19 minutes ago, spitzer45 said:

After Xbox version release sim visuals have been degraded with every updates

Nope. Any degradation were bugs that have been fixed.

Also, this thread is not talking about visuals.

Edited January 8, 20224 yr by Tuskin38

54 minutes ago, Maxis said:

Apart from being unnecessarily argumentative ?

??? Nothing about their post was argumentative.

  

3 hours ago, ADamiani said:

maybe ps5 included)

lmao heck no. This is a a first party Microsoft project, they'll never put it on playstation.

  

3 hours ago, ADamiani said:

Too bad it is not the case with MSFS.

That's an opinion not everyone shares.

Edited January 8, 20224 yr by Tuskin38

https://www.meteoblue.com/en/blog/article/show/39819_meteoblue+weather+in+new+Microsoft+Flight+Simulator2020

This is what we were promised 18 months ago.   Does it live up to these expectations?  

44 minutes ago, Tuskin38 said:

Nope. Any degradation were bugs that have been fixed.

Also, this thread is not talking about visuals.

Are you sure they are fixed?

Pixelated and grainy clouds... 

Clouds sitting on ground... 

 

 

Edited January 8, 20224 yr by spitzer45

3 hours ago, spitzer45 said:

Pixelated and grainy clouds... 

I've seen pixelated and grainy clouds since launch on PC -- sometimes, but not other times. I think it depends how much is being rendered at any time, suggesting use of a scaling method, which makes sense.

Also, I've been obviously lucky not to see clouds on the ground since this week's update, so at least there's progress, if not entirely resolved.

 

Edited January 8, 20224 yr by March Hare

Re opening up the weather via SDK, I still think (logically) the main reason this isn't happening is due to contractual agreements and protection of IP. I don't see that changing.

Either way, I want Asobo to develop and improve their weather engine. I have paid for their weather -- a core feature, too, not an optional nicety. I don't want to pay for third-party software to replace it. It would be a bad business model where a publisher says, thanks for your money, and by the way it doesn't work properly, and we can't be bothered to do anything about it, but don't worry because you can pay a different company more money soon for the same feature done better.

No. If Asobo thought they couldn't do the weather themselves in partnership with Meteoblue, and Meteoblue somehow knew less about weather than modders, and the modders somehow could jump in right now and somehow understand Asobo's rendering code better than themselves and turn it all around in the click of their fingers, and   Microsoft shared the same dim view of Asobo and Meteoblue, then they may as well pack up their bags now and leave.

But I would then want to see all the modders come together and see them build their own simulator from scratch and see how they get on developing something like that from the ground up, not using a SDK.

The OP proposition was about the evolution of the weather engine and a possible cause thereof.

Evolution there is, everybody can agree here. And since SU5 so-called « optimization »  and caricaturally after SU7 the evolution doesn’t go in the right direction. Like quite a few other things in this sim. And we have a good idea why. And I don’t think it is cost cutting , at least at this stage.

Now, what do we want from here weather-wise ? With Meteo Blue, Asobo has developed an original way to depict the weather and we have seen its potential. Let them dvelve on it instead of working on API. I have nothing against  3rd party products but Asobo weather team should focus on their baby instead of spending time to raise somebody else’s baby. 

Let me blunt. And selfish (aren’t we all ?) Should the weather development being constrained by the few tens simmers who use Foreflight ? By the few hundreds MSFS simmers who use Vatsim ? Nope, I don’t think so. I am not expecting MSFS to work like P3D, to look like P3D (hopefully!), to use the same addons. Should we loudly demand a decent weather and planning UI in the Meteo Blue sim environment, you bet we should ! 

The SDK ? Ah the SDK ! We see again here those who since before release were criticizing  ASoBo for an incomplete and undocumented SDK. No complex addon was possible they were saying then. We have seen an explosion of free and payware ! A vivid illustration of an old saying : A bad workman always blames his tools ! 

5 hours ago, Tuskin38 said:

 

That's an opinion not everyone shares.

True, just my opinion. And that of a growing number of users.

There is a good consensus about the non-existent pre release quality control of this title. 

A.

There's nothing wrong with giving way to those who know how to do it better.

They promised a lot of things, probably way too many for their true capacity to comply, and they allow 3pds to add aircraft and scenery, assets, so why not weather too ?

The answer is made of three capital letters - S - D - K....

Aircraft dvelopers already stated the SDK needs further enhencemens because otherwise they will have difficulty porting their creations from other platforms or simply building new ones from scratch for MFS. Scenery has a canned solution that facilitates super-fast production, weather appears to be the poor sibling... Open it !

They can revert back to their initial model with just Meteobue global forecast data, and open the SDK for interactions that may create a proper blend between model and other types of forecast and observation as well.

40 minutes ago, Anatoli-Kagari9 said:

There's nothing wrong with giving way to those who know how to do it better.

There's certainly nothing wrong with opening up an area of the software to modding -- if they can contractually do that, which it appears they can't.

But the modders know how to do it better in what way? They know how to develop the same, in ways radically different, type of weather engine that Asobo are working on but also better than they're doing it? Or do they know how to do things the same way they've been doing it for years, and is that same old way better in every way? Or isn't Asobo's weather system already better in some ways than existing weather mods, even if it currently falls short in certain other ways?

Better is a variable and subjective word. This is evident from the disagreements across this and other forums, where I'll see Real Pilot 1 say this aspect is completely wrong, then Real Pilot2 steps in and says actually it's entirely accurate -- then Professional Meterologist  steps in to say that, knowing what he knows about weather, no developer has a chance of getting a weather system absolutely accurate.

8 hours ago, Noel said:

They stated publicly they would not abandon 'hardcore simmers'.  Seems too early to write that statement off just because they also are developing the console side as well. 

Too early after 16 months and at least two crippling updates? After seeing that they nerfed the game to make it fit in the limits of a console?

They stated publicly that they would not abandon "hardcore simmers". Right. Then in the first 16 months they went the other way.

Developing the console version side by side is ok. What's happening here is something else. 

A.

7 hours ago, Maxis said:

Huh ?

What point are you even trying to make ? Apart from being unnecessarily argumentative ?

You know what ? let me not comment further because id like to keep my forum membership.

The whole irony of this is when this sim was released i was on your side .... Then i saw how absolutely NAUSEATING BOTH SIDES of the commentary have become in regards to this sim.

 

The ignore list is getting filled fast.

My side? What is it all about? 

The point I am trying to make is that I am sure that what we are seeing here is not what Asobo wanted. And that if Asobo could develop the product on their own we would probably have the Flight Simulator of our dreams.

I am afraid this is not going to happen, because MS have other plans.

What's nauseating in this?

A.

15 minutes ago, ADamiani said:

My side? What is it all about

he  has  you on his ignore  list  so don't  know  why  you  even  bothered  to reply  to him

I think there is a bit of confusion between METARS and Meteoblue.

METARS are not forecasts.  They are what was observed by either a person or instruments at the time on the metar.  They are not forecasts they are what is there at that time.

Meteoblue takes observations both from the surface, balloons and satellite observations and runs that data through complex computer programs on supercomputers to give a model of what they think will be the conditions at a place and time from surface to the upper atmosphere.  It is a forecast and not reality.

If the Metoblue forecast was accurate there would be little difference between METAR observations and Meteoblue predictions.

Sadly what is in the crystal ball is not always perfect (understandable) and the way the MSFS backroom programs place the data is not always right.  Some errors have included things like confusing MSL and Airport height, Magnetic and True directions for winds, confusion between Metres and feet and most signifigent time.

I have seen by using data that is on the Public Meteoblue site that often the METAR and the forecast correspond well but the sim shows totally different conditions for the location.

This seems to be that the forecast used in the sim is not synced well with the Meteoblue time.  Using a 12 hr shift would be totally useless as weather is a constantly changing phenomena.

The problem is not really a visual one.  Yes their depictions of clouds may be prettier but that will eventually happen though it may be third parties that handle this. I am more concerned with winds and the heights clouds are at.  These affect whether it is even legal to fly a flight as a vfr flight cannot even take off in IFR conditions.

Winds affect the direction of landing an take off and as we do not fly alone (and I include AI aircraft in the us) we cannot just take or land the way we want.  We even fly with those on other sims when we fly in say VATSIM so we all must fly in similar conditions and this is easiest as real time,  Winds at varying altitude must be right as in real life they try to make planes carry as much freight as possible and this must be balanced against the fuel used.  If there are tail winds this can make a big difference between the freight that can be carried as the aircraft can carry less fuel to do a trip.  That means the model must be reasonably accurate.

Fortunately it seems there is now a little realism of this with Microsoft and it seems that they are using data with more data points and closer to real time than they were.  I hope this improvement is real and not just the flights I have selected today.

 Just to get rid of this Metar versus Meteoblue thing.  If the right points have been included in the sim at the right time and the meteoblue forecast model is correct there will be no difference between the Metar at a place and what is in the sim.  Not an easy task to achieve with models but possible and I would consider essential if MS wants to say this is a sim with realism.

 

 

 

I said elsewhere the problems appear to be a combination of data quality and bugs. The bugs are slowly being resolved, and the data is perhaps improving for some parts of the world. Here, the Meteoblue forecasting has always agreed with what I'm seeing outside.

I couldn't possibly comment on Metars, though, other than I have seen pilots posting that they have been at airports where the Metar doesn't even match what they're seeing -- so are Metars even always accurate? Not according to a couple of pilots posting on the official forum. So how can a developer ever get this "right"? It must be mindboggling, especially dealing with conflicting feedback during beta from real pilots who can't agree on how accurate the winds/turbulence depiction is over certain mountainous regions.

I don't envy Asobo trying to sort this out.

Edited January 8, 20224 yr by March Hare