It's been half a year since 5.3 came out

[micstatic 4,316]

5 hours ago, Multisim said:

Then you can manually set the weather to be 30 miles of visibility and nice warm temps. Done. Takes about 20 seconds. I've been simming for my entire life and I (and most other people) never understood this obsession for historical weather. It seems to be some old "I did so in FS9 so I must continue to do so forever" kind of thing. There are better ways to achieve the weather you like these days. And we all know that if MSFS implements this, you'll just find something else to complain about. Complaining in about historical weather in a thread that was supposed to be about the lack of P3D releases is kind of silly.

You've been doing flight sims your whole life yet think setting the weather for one spot at one time will realistically work for an entire flight?  You can make the case that users who want/need historical weather is small.  That's fine.  But to pitch your fix without realizing that would in no way work... I'm not sure how to reply to that.  

[Mace 1,902]

3 hours ago, micstatic said:

You've been doing flight sims your whole life yet think setting the weather for one spot at one time will realistically work for an entire flight?  You can make the case that users who want/need historical weather is small.  That's fine.  But to pitch your fix without realizing that would in no way work... I'm not sure how to reply to that.  

Probably because he was here to troll, not give any sort of civil-spirited information.  I thought we had eradicated the sim-zealots last year?

I genuinely WANT to know, if I can set a wx scenario and have it then read the 1pm weather, and then the 2pm weather (if I'm doing a 2 hour flight, for example).  What I don't want is static weather, which yes, I've known how to do that in that sim since...August 2020.   It'd only take about 20 seconds to answer me.  But if someone can't help themselves but to overreact, I'll just have to content myself with asking the question in another forum.

[abrams_tank 7,393]

7 hours ago, dave2013 said:

Well, that was over the top and unwarranted.  I didn't attack MSFS or insult anybody.

I was simply very surprised that the head developer/manager over there at ASOBO doesn't seem to understand how important historical weather, which also updates in real time based on location, date, and time, is for a flight simulator.

I was under the impression, based on videos and statements by a lot of folks at ASOBO, that a lot of the crew there are flightsim enthusiasts themselves and therefore understand what our desires are.

Dave

So I want to correct some misinformation in this thread. First and foremost, my understanding is that Jorg, the head of MSFS and representative of Microsoft, simply asked why the community wanted historical weather. This is a fair question for Jorg to ask.  Jorg didn't say he wouldn't do it, he was just asking for the reasons, which is a fair question to ask.

Why is it a fair question to ask?  Because the thread to upvote historical weather in MSFS only has 300 votes as of this time: https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/historic-weather-as-second-timeline/213758.  By my count, it's the 60th most upvoted wishlist item.  And this after a huge discussion about it in the MSFS forums last month, which helped it to get more upvotes (at the time the discussion began, it only had 266 upvotes). 

I don't use historical weather myself in MSFS, but I did upvote this feature, because there is so much bickering about it here in the Avsim forum, so I am one of the 300 votes that upvoted it.

The point is though, historical weather is not a widely sought after feature in MSFS, despite the number of hard core simmers that use MSFS.  And by "hard core simmer," I am referring to the latest Navigraph survey from December.  In my opinion, Navigraph users are definitely "hard core simmers," especially when they are willing to pay for a Navigraph subscription. And by far, most Navigraph survey users use MSFS, as per the last Navigraph December survey, so you can say that most "hard core simmers" are using MSFS right now (FYI, this is one of my definitions of a "hard core simmer" and I think the Navigraph data is objective - however, I don't want to argue this point, you may disagree with me, that's fine).

Now note that some wishlist items get over 1000 votes. In fact, the top wishlist item is for a weather API for WASM got 2188 votes: https://forums.flightsimulator.com/c/self-service/wishlist/163/l/latest?order=votes (and Microsoft/Asobo will be exposing the bitmaps for the weather API for WASM in the net Sim Update, I believe, so those 2188 votes accomplished something).  So the fact that there are so many "hard core simmers" using MSFS, but the wishlist item for historical weather only has 300 votes (266 votes before we had the huge discussion about it in the MSFS forums a few months ago) and it's the 60th upvoted feature wish, simply means historical weather is not a widely sought after feature.  IMO, if you want to get Microsoft/Asobo's attention on historical weather, get it into the top 5 upvoted feature wish, which would require probably over 1200 votes.

