7 minutes ago, bean_sprout said:

Last vid.  But he says not enough time alot.

Link to the vid with an elapsed-time-in reference.  I am likely not the only one here that would like to see and hear the full context.

They’ll work it out. It’s an iterative process.

8 minutes ago, fogboundturtle said:

Are you saying because I am not crying bloody murder that I am a casual flight simmer ? 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.

Lovely.

bs

6 minutes ago, bean_sprout said:

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.

Frankly, we had better live weather with the release of FSX.  And 3rd party providers later provided well more advanced tech and improvements,  How many years ago were each of those separately.  Please don't exclaim out that this is a totally new simulation.  It shares a significant set of internal characteristics with FSX and prior.  There is a world of developed capability that was, I will be kind here, overlooked.  It is now 15 months after release.....  Little more can be now argued.

It is time to open the SDK vault!

 

Edited November 21, 20214 yr by fppilot

Regardless the depictions suked.  I LUV MSFS  weather in its infant state.

bs

7 hours ago, Gilandred said:

Perhaps I’m overreacting

Most definately.

23 minutes ago, fogboundturtle said:

Are you saying because I am not crying bloody murder that I am a casual flight simmer ? 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.

Meh, take it that way if you want.

I don't think it's "drama" to expect the sim that we paid for well over a year ago to be much further ahead in a fundamental aspect such as weather.

While there is a lot to enjoy with MSFS and the pipeline of upcoming features is exciting, this sim should be much more stable and developed than it currently is.

20 minutes ago, bean_sprout said:

I LUV MSFS  weather in its infant state.

So.  The link and timescale to what you referenced for a HF?

It doesn't matter.

bs

1 minute ago, bean_sprout said:

It doesn't matter.

Fully expected....

8 hours ago, Gilandred said:

Without Asobo we wouldn’t even have MSFS, so I am grateful to them for that at least.  However, as time goes on, their limitations and/or understanding of fundamentals are becoming more of a hindrance than benefit.  I said in another thread that I believe this is a leadership issue.  If Asobo can’t deliver the goods, find someone who can.  A bit harsh perhaps, but that’s business.

Somehow i just keep thinking that there simply must be a native French member with dyslexia trying to write in English in the team.

But then again....it's all code where the, sometimes silly, mistakes must be coming from.

Edited November 22, 20214 yr by Wildblue

5 hours ago, B777ER said:

If Asobo would bring HiFi to work in collaboration, it would be brilliant. But they refuse, likely because they signed a deal with Meteoblue. HiFi has years and years experience with this and Meteoblue/Asobo doesn't and it clearly shows. Pity that as far as weather in the Sim goes, the professionals are sidelined and we must deal with amateurs. 

MeteoBlue are not “amateurs”. They are an experienced and highly regarded professional weather forecasting organization, which started in the department of meteorology at the  University of Basel in Switzerland, and went commercial in 2006. There is nothing essentially wrong with the data they produce - the problem is how it is being integrated into the flight sim environment - and that aspect is primarily Microsoft and Asobo’s responsibility. Microsoft for operating the server infrastructure that feeds the data to MSFS clients and Asobo for making it work in the sim itself.

There is no question that HiFi are experts on how to integrate weather data from disparate sources into a flight simulator - but their expertise in in FSX, P3D and X-Plane. The techniques they use in those platforms will not work in MSFS. As much as everyone would like the weather system to be “opened up to outside developers” I don’t think that is ever going to happen. Doing so would probably require access to the internals and source code of the sim itself as well as MeteoBlue’s intellectual property, which Microsoft would be in no position to offer to an outside developer. 

Some basic sim weather parameters can be accessed via standard simconnect variables - (things like wind, temperature and pressure), but clouds and precipitation are likely being done in a very different way than any previous MS sim.

Rex found a way to inject clouds into the sim with their METAR-based software,  but they are doing so by hacking into the memory space of the running flightsim process, and though it does succeed in injecting surface weather and clouds, it completely disables all other Live Weather features as a consequence.

I suspect that the only way that Damian or other HiFi developers could gain access to the internals of the sim (and MeteoBlue’s proprietary data) to contribute directly to improving Live Weather (as currently implemented) would be if Asobo hired them to work directly on MSFS as developer/consultants in the same way that the Working Title developers were brought onboard. That might well require that Damian give up HiFi as an independent for-profit third party add-on development company. 

26 minutes ago, JRBarrett said:

MeteoBlue are not “amateurs”

Is MeterBlue coding the integration?  Or merely providing the data feed that Asobo members are coding into the sim?  I ask that because I have been on occasion using Rex WF and Unreal Weather and it appears to me that clearly the issue in is integration, not supply of data.  And it is by no means consistent!  When one presents an issue, all three present an issue.

 

Edited November 22, 20214 yr by fppilot

Just tried a IFR flight in the CJ4 with RNAV approach reporting 200ft VVS with fog and mist just above freezing.... Got exactly that once on final. Was probably the best WX depiction have seen yet for an approach. Unfortunately it was scattered clouds and clear all the way up to the IAF, and once there, it was like a wall of black went up almost instantly like a curtain. Really interesting, hopefully they can refine this, and get some transition(s) interpolating nearby airports, and the destination data in your FP to adjust this further out...

Delete

 

Edited November 22, 20214 yr by KERNEL32