2 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

How is that better than Active Sky's historical weather option?

Well, if one is prepared to manually put the arrival weather in for MSFS by a quick look at a NOTAM and typing a few parameters into the sim whilst flying and not even having to reload the sim to see the change occur, then it's sixty quid better for a kick off. 😉

8 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

But no historical weather. So if I wish to depart KLAX at 10:00 local and I'm in the UK the weather injected will be that at 02:00. How is that better than Active Sky's historical weather option?

The concept of "historical weather" has always been pretty much a fabrication. So called "historical" data is a massive oversimplification of what weather is. 

So yeah, if you want to fly into a super-simplified mockup of weather with really bad transitions and interpolation, more power to you, but I most definitely consider it a big waste of money, especially considering the comparison with the complex (and consistently improving) simulation offered by live weather.

Edited March 29, 20224 yr by Abriael

25 minutes ago, abrams_tank said:

^^^^ This!!!

Absolutely agree with Krakin!  After you buy MSFS, you really don't have to buy any of the additional graphics add-ons, like better meshes, better lighting, better terrain, etc.  The default mesh, lighting, and terrain for MSFS is already really, really, good.  

This is the reality of it in spades--and it just keeps getting better.  I predict MSFS will morph towards a total global simulator over time, that 10y time frame.  After all, getting the SDK up to par is just a matter of time and much progress has already been made and updates happen frequently.  Where there is potential for 3rd party content may have to do w/ making MSFS more than 'only' a flight sim--instead, a total global sim:  birds, bird strikes, trains, more dynamic oceans/waves--life and activity happening all over.  These are well within reach and as hardware improves more complexity can be accomodated.  Here are some shots from FSBirds, of which I bought one geo segment as a trial.  These sorts of things add immersion and life to a flight simulation bigtime.  And this is why the migration out of P3D will only accelerate over time unless LM rethinks their archaic platform.

  

Edited March 29, 20224 yr by Noel

8 minutes ago, Abriael said:

The concept of "historical weather" has always been pretty much a fabrication. So called "historical" data is a massive oversimplification of what weather is. 

So yeah, if you want to fly into a super-simplified mockup of weather with really bad transitions and interpolation, more power to you, but I most definitely consider it a big waste of money, especially considering the comparison with the complex (and consistently improving) simulation offered by live weather.

I want real historical weather, where you type in 25 October 1415, and as you fly over the Pas-de-Calais, you see it chucking it down with rain and the Battle of Agincourt going on below you. 🤣

51 minutes ago, Noel said:

This is the reality of it in spades--and it just keeps getting better.  I predict MSFS will morph towards a total global simulator over time, that 10y time frame.  After all, getting the SDK up to par is just a matter of time and much progress has already been made and updates happen frequently.  Where there is potential for 3rd party content may have to do w/ making MSFS more than 'only' a flight sim--instead, a total global sim:  birds, bird strikes, trains, more dynamic oceans/waves--life and activity happening all over.  These are well within reach and as hardware improves more complexity can be accomodated.  Here are some shots from FSBirds, of which I bought one geo segment as a trial.  These sorts of things add immersion and life to a flight simulation bigtime.  And this is why the migration out of P3D will only accelerate over time unless LM rethinks their archaic platform.

Yup.  Microsoft is sitting on a golden egg right now.  The MSFS engine has so many uses. Like you mentioned, train simulator, truck simulator, etc.  If Microsoft can enhance the satellite & photogrammetry even more, such that everything at street level is very detailed and looks really good (right now, satellite & photogrammetry is not the best at street level), there is a huge application for the MSFS engine.  Look at the list of video games that take place in New York: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_video_games_set_in_New_York_City.  Now if Microsoft could have detailed ground level satellite & photogrammetry where it actually looks good at street level, the list of game companies that would line up to use the MSFS engine would be endless.  Think of the game companies making games that take place in New York, Tokyo, London, etc, they would definitely want something like an MSFS engine that is very detailed and looks good at the street level.  And it would be more than game companies, you would also have non-game companies interested in such an engine.  

Edited March 29, 20224 yr by Ray Proudfoot
Images in quoted post removed.

21 minutes ago, Chock said:

Well, if one is prepared to manually put the arrival weather in for MSFS by a quick look at a NOTAM and typing a few parameters into the sim whilst flying and not even having to reload the sim to see the change occur, then it's sixty quid better for a kick off. 😉

That's like going back 20 years before we had AS. You're clearly joking with your second post.

 

8 minutes ago, abrams_tank said:

If Microsoft can enhance the satellite & photogrammetry even more, such that everything at street level is very detailed and looks really good (right now, satellite & photogrammetry is not the best at street level), there is a huge application for the MSFS engine. 

Absolutely and this is the beauty of this architecture:  as satellite and photogrammetry imagery improves so goes the sim w/o a total re-write.  And now, here in first generation of streaming imagery, we already have this:  lil old Kansas City MO

Photo, or MSFS?

 

 

Edited March 29, 20224 yr by Noel

18 hours ago, Fatback said:

There are some good aircraft otw so I’m getting ready to move over. Guess I’ll need to buy a weather engine and some airports. How about mesh and other scenery addons? 

Welcome to the world...literally! Some great advice already in this thread, but if you have the space, install all the free World Updates in the in-sim Marketplace (which include updated DEM, scenery, POIs and photogrammetry) - then fly around the regions to see if you need any addons to layer on top.

And check out the monthly Dev Q&As on Twitch / Youtube, which are definitely worth a watch if you've got the time. Really fascinating to see some of the work under the hood, as well as previews of upcoming releases.

Developer Q&A Twitch Series: March 23rd, 2022 - YouTube  

Edited March 29, 20224 yr by DylanM

3 minutes ago, DylanM said:

install all the free World Updates in Content Manager (which include updated DEM, scenery, POIs and photogrammetry) -

These are in the Market Place, not the Content Manager! 

Kind regards, Michael

2 minutes ago, pmb said:

These are in the Market Place, not the Content Manager! 

Kind regards, Michael

Whoops - thanks (just finished an updated in Content Manager and the coffee hasn't kicked in yet..). Edited.

1 hour ago, Abriael said:

I absolutely advise against weather addons. MSFS's live weather is leagues better than anything they offer and it's constantly upgraded and improved. 

Mmmmmm....  not really.  If you're aware of aviation weather phenomenons...  such as having a visibility value in a METAR text - you'll know that Asobo has some work yet to do with the weather.  Active sky clearly wouldn't have MSFS-style clouds because it's an entirely new graphics engine, but they would have accurate cloud bases, the sky and visibility would correctly render per the METAR etc....  even enroute winds were very accurate.  

Also - the cloud rendering needs work...  we see a lot of that "volcanic ash" look often in MSFS.  Typically when too many clouds are present - they all shade each other, creating a very dark appearance.  Additionally, they are very general in type of cloud - they tend to just be a bunch of puffs with no real cloud structure.  Finally, when viewing the MSFS clouds up close they are fuzzy/soft.  While clouds irl can look similar - they also look very crisp and defined.  I'm not talking about far away - cause the clouds look pretty good when you have a zoomed out screenshot of layers etc.  I'm saying up close...have you ever flown up close to a cumulus cloud?  They are very detailed.  This detail is incredibly lacking up close in the sim.

2 hours ago, Gnak26 said:

Moreover, as far as i know the world updates are managed through the content manager so you can decide when to download them in the sim. I ususally install the world updates as soon as they are available but I think you can delay what is delivered through the content manager and download it when you want.

I’m aware those are optional. I was referring to the sim updates which aren’t.

17 minutes ago, ryanbatc said:

Mmmmmm....  not really.  If you're aware of aviation weather phenomenons...  such as having a visibility value in a METAR text - you'll know that Asobo has some work yet to do with the weather.  Active sky clearly wouldn't have MSFS-style clouds because it's an entirely new graphics engine, but they would have accurate cloud bases, the sky and visibility would correctly render per the METAR etc....  even enroute winds were very accurate.  

Also - the cloud rendering needs work...  we see a lot of that "volcanic ash" look often in MSFS.  Typically when too many clouds are present - they all shade each other, creating a very dark appearance.  Additionally, they are very general in type of cloud - they tend to just be a bunch of puffs with no real cloud structure.  Finally, when viewing the MSFS clouds up close they are fuzzy/soft.  While clouds irl can look similar - they also look very crisp and defined.  I'm not talking about far away - cause the clouds look pretty good when you have a zoomed out screenshot of layers etc.  I'm saying up close...have you ever flown up close to a cumulus cloud?  They are very detailed.  This detail is incredibly lacking up close in the sim.

Having some work yet to do doesn't mean the live weather isn't already miles ahead of anything injected solutions can offer. Which it is. 

We're talking of 20 years of technology gap, with the consequent difference in complexity between an approximation based on semi-baked simplified data and an entirely dynamic solution. 

I entirely disagree with basically every point of your assessment. Let's not even get into comparing how the clouds look, because that wouldn't even be fair.

 

 

Edited March 29, 20224 yr by Abriael

8 minutes ago, Abriael said:

 

I entirely disagree with basically every point of your assessment. Let's not even get into comparing how the clouds look, because that wouldn't even be fair.

 

 

You disagree with my fact based post?  I accept your disagreement.  Happy flying!

Just now, ryanbatc said:

You disagree with my fact based post?  I accept your disagreement.  Happy flying!

Ah yeah, the usual claim of "fact." 😂 Happy flying to you sir.