TLDR: Even the "hard core simmers" in MSFS aren't upvoting the historical weather wishlist item and it has a pitiful 300 upvotes now and it's the 60th most upvoted feature wish, compared with the top upvoted items.  No wonder why Jorg was asking why the community wants historical weather (and FYI, I am one of the 300 upvotes for this feature, despite the fact that I don't use it either).

PS. Adding historical weather to MSFS shouldn't be a technical issue, as I outlined here and here, provided there are some compromises. So I don't foresee major technical hurdles to add historical weather, the biggest hurdle is galvanizing the community to upvote this in the wishlist forum.

Edited June 20, 2022 by abrams_tank

[d.tsakiris 417]

Be that as it may: Even if a lot of "hardcore simmers" (for whatever that's worth, like you said) aren't interested in it, it doesn't disqualify the aspect "historical weather" from being a sim prerequisite to some of us. Of course, it that case it would also make sense for the MSFS devs to concentrate on more “pressing” matters, but as long as they do that, MSFS just won’t be a fully “legitimate” alternative for some of us.

Now, does that mean MSFS isn’t the perfect sim some want it to be? Yes, but why not just acknowledge that like a grown-up and enjoy your favorite sim anyway? No sim is perfect, nor will there ever be a perfect sim. (Not directed at you, abrams_tank)

Edited June 20, 2022 by d.tsakiris

[Ray Proudfoot 8,931]

I can’t remember when historical weather first became available in Active Sky for P3D. I wonder why Hi-Fi decided to include it. Was it their own idea or customers asking for it. If anyone from them is reading this it would be interesting to know.

[VHOJT 167]

What really gets my goat is: when some users say a feature is important to them, some other ones have to come in and say "that's not important".

And to anyone seriously suggesting custom weather is a serious subsititue for historical weather, honestly, go and educate yourself on what weather actually is.

There are plenty of good reasons why historical weather is extermely useful in a sim, as you can read on the MSFS thread or here.

[Juliett Alfa Romeo 519]

One can only hope that most Fenix and PMDG users will come to the conclusion that "day flying" with night temperatures (and vice versa) makes no sense. It happened to me and that's why I use HW. It was like a revelation...

Until then...

PS: but I also ask: what is the problem with the self-titled """""""multi"""""""sim, whether I use MSFS or not... I use it if I want to, and if I don't... I don't use it. As I mentioned several posts back, I have everything I need in P3D, what I was (and am) investigating is if for me it's worth making the jump. If in my opinion it's not worth it (yet) what's the problem, am I offending anyone!!!?

Same thing as Ray Proudfoot once he has Concorde on version 5 or 6. what is the problem?!? is Ray insulting someone by saying that a certain feature that is needed is not available in MSFS... who is offended by this...!?

No Prepar3D user is "offended" by MSFS graphics (which is what makes the overwhelming majority use that software). It is a fact that graphically it is superior, just as it is a fact that currently its weather system does not suit some of us.

 

Edited June 20, 2022 by Juliet Alpha

[Ray Proudfoot 8,931]

Well said @Juliet Alpha. I’ll never criticise those who move to MSFS. It’s a personal decision and nothing to do with me. If I moved over I would lose a very good ATC program in Radar Contact, not be able to fly a FSL Concorde for a long time and be stuck with live weather for my time zone irrespective of where I fly in the world.

Those are 3 red lines for me. Until the advantages of MSFS outweigh the disadvantages of P3D it’s not a difficult decision to stay with P3D.

I find it hard to understand those hard-core simmers who subscribe to Navigraph which makes them serious users but aren’t bothered about the accuracy of the weather once they’re flying well away from where they live. Once you’re airborne the weather is surely the most important feature.

No one has mentioned them yet but I wonder if Hi-Fi can continue to exist when they’re denied access into the MSFS weather engine. Sales of AS must have plummeted. It would be a huge shame were they to go out of business.

[d.tsakiris 417]

17 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

It would be a huge shame were they to go out of business.

Oh yes...

[Juliett Alfa Romeo 519]

I use Pro-ATC-X and their developer said they are working on a completely new version for MSFS, which is good news.

