MSFS Weather Engine

[JRBarrett 3,070]

18 minutes ago, jcomm said:

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

Will explore that app for simvars...

To get the simvar app, you need to download and install at least the SDK “samples” package. The source code to build it is included, but there is also a prebuilt executable.

[sightseer 895]

8 hours ago, jcomm said:

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.

I wonder if that means that there will be updrafts or downdrafts occurring where different sets of aerial/satellite imagery meets?

The coloration of some of that imagery can be radically different in adjacent points and if its based in part on albedo then it should create a wind change of some kind.  Maybe they'll fix the imagery.  I think they need to for proper seasons.

[TrafficPilot 121]

3 hours ago, ha5mvo said:

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.

Ah ok - well whichever it is it kills any realism for me. I counted at least 6 threads on their official site complaining about flight dynamics issues (mainly during the landing/rollout phase) yet these problems have been there since the start.

[MrBitstFlyer 3,873]

7 hours 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.

I think you are misunderstanding.  The current weather engine has RECENTLY improved since the degradation happened.  Through SU10 the variety of cloud types has improved as has weather depiction.  I agree MSFS live weather engine is missing several cloud types, but credit is justified with current improvements.

[Alpine Scenery 1,609]

How can you tell, did they specifically say they added new cloud types...

[MrBitstFlyer 3,873]

6 hours ago, Alpine Scenery said:

How can you tell, did they specifically say they added new cloud types...

If this is for me - I looked out the window 😁

[fppilot 4,360]

10 hours ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

I think you are misunderstanding.  The current weather engine has RECENTLY improved since the degradation happened.  Through SU10 the variety of cloud types has improved as has weather depiction.  I agree MSFS live weather engine is missing several cloud types, but credit is justified with current improvements.

It still is not equal to the combination of REX textures and Active Sky wx injection in previous sims.  Technology that has been in place since at least 2016.  

Yes! Improved.  No argument.  But sans the entering into exclusive agreements with non-proven suppliers, where could we be instead today?  Or yesterdays? for that matter!

[MrBitstFlyer 3,873]

1 hour ago, fppilot said:

It still is not equal to the combination of REX textures

Completely agree with you.  I just reverted to SU9 so I could try out the latest Rex Weatherforce update.  First flight was EGKK to EGPH on Vatsim. I have been complementary with the latest updates to MS Live Weather, but it just isn't as good as Rex with cloud depiction.  Showers over the UK today and the REX sky was stunning, helped by its aerosol effects (no pictures as I was in HDR. Second flight I used SDR.  This image, although not spectacular, shows a sky Live Weather can't produce.  Low cumulus with thunderstorms behind and high into the sky.  The aerosol effects are great.

MS Live weather has improved, can produce great skies, but