?  In real life you'd see the valley shrouded in fog from miles away, but the simulator won't know how thick this fog layer is.

I've flown into airports where the automated AWOS is reporting 0 visibility because the end of the runway it's on is fogged in.  The other end is clear.

I was hoping my first few flights were an anomaly, but unfortunately, it’s just been worse with each subsequent one.

Like others, I don’t get why the sim has to match a METAR report exactly.  From what I’ve seen, the sim isn’t representing the reports accurately anyway.  Has anyone experienced a true overcast layer yet?  I feel like I’m back to FSX default weather.

REX already existed for those wanting METAR-based weather, but it seems most people that have that program, weren’t using it because MSFS weather depiction was superior.  Why did that need to be ruined?

if there is a great plan to use a METAR system that will eventually incorporate other technologies for something even better than what we had, I’m all for that.  Maybe it could have been implemented as an experimental option for now though, instead of basically eliminating what I thought was one of the best features of the sim.

54 minutes ago, qqwertzde said:

Exactly. I find flight planning with unreliable weather so frustrating in MSFS that I often end up flying with clear skies. Maybe it is tolerable if you fly in areas that tend to have warm weather, but I fly a lot in Northern Canada, knowing the weather before takeoff is critical. If you pick a plane without anti-ice capabilities, you can't even fly through clouds without ice building up on your windshield. With METARs I can predict that and use a different plane our different route. Without METAR and a weather system that is only occasionally accurate in my areas, flying without Asobo weather is often the only way.

I see you're a fellow Nova Scotian so likely very much aware of how much our actual weather can differ from modelled weather 😉

From reading this thread clearly some are happy with a non-metar weather solution but frankly I don't get how that's anything but a major step backwards in realism...I want the real world conditions in the sim.  That makes it possible to use real world weather resources to plan your flight.  As noted here, so many times I've planned a VFR flight using Skyvector only to load the sim and find rain, low clouds etc.  Even for IFR flights it's annoying to plan for a certain approach based on real world data only to get to the airport and find the winds completely different from what you had planned and from what the current METAR is showing.

I do enjoy flying in the conditions I can see out my window, especially in the winter when I do most of my simming and the weather around here is pretty bad at times and challenging to fly in.

20 minutes ago, Gulfstream said:

There are always going to be technical limitations to this that I don't see how they can work around.  For example, a mountain valley airport may have a METAR reporting 0 visibility due to an isolated pocket of fog sitting over the airport.  When you climb out of it at 100 feet, it's severe clear everywhere.

This was the exact situation at my local airport KELM this morning, and it a very typical scenario here at this time of year. Beginning at 0300 local until just about an hour ago, the airport was LIFR. 100 foot overcast and 1/4 mile visibility in freezing fog. The airport sits in the lowest point in a relatively flat valley, and when the wind is calm, cold air pools at and near the airport. Usually you can drive 2 miles either west or east of the airport on Interstate 86, and there will be no fog at all. At my house, 6 miles away from the airport it was clear all night.

Usually when this happens the fog layer is only about 300 feet thick, and perfectly clear above. A METAR will not indicate that - it only applies to the surfaces when conditions are LIFR.

I did not fire up MSFS to see how it was handling it, but will do so the next time this happens. The nearest airports that report METARS are Ithaca (KITH) which is 28 miles north, and Binghamton (KBGM) which is 41 miles east. Both airports are on hilltops, and will almost always be clear when KELM is LIFR due to radiation fog.

By contrast, when there is a low pressure system with rain and low clouds in this part of the state, it is not uncommon for KITH and KBGM to be below IFR minimums due to being “in” the clouds, while KELM will be above minimums because of its valley location. 

Edited November 20, 20214 yr by JRBarrett

14 minutes ago, ktd544002 said:

Like others, I don’t get why the sim has to match a METAR report exactly.

I think the only really compelling reason has to do with those who are using a 3rd party product like an EFB or flight planner.  If all users are in MSFS, and all users have access to reading whatever local weather conditions are being depicted in-sim, it really doesn't matter.  It's primarily for those using 3rd party apps so they can be on the same page.

Asobo can please us all. Have a toggle between hard-metar-constraints and meteoblue forecasts.

Those of us who want 0 popping and more realistic looking weather can choose meteoblue, those of us who need absolute 1:1 winds and temps for VATSIM / historics can use METARS.

We all win.

8 minutes ago, Noel said:

I think the only really compelling reason has to do with those who are using a 3rd party product like an EFB or flight planner.  If all users are in MSFS, and all users have access to reading whatever local weather conditions are being depicted in-sim, it really doesn't matter.  It's primarily for those using 3rd party apps so they can be on the same page.

Yes. Using current real-world METARs is clearly important to a subset of users (how many people are on VATSIM, anyway? And what fraction of a percent of MSFS users does that account for?). But it doesn’t follow that this is a “realism” issue.

It bears repeating: as long as we have access to information about what the weather conditions are in various places in the sim, you can plan and fly in a realistic fashion.

Let me put this another way: if you see the non-METAR MSFS system as a step back for realism, is a historic weather option also a step back for realism? If not, why not?

James

As an airliner pilot I need metar-based weather, but I don't see no technical possible solution without active-sky-like transitions. As much as I liked active sky for P3D, the transitions were still killing immersion. I loved MSFS for not having that, at least not visually apparent. I'd rather have inaccurate cloud coverage if that means I don't need to see any transitions.

Edited November 20, 20214 yr by Fiorentoni

6 minutes ago, honanhal said:

Let me put this another way: if you see the non-METAR MSFS system as a step back for realism, is a historic weather option also a step back for realism? If not, why not?

Well, first of all, I don't see a non-METAR system as a step back, so maybe I don't qualify for answering your question.  But I will.  No, because a historic weather scene would be, largely, close to what the wx was at that location/date/time.  If someone wants a historic scene, they could have it.  Assuming some sort of app will come along that has this capability.

14 minutes ago, WestAir said:

 

We all win.

I suppose you are right. This hot and interesting gentlemen's discussion reflects two visions :

- one which gives priority to the replication of a flight in the exact weather conditions and  demands METAR

- another which is satisfied by flying in convincing weather conditions, which was until now the heart of the Asobo engine, because it gives things like moving fronts that we had not seen before and smooth transitions.

The trigger was the quite awful implementation of the weather in SU7 under the pretence of injecting METAR. And, in the background, lies the inability so far of Asobo to integrate a decent planning tool in their sim

So maybe the solution is giving some kind of options but ASobo cannot continue to ruin their earlier work. Or rather they can but I hope they don't.  

14 minutes ago, honanhal said:

as long as we have access to information about what the weather conditions are in various places in the sim, you can plan and fly in a realistic fashion

Like this:

15 minutes ago, honanhal said:

 

It bears repeating: as long as we have access to information about what the weather conditions are in various places in the sim, you can plan and fly in a realistic fashion.

 

This ^^