Will """""""""multi""""""""sim suggest that I can use MSFS default ATC in the meantime?

 

[neilhewitt 493]

2 hours ago, abrams_tank said:

so I am one of the 300 votes that upvoted it

I was vote #300 last night. I also want historical weather in MSFS, in fact it's critical for me to be able to fully use it as a platform. But as @abrams_tank points out, it's so low down the wishlist that the chances of the devs ever doing it are tiny, because it would be a lot of work. AIUI the live weather simulation runs in the cloud and the sim merely reads off the data to display it; so to have arbitrary historical live weather as with the 'live live' weather model, you'd either need to run a potentially huge number of weather sim instances in the cloud on demand, or find a way to run it at the sim PC. Weather generation based on historical METAR I could see happening and that would be basically feature parity with P3D + ActiveSky.

It is possible to inject weather into MSFS and change it over time. Rex Weather Force does it. They don't say how they do it, I suspect they are live-rewriting a static weather theme somehow, and apparently it's quite 'back-door' such that they have to fix it after every sim update, so one day it may break altogether, but so far it continues to work. I don't think it's as good as the live weather in-sim. They do at least provide weather themes that evolve over time (within limits) alongside their own purely METAR-based live weather system. However, they have been promising historical live weather for years and recently they claimed that it's almost ready. I think that's the only hope for historical weather in MSFS any time soon. 

Also, if Rex can do this, HiFi ought to be able to. 

1 hour ago, VHOJT said:

What really gets my goat is: when some users say a feature is important to them, some other ones have to come in and say "that's not important".

I think one of the reasons why there's so much vitriol over 'you don't need that feature' is that everyone knows the devs' time is limited (on any sim platform). If you don't think something is important, you want the devs to ignore it and work on the thing you care about instead. Like the people who used to pop up in the discussion about multiple monitors to say that 'VR is the only way' and hence multiple monitor support was a waste of time. This happens on every forum and every platform.

It is interesting that so many threads on the P3D forum end up becoming discussions about MSFS. I think it's because increasingly the P3D community is being defined in opposition to MSFS, as hold-outs standing against the inevitable tide, instead of just users of a different platform. I also see 'XP12' being bandied about on the MSFS forums almost as some kind of threat - 'I'm going to defect to XP12 because Asobo sucks!!!!!'. And of course here I am now continuing to keep the thread on MSFS instead of the original topic about what's going on with P3D, and I guess that's because the true answer to that question is 'little or nothing until LM tells us otherwise'. Is P3D 6 coming? 5.4? 5.5? I'm quite certain it is, this platform will live for as long as LM has commercial customers who want to use it. 

I mean, just use the sim you want to use. Or all of them. Right now I'm not using P3D but only because I demolished my main sim and set up a temporary simpit which I put MSFS on to try it out. It's fine. I like it, but not to the exclusion of P3D. Or indeed X-Plane 12 when it appears. 

[Ray Proudfoot 8,931]

6 minutes ago, neilhewitt said:

It is interesting that so many threads on the P3D forum end up becoming discussions about MSFS. I think it's because increasingly the P3D community is being defined in opposition to MSFS, as hold-outs standing against the inevitable tide, instead of just users of a different platform.

Speaking personally my choice of simulator is defined by the aircraft I want to fly. That is my top priority, not the quality or otherwise of the scenery.

Currently I’m flying the PMDG737-800 NGXu, Xtreme Prototypes Lear 25, Carenado PC12 and the Vertx DA-62 in P3D v5. I still have v3 for the 32-bit FSL Concorde. I have never taken to the Airbus. Too automated for me.

None of those is currently available in MSFS which is why I’m not interested in switching. I’ve been very clear over the last two years that I would only use MSFS for low-level VFR flights. My ‘serious’ IFR flights which compromise 80% of my flying are perfectly acceptable in P3D.

There’s nothing wrong with healthy discussion of the pros and cons of both MSFS and P3D here. I respect everyone who prefers MSFS and would hope they understand and respect my decision why I prefer to stay with the status quo.

[SimeonWilbury 220]

24 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Speaking personally my choice of simulator is defined by the aircraft I want to fly. That is my top priority, not the quality or otherwise of the scenery.

