Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Gilandred

Is it time to Outsource Weather Integration?

Recommended Posts

18 hours ago, March Hare said:

what does it do better and how?

In addition to what's already been summed up excellently by Ralf9636, just the general accuracy of depicted weather. 

99% of the time, if I loaded up the sim at the airport a couple miles from my house, and looked outside my window while flying over my house, I saw pretty much the same weather conditions. If it was storming outside, it was storming in p3d. And the intensity matched too; if we were under a severe storm warning, I was in for a rocky ride in the sim. If it was just a gentle rain with a bit of lightning/thunder, that's what I saw in the sim too.

 

Thus far Meteoblue's integration has failed to impress in that category when compared with AS.  I kinda dismiss the visual stuff, not because it isn't serious but because I think that'll get fixed. But I'm not convinced that Meteoblue's weather reporting is as good, or perhaps it's that MSFS isn't as good at interpreting weather reporting, as AS was in p3d. Hopefully I'll eventually be proven wrong.

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, JRBarrett said:

They not only move with the wind, but you can see individual clouds smoothly and continuously grow and expand, or shrink and dissipate as they move. I have also seen low level clouds move in one direction with prevailing winds, while higher clouds move a different direction. This is very common in r/w weather, since wind direction shifts with increasing altitude, and it points to the fact that in Live Weather, multiple wind layers can exist and be active simultaneously, even when the aircraft is still on the ground - something that does not happen in previous MS sims. It appears that the weather injection is interwoven with the core graphics engine of the sim in a way that goes above and beyond what has been done before, and that the entire atmospheric emulation (from the surface to high altitude) is much more complex - and probably tightly linked to the internal structure of MeteoBlue’s proprietary weather model.

The ability of clouds to grow and expand is indeed nice, but this is something that was already introduced in basic form in FS2004 ("Dynamic weather change"), although it happened mostly with FS' own weather, not live weather.

As far as clouds moving in different directions at different altitudes, I did a test in P3Dv4 and created two different wind layers with different directions and placed a cloud layer within each wind layer. And what did I see?  The clouds moved in different directions with the wind. As such, I don't see what is so super complex about the MSFS weather engine that HiFi would have a serious issue with. 

Also, I can't help to think how this complexity goes in vain when I see some pictures of the pixelated and grainy clouds from SU7 that have been posted on the MSFS forum. This is something that should be worked on first IMO.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, eslader said:

99% of the time, if I loaded up the sim at the airport a couple miles from my house, and looked outside my window while flying over my house, I saw pretty much the same weather conditions.

Funny thing is, this is my experience with MSFS, where I live. Whereas others say not so much for where they are. But it's always, so far, matched the conditions in my hometown. So the accuracy, or maybe the latency, of data must vary by location.

To be honest, the sim has always been more accurate for my locality than any weather forecast I've seen on TV 😅

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/21/2021 at 3:50 PM, fogboundturtle said:

I just never could understand the amount of drama that gets generated every day. They did this Metar integration as a first step of many steps to address the weather.  We just need to be a bit more patient.

I'm with you foggy.  The hysteria here is palpable--which ironically is a testimony to just how good and engaging MSFS is already, a grand total of 1.3y since release.  Patience is called for instead of the 'off with their heads!' I hear, or 'maybe it's time to outsource X'.  I for one of many I'm sure have no interest in repeating the installation garbage with having everything 3rd partied to death ala FSX/P3D.  Give it some time--the weather engine is moving along well and needs tuning.  They have the resources to do it very well and you can rest assured if MS/A feels they need add'l technical support they will absolutely go get it.  Patience is the name of the game, that and valium if you can't cope w/ the inevitable hiccoughs that happen in this aggressive development project.

