1 hour ago, B777ER said:

It can be boiled down to those that want real weather and those that want fake fantasy land weather that don't fly online or could care less about simulating real world conditions. 

It can be boiled down to those who want small pockets of observed weather, and those who want a physics based dynamic weather system.

(See: I can also post in hyperbole!)

Captain, these convos work best when we don't attack each other. Everyone has a valid desire here, and ASOBO can make all of us happy as long as we're all clear with what we want from them. Toggles exist.

We can have our cake and eat it too.

6 hours ago, Dominique_K said:

MB is not  observed live weather but  predicted live weather, still a bit different of custom weather.

This quoted post explains the entire issue. The METAR data may be slightly out of date due to the difference between present time and METAR observation time but the Meteo Blue data is a forecast. The MB forecasts seem to work perfectly in certain parts of the globe and haphazardly elsewhere. The use of METAR data also allows for more accurate depiction of cloud type which is an  important issue for pilots.  Cloud type can be estimated  based on a cloud layer's altitude, temperature, wind speed and dewpoint (like in Active Sky).  I think that the initial METAR implementation in MSFS is a rough cut and the depiction issues will be fixed as Adobo gets more user feedback. 

The METAR AGL / MSL issue needs to be hotfixed. 

Same with TrackIR.

 

8 hours ago, Weatherman said:

It is simply not possible to build a worldwide 3d weather depiction from METAR data.

No one has suggested they do so. As has been mentioned many times now, AS and others have successfully simulated real world weather by using the synoptic and mesoscale model data, refined over airports by METARS.  Thus, the sim weather is basically set initially by the larger-scale data, then smoothly transitioned to the METAR conditions over the field.  This is not some pie-in-the-sky dream; we've been able to make this happen in ancient FSX for years now.

8 hours ago, Weatherman said:

I understand the problem that some hardcode fans of VATSIM and some other scenarios need consistence between airport weather and the weather information for that airport. Just derive METAR data from the model data and everything is fine. If this is still not enough: Go out and fly in real life I'd say.

I'm not sure you completely understand: these networks like Vatsim and IVAO aren't just using one sim.  People on these networks could be using one of at least 4 different sims, with many version differences of several of them.  And depending on the sim, a few different weather injection engines.  So whose model data should we use? Microsoft's  Hi-fi's?  Laminar's? Lockheed's?

You see what I mean... the only way it works is if we're all using a generation of real-world weather.  It'll never be exactly the same of course, in terms of visual appearance, clouds in the same place etc., but the big ticket items - ceiling, vis, winds, altimeter - need to line up pretty well.  And again, that's entirely achievable, it's been done several times before. 

It seems like you're picturing these networks as a small, super-niche cadre of hardcore simmers.  They're really not; it's not unusual at all for Vatsim to have over a thousand connected pilots at a given time, for instance.  I'd encourage you to check it out; if you've done any real life flying I think you'll have fun! 

Anyway, we're in agreement that the current real world weather in MSFS isn't there yet.  I'm just making the point that incorporating real-world METARs is an important part of the process; it can't be done purely with model data.  I understand you can make something look pretty and behave semi-realistically that way, but it won't actually work the way many simmers need it to.  But work and bug fixes are needed, and work is needed on manual wx too.  Why can we still not specify a visibility value?!

12 hours ago, Gilandred said:

This is a leadership issue.  I “think” Jorg realizes this now with his SU8 bug fixing plan, but the buck still stops with him.

Don't forget they have to answer to their "masters", the ones paying the bills.

It's more likely to be the top level "masters" who are setting arbitory dates and features.

And the peons below do as told.

Cheers

13 hours 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.

I agree Dave, but I just wish they would refine it AND test it, BEFORE releasing it.  Then problems can be labeled "bugs".  This I update, I feel, continues to be much like the others - simple rushed sloppiness in many areas.

Edited November 21, 20214 yr by irocx

11 hours ago, WestAir said:

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.

Or, maybe they could open up the system to, or hire/subcontract, a competent 3rd party, that can focus on this 1 critical area to the sim and make some real progress over the next year. 

