My flight from Jersey, CI (EGJJ) to Milan Malpensa encountered some serious weather soon after takeoff. Active Sky matches real world conditions perfectly.

Departed 08 EGJJ at 10:00Z on Sunday 15 May. Still plenty of life in 'defunct' P3D. And if you want to try this tomorrow you can because AS has historical weather.

Good one Ray. I would'nt regard P3D as defunct (tonque in cheek I am sure) by any measure! Still aircraft being made for it, still scenery being done for it and besides it all works and the only place I can see any difference is below 1000ft in a bug smasher.

Now did you go left or right to avoid that weather?

It was tongue in cheek as that’s how some have described this sim. 

At that stage of the flight I couldn’t request a deviation for wx. Radar Contact doesn’t allow that until you’re 30nm away. So I had to fly through it.

Once passed that point I did as there were still lots of CBs near Caan, France. That was approved much to the relief of my pax.

This replicates a real-life situation I experienced around 15 years ago. Shortly after takeoff from Malaga, Spain the flight deck ordered cabin crew to get seated and we flew through some extreme turbulence. Worst I’ve encountered.

But the aircraft handled it just fine as did mine this morning. The approach and landing is challenging for a southerly landing. Lots of fun!

3 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

And if you want to try this tomorrow you can because AS has historical weather.

For the last couple years, I've been using ActiveSky to save snapshots of particularly interesting weather--winter storms, hurricanes, large areas of IFR wx etc and I keep a small spreadsheet with notes (e.g. "winter storm--New England", "Cat II weather, 1/4 mi vis--Chicago).  So if I want to fly a challenging flight into low vis, high gusty winds, snow etc, I can load up one of those weather scenarios and have at it.

Hi. 

i have been using sky force but since the application has not been updated for a long time. Do you think if it is worth changing to active sky at this moment, especially for use with P3D V5.3 + EA

Thanks for the comments.

Regards.

@alox, you probably need to ask someone who runs with EA enabled. I don’t but am very happy with how the clouds are depicted. I’d never fly without AS/ASCA though.

Been using it for years.

I agree with Ray. I use EA on with no volumetric clouds. That just lets AS/ASCA do its thing and the results are extremely pleasing.

 

3 hours ago, IanHarrison said:

I agree with Ray. I use EA on with no volumetric clouds. That just lets AS/ASCA do its thing and the results are extremely pleasing.

 

Ian, that’s the opposite of what I have. EA Off. I don’t like the effect plus HDR being on makes virtual cockpits too dark plus the fps takes a hit.

7 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Ian, that’s the opposite of what I have. EA Off. I don’t like the effect plus HDR being on makes virtual cockpits too dark plus the fps takes a hit.

I didn't word it very well. I meant I agree with you about the realism of the clouds. The other comments were just for clarity.

I think, as with all things PC related, that the end result has to do with one's setup. You run 4k, I don't.

With EA and HDR, I see a tiny difference in FPS (perhaps 2 max.) EA off and HDR on turns my cockpit from PMDG Brown to "Airbus grey" but is much lighter.

EA on, which turns HDR on as well, gives me a slightly darker cockpit but I like the haze effect at altitude (I know you don't) on the ground it has no effect.

I always use cockpit lighting so it really makes no difference for me.

I suppose that's the fun of simming, you can do your own thing.🙂

@IanHarrison, thanks for clarifying. I’ve never tried HDR on but EA off. The cockpit of the Xtreme Prototypes Lear25 turns very dark and I haven’t been able to resolve it. Hence why I stick to both off.

Hey @Ray Proudfoot, I've been lurking on some of those MSFS threads and... if you're not bowing down to the almight MSFS and Asobo, while prasing it's glory (hallelujah), you're just as likely to be hung, drawn and quartered or burned at the stake, likely by the very same people who would have flown around in P3D with the lime green trees, 1024 textures etc. in P3Ds most base untuned form and then complain... 

I think you've shown amazing restraint despite the barbs thrown.

And yep historical weather is a must in my book, how else can challanges be repeated, plus it's nice with AS to download and save a particular date of weather.

I've a nice raining day @ Milford Sound NZ where ~1000mm fell in day, and also saved a rainy day at Uluru (Ayers Rock) which is a bit of a rare occurance.

Cheers

 

 

Looks like an interesting flight, Ray!

One thing I've always noticed with CBs/Activesky - they often look a bit clear underneath, rather than rainy and grey - anyone else notice this or have an idea how I can improve that?

PS hope all you fellows, if you are on the MSFS forum - have put a vote in for historical weather to be added to the sim.  I am staying with P3D until at least that basic issue is sorted - I have never had it work so well or look as good - I am finally a convert to EA (at day-time that is!  Night I go back to having it off as the nights are too bright with it).  Link is here if you'd like to put your vote to it: Historic Weather (as second timeline) - Community Support / Wishlist - Microsoft Flight Simulator Forums

 

 

1 hour ago, Rogen said:

I think you've shown amazing restraint despite the barbs thrown.

And yep historical weather is a must in my book, how else can challanges be repeated, plus it's nice with AS to download and save a particular date of weather.

Water off a duck’s back. 😉 It was explained in that topic why historical weather may not be possible unless significant changes were made. That requires sufficient numbers to request it. Maybe it’s not that important to users. Time will tell. I couldn’t even consider using it for serious IFR flights unless it was available.

Nice shot showing how much v5 scenery has improved. 👍

48 minutes ago, VHOJT said:

Looks like an interesting flight, Ray!

One thing I've always noticed with CBs/Activesky - they often look a bit clear underneath, rather than rainy and grey - anyone else notice this or have an idea how I can improve that?

It was for the first hundred miles. The storms abated by the time I was close to Paris.

I couldn’t see the CBs from lower levels as there was a lower cloud base. But once above that they look pretty realistic given they’re probably the hardest to design. In real life they look awesome and are my favourite cloud type. I keep EA off too as it helps to keep the sky a deep blue.

If you use ASP3D / ASCA use Full Dynamic in ASCA and try EA and HDR off.

9 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Nice shot showing how much v5 scenery has improved.

Ooo... that's actually a shot from v4.5, taken last night when I loaded my Ayers Rock rainy day weather.

Like a clasic 1500 HP burnout machine, it's amazing what the right stuff and tuning can get out of it 😄

Cheers