Also, on the Map view ( default "v" key ) you can over your cursor on any airport, click on it and read the METAR if one has been issued.

The SDK is being augmented with weather queries AFAIK, probably available after SU10 final, or already with it, not sure 😕

Edited August 14, 20223 yr by jcomm

6 minutes ago, jcomm said:

Also, on the Map view ( default "v" key ) you can over your cursor on any airport, click on it and read the METAR if one has been issued.

From the World Map view?

On 8/13/2022 at 9:49 PM, johnbow72 said:

I have used REX in the Sim in the past , but for me at least the WX engine is working just fine in the 

SU10 beta . 

That's great to hear - did they add cloud variations back again?

 

2 hours ago, Noel said:

From the World Map view?

Nope, of that I'm not sure. I meant the inflight Map View ( VFR Map as they call it )...

2 hours ago, aktorsyl said:

That's great to hear - did they add cloud variations back again?

 

Have not flown alot lately with our ongoing heat wave , so I have not noticed that aspect .

5 hours ago, aktorsyl said:

That's great to hear - did they add cloud variations back again?

 

Cloud variety is increasing and looks good.

The default weather engine has improved a lot.  I don't see too much need for 3rd party weather.

I only have two issues. One, a lack of high clouds... not the way they are depicted but the fact they just aren't there when they should be.   My second issue is lack of large cumulonimbus over the US.  Clouds only seem to have tops up to 15-20k but in reality a lot of the storms should be thick past 30k.  There is nothing to divert around because you are always above the clouds.  Every time I want to fly through a serious line of storms, the way they are depicted just isn't tall enough.

Weather depiction has always seemed to be better over Europe.

Those saying the current weather engine has improved a lot is either in denial or haven't used MSFS daily since 2020. At this point all I can do is laugh in despair.

28 minutes ago, SubtotalGuide said:

Those saying the current weather engine has improved a lot is either in denial or haven't used MSFS daily since 2020. At this point all I can do is laugh in despair.

There are aspects still lacking, and or requiring fine tunning, but overall I have to disagree.

We have a very acceptable blend between "aloft" model data and observation. I am not sure about SIGMET being already taken into consideration, but this sort of additional data should be inferred from the GRIB from the weather forecast models being used by MFS and it's only put into text / graphic areas for crew to get more aware of weather hazards, same applying to AIRMET / GAMET that AFAIK aren't used by any weather engine in desktop flight simulation ( ? )

I plan my flights in the Fenix A320 or PMDG 737 using Simbrief, and then Navigraph charts for the preparation / flight following,  and all of the flights I have completed have rendered superbly the expected weather patterns and variables. I would say better than ever before in any other flight simulator I have used so far. I can only complain about the way wind variability / turbulence affects aircraft. It's been plaguing MFS almost as deeply as it does with XP11 whenever there's a "V" or "G" in the METAR wind fields 😕 - Might also be due to a flight dynamics quirk, I really don't know...

Another feature I am yet to be able to properly test is geopotential height variation due to Temperature ( T ). They - ASOBO - claim they modelled it, but it would be great to find out which correction tables / algorithms were used. XP12 is comming along with that very same feature, I believe in good part due to me insisting with Austin for ages that it should be modelled 🙂, just as Moon with it's proper ephemerids 🙂 Let's see how LR did it....

Soaring / Convective support for flying tasks in gliders is yet another feature comming with one of the next updates. We already have "ridge lift" and some sort of convective lift, and it's suposed to be based on a very interesting approach, using satellite data to determine, based on surface albedo and Sun position above the horizon, plus cloud cover, the convective type of lift. This is promissing and, I'd say, unique among the General Purpose range of flight simulators available - XP, FSX, P3D, MFS... Looking forward to see how it get's implemented. We already had a taste of it in SU9 and now SU10 beta. So far only Silentwings and Condorsoaring have, each on it's own way, implemented such features !  OFC I would also like to see convergence / frontal system modelled, and so and so forth, but heck ! this is a general purpose flightsim and I can't expect each and every feature to get implemented.... 

Speaking of very specific features, this is an area where I believe 3pd could add to the weather model used in MFS should the SDK become ready for that, but I believe this is a "lost war"...

 

Edited August 15, 20223 yr by jcomm

Please, enough already. Save it for the gullible.