Seems like, we all win.  I would even pay for this as a DLC directly to the marketplace.  Want the basic weather, so be it.  Want an advanced weather system - pay for the data and code.

4 minutes ago, irocx said:

pay for the data and code

I did, Back in August of 2020.

1 hour ago, Rogen said:

Don't forget they have to answer to their "masters", the ones paying the bills.

And that should be us, the consumer.  Yall keep buying the add ons if you wanna, but I wont.  I am done with spending money with MS or any other 3rd party developer.  Maybe if they hurt bad enough, they can pressure a positive change.  I doubt it though.

23 minutes ago, Blueline308 said:

And that should be us, the consumer.  Yall keep buying the add ons if you wanna, but I wont.  I am done with spending money with MS or any other 3rd party developer.  Maybe if they hurt bad enough, they can pressure a positive change.  I doubt it though.

Is this just an MSFS thing, or do you follow this in other areas of your life? For example, not decorating your home unless the builder releases a wallpaper.

Edited November 21, 20214 yr by MrBitstFlyer

1 hour ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

Is this just an MSFS thing, or do you follow this in other areas of your life? For example, not decorating your home unless the builder releases a wallpaper.

I don't quite follow your logic of a house builder manufacturing wallpaper, but I will bite anyway.

Since this is a forum area dedicated to the discussion of MSFS, my comments were of course focused on MSFS.  Using your analogy, If said house builder stopped by every month and nailed my windows shut and again changed my locks and again rearranged my furniture, then assuredly I would not spend money with them or any outfit that supports them directly or indirectly.

 

So I suppose the answer to you pressing question is yes.

3 hours ago, Stearmandriver said:

No one has suggested they do so. As has been mentioned many times now, AS and others have successfully simulated real world weather by using the synoptic and mesoscale model data, refined over airports by METARS.  Thus, the sim weather is basically set initially by the larger-scale data, then smoothly transitioned to the METAR conditions over the field.  This is not some pie-in-the-sky dream; we've been able to make this happen in ancient FSX for years now.

Just a question, since I never used AS.  When you said "smoothly" transition is that the globally transitioning the entire cloudscape to match?  Or did they find a way to add the Metar data as a weather front you could see in the distance around the airport without effecting the conditions immediately around your aircraft if you are still some distance away?  You should be able to see new conditions in the distance as you approach without the need to do a blend.  If AS's solution was phasing in new conditions in a way similar to phasing in a new weather "preset" that matches the metar's information then they hadnt really "solved it" in my opinion.  Let me know if this was not the case.

I really didnt like the Metar based weather systems in X-plane that would globally transition the entire sky to match a new Metar when you entered the area of influence and I would hope we dont end up with something like that in MSFS.  REX is awful for the same reason.  I'm away from home for a few weeks so haven't been able to experience the new issues myself, but if the haze transition pops are as bad as people describe then we still have a ways to go.  It sounds like it just the haze that is popping in at the moment?

This is a pretty challenging project.  Unless AS works in a way other than what I'm projecting from the way its being described, no one has actually successfully tackled this problem yet.  If that is the case, I'm willing to cut MS/Asobo a little slack to work the issue.

 

Edited November 21, 20214 yr by VFXSimmer

MSFS METAR VS my balcony right now.

Visibility, haze, sky color, illumination are totally different and I continue to think that there is no improvement whatsoever with the "new weather system". It is exactly as it was before SU7, plus the sudden transitions and the clouds on the ground.

 

1 minute ago, MrFuzzy said:

MSFS METAR VS my balcony right now.

Visibility, haze, sky color, illumination are totally different and I continue to think that there is no improvement whatsoever with the "new weather system". It is exactly as it was before SU7, plus the sudden transitions and the clouds on the ground.

 

Are you next to an airport such that a Metar sample point is influencing the data of the sim at that location?  Of would this just be coming from the prediction model?

1 minute ago, VFXSimmer said:

Are you next to an airport such that a Metar sample point is influencing the data of the sim at that location?  Of would this just be coming from the prediction model?

It shows the METAR of Al Maktoum airport (11 nm). The weather is the same... other angle, showing totally different visibility (I can't see the Burj Khalifa from here today, I can in the sim):