  • Like 5

Noel

System:  9900K@5.0gHz@1.23v all cores, MSI MPG Z390M GAMING EDGE AC, Noctua NH-D15S w/ steady supply of 40-60F ambient air intake, Corsair Vengeance 32Gb LPX 3200mHz DDR4, Sabrent NVMe 2Tb x 2, RTX 4090 FE, Corsair RM 850W PSU, Win10 Pro, LG Ultra Curved Gsync Ultimate 3440x1440, TCA Boeing Edition Yoke & TQ, Cessna Trim Wheel, RTSS Framerate Limiter w/ Edge Sync for near zero Frametime Variance achieving ultra-fluid animation at lower frame rates.

Aircraft used in A Pilot's Life V2:  PMDG 738, Aerosoft CRJ700, FBW A320NX, WT 787X

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They have definitely done something to improve the haze depiction (except in those cases where it is actually caused by a cloud incorrectly sitting on the ground). I did a flight from my home airport KELM to KCLT this afternoon and back. This was after the Live Weather servers came back online (they were off for a few hours earlier). No problems with excessive haze anywhere. Ground visibility was about 20 miles at both KELM and KCLT, (METAR was 10 at both airports). In flight visibility at FL320/310 was about 80 miles. It was not a good day to look at Live Weather clouds, as the entire east coast is under the influence of high pressure after a cold front passed yesterday evening, and there were very few clouds anywhere - either in the sim or in the real world ( looking at satellite photos). 

Descending into KELM right before sunset was breathtaking. There was an actual (thin) broken layer at about 11,000 feet which was well depicted. That must have been coming from the MB model, because the METAR at KELM was CLR, but I could see the actual cloud layer looking out my bedroom window, so the model captured it well.

But the thing that blew my mind was the light haze layer that filled the river valleys (and only the valleys), which was highlighted by the low setting sun. This is very characteristic of this area in early evening when the wind is calm, and this is the first time I have ever seen it accurately depicted in any sim

Edited by JRBarrett
  • Like 5

Jim Barrett

Licensed Airframe & Powerplant Mechanic, Avionics, Electrical & Air Data Systems Specialist. Qualified on: Falcon 900, CRJ-200, Dornier 328-100, Hawker 850XP and 1000, Lear 35, 45, 55 and 60, Gulfstream IV and 550, Embraer 135, Beech Premiere and 400A, MD-80.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/22/2021 at 6:49 AM, Gilandred said:

I agree with you, and I wasn’t suggesting that even if others were.  I’m thinking in terms of MS hiring WT to improve the core aspects of the base sim.  Instead this would be weather focused.

From what I understand, currently WT are improving avionics using what Asobo built. They’re not writing core sim code. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, NZ255 said:

From what I understand, currently WT are improving avionics using what Asobo built. They’re not writing core sim code. 

Correct. And WT are still reliant on Asobo's assistance, experience, guidance, expertise, and their coding to ultimately integrate the improvements into the core. I know Matt had nothing but praise for Asobo, and was thanking them for all their help, similar to PMDG recently thanking the Asobo dev team for helping them solve issues they couldn't themselves, even at all hours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think people need to be aware of how metars are disseminated these days.

Metars used to include cloud types and amounts in octas (8th's) of sky coverage. E.G 2sc020 5cu050 7ac090.

This would have enabled the weather to be very accurate as both amounts and different cloud types could have been injected into the sim.

Unfortunately, IMO, this changed some years ago to just state the cloud coverage and no cloud types are given. e.g. few020 sct050 bkn090 .

  Therefore, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to allocate a cloud type for a given level of cloud coverage.

As an ex pilot/ATC and met observer, the current system is not as accurate as it once was. 

I find the new sim weather to be very good given the above restraints. My only minor gripe is that the level of clouds seems to be based on AMSL and not AGL. Anyway, it makes for some interesting approaches !

Edited by petejohno1
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Tom Allensworth,
    Founder of AVSIM Online


  • Flight Simulation's Premier Resource!

    AVSIM is a free service to the flight simulation community. AVSIM is staffed completely by volunteers and all funds donated to AVSIM go directly back to supporting the community. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. Thank you for your support!

    Click here for more information and to see all donations year to date.
×
×
  • Create New...