On 8/13/2022 at 7:57 PM, zachlog said:

During the FSX days, the inadequacy of the simulator's weather engine was well publicized as well as the "must have" of ActiveSky Next to address the weather engine issue.  What is the general consensus of the MSFS 2020 weather engine ?  Does the weather engine do the job or is an addon needed to render weather correctly for this simulator as well ?  Just checking to see what the general assessment is on this most important aviation point.

I flew from LSZC (BUOCHS) to LEBL (BARCELONA) last night in the modified "FDE FIX" Longitude. I used to use ASE in FSX and P3D so was interested to see if the built-in weather generation had improved.

I was pleasantly surprised by the visual aspects of the weather enroute at FL370. It LOOKED pretty realistic and the weather depiction was accurate when compared to the enroute METARs although there was a lack of cloud variety as others have pointed out (it was all different varieties of Cumulus!).

The same old "FSX style" issue of sudden random wind shifts was still there, particularly on descent and approach.

Unfortunately they still appear to be using "baked in" turbulence and the surrounding weather had no effect on the airframe so ZERO realism there. There is still the issue with the wind effect at ground level which is totally over the top especially when landing in crosswind conditions. Thankfully I only had  a light crosswind landing 06R at LEBL so I didn't get pushed off the runway and into the grass this time. Hopefully this will improve with the next update but we shall see.

I don't think a third party addon will be necessary if they fix the turbulence and wind depiction and give us a better variety of clouds.

Hope this helps

Adam

Something I've noticed more recently (perhaps as I've been flying more GA) is the sudden appearance of haze. I had this yesterday on a short flight from Manchester to Newcastle at 6000ft. This haze layer appeared all of a sudden, which was not very convincing. 

4 hours ago, jcomm said:

Another feature I am yet to be able to properly test is geopotential height variation due to Temperature ( T ). They - ASOBO - claim they modelled it, but it would be great to find out which correction tables / algorithms were used

They definitely are modeling geopotential height variation due to temperture. I believe it started in SU6.

You can either use the SDK SimVarWatch utility program to look at the true altitude variable, or use an external program. I do both. I use Foreflight on all my MSFS flights, using XMapsy to link Foreflight to MSFS. XMapsy displays the True Altitude variable via simconnect. I was flying yesterday at FL350 where the the air temperature via LiveWeather was ISA +16, and Foreflight was showing my true altitude as 36,900 feet. I have an E6B program that can calculate geopotential height from pressure altitude, temperature and surface pressure and it matched exactly.

I also looked at real air traffic in the same area I was flying using the ADS-B tracking site https://globe.adsbexchange.com which shows both barometric and GPS-derived geometric altitude for inflight aircraft and they were showing similar results.

Edited August 15, 20223 yr by JRBarrett

1 hour ago, TrafficPilot said:

Unfortunately they still appear to be using "baked in" turbulence and the surrounding weather had no effect on the airframe so ZERO realism there. There is still the issue with the wind effect at ground level which is totally over the top especially when landing in crosswind conditions. Thankfully I only had  a light crosswind landing 06R at LEBL so I didn't get pushed off the runway and into the grass this time. Hopefully this will improve with the next update but we shall see.

I don't think a third party addon will be necessary if they fix the turbulence and wind depiction and give us a better variety of clouds.

Hope this helps

Adam

I believe this has more to do with the flight dynamics modelling (which I find extremely lacking in more than this aspect) than the weather engine per se.

34 minutes ago, JRBarrett said:

They definitely are modeling geopotential height variation due to temperture. I believe it started in SU6.

You can either use the SDK SimVarWatch utility program to look at the true altitude variable, or use an external program. I do both. I use Foreflight on all my MSFS flights, using XMapsy to link Foreflight to MSFS. XMapsy displays the True Altitude variable via simconnect. I was flying yesterday at FL350 where the the air temperature via LiveWeather was ISA +16, and Foreflight was showing my true altitude as 36,900 feet. I have an E6B program that can calculate geopotential height from pressure altitude, temperature and surface pressure and it matched exactly.

I also looked at real air traffic in the same area I was flying using the ADS-B tracking site https://globe.adsbexchange.com which shows both barometric and GPS-derived geometric altitude for inflight aircraft and they were showing similar results.

And yet some still complain... Thank you Jim for your precious feedback. 

Will explore that app for simvars...