Currently I’m flying the PMDG737-800 NGXu, Xtreme Prototypes Lear 25, Carenado PC12 and the Vertx DA-62 in P3D v5. I still have v3 for the 32-bit FSL Concorde. I have never taken to the Airbus. Too automated for me.

None of those is currently available in MSFS which is why I’m not interested in switching. I’ve been very clear over the last two years that I would only use MSFS for low-level VFR flights. My ‘serious’ IFR flights which compromise 80% of my flying are perfectly acceptable in P3D

I'm not wholly dissimilar, the number 1 pre-requisite for me would probably be a high-fidelity 747-400, it makes up so much IFR flying for me I wouldn't see the point of having an IFR Sim without one.

Then add the upcoming FS Labs Concorde to that, the TFDI MD11 getting a P3D release and the fact that the P3D Versions of the PMDG 737 and Leonardo Maddog still work just fine for my purposes and the personal case for switching sim for me doesn't seem very strong; I'm already getting more or less what I want aircraft-wise and the same range won't be replicated on MSFS in the *near* future.

There will probably be a point where the balance is tipped enough for me to make the investment but at the moment I'm not interested until that point is reached. There's nothing in P3D that's particuarly broken that causes me significant inconvenience, and the visuals are good enough for my purposes.

I can fully see why an Airbus Pilot at the moment would be rushing for MSFS though, as the Fenix A320 looks (from purely an observer's perspective) to be offering great value for money compared to the FSLabs. I, however, am not an Airbus Pilot.

Of course I suspect these threads would be shorter and more pleasant to read if more people were capable of politely acknowledging differences of opinion, preference and priority without resorting to hostile rhetoric, but such is the world in which we live!

[Christopher Low 5,339]

I stayed with Flight Unlimited 3 until 2008 (when most of the world was in a Microsoft induced hypnotic trance), so sticking with the equivalent of Flight Unlimited Great Britain and Netherlands in P3Dv4 is not a difficult proposition.

[abrams_tank 7,393]

1 hour ago, neilhewitt said:

I was vote #300 last night. I also want historical weather in MSFS, in fact it's critical for me to be able to fully use it as a platform. But as @abrams_tank points out, it's so low down the wishlist that the chances of the devs ever doing it are tiny, because it would be a lot of work. AIUI the live weather simulation runs in the cloud and the sim merely reads off the data to display it; so to have arbitrary historical live weather as with the 'live live' weather model, you'd either need to run a potentially huge number of weather sim instances in the cloud on demand, or find a way to run it at the sim PC. Weather generation based on historical METAR I could see happening and that would be basically feature parity with P3D + ActiveSky.

I think if certain compromises are made, there can be a version of historical weather for MSFS.  If the people that want historical weather in MSFS are willing to accept the compromises, I certainly can see a version of historical weather in MSFS.  Such compromises would need to be made to lower the amount of data that is stored, which is the biggest sticking point.  For example, here is a list of compromises off the top of my head:

1. Multiple smaller areas can be amalgamated into a larger area, and only the historical data for the larger area is stored.
2. The average over multiple points in time can be used, and this average is stored.  For example, instead of storing all the weather data from 1 PM to 5 PM, perhaps an average is taken of the weather data from 1 PM to 5 PM, and only this average is stored.  This would save a lot of storage space.
3. With respect to points 1. and 2., perhaps the historical data for yesterday can be stored in higher resolution.  But as the time goes further out from today, the data that is stored has lower and lower resolution.  For example, if we go back to point 1., this means the amalgamated area for yesterday's data is a smaller area (thus the resolution is higher), but the amalgamated area from 1 week ago is a much larger area (thus the resolution is lower).
4. Historical data may only be stored for 1 week or 2 weeks. No historical data is kept after 1 week, or 2 weeks.

A lot of different ideas to save storage space can be used to implement a historical weather feature.  Of course, they are all compromises, with the goal to save on storage space.  But it's definitely feasible, IMO.

Historical METAR is interesting but I wonder where that data is stored and how much storage space this requires, for the entire world in MSFS. 

In any case, I think the first step is upvoting that wishlist thread on historical weather data.  Once it accumulates enough upvotes, I think it will get on the radar of Microsoft/Asobo.  With 300 upvotes and sitting in 60th place in the wishlist forum, I don't think that's high enough to get the attention of Microsoft/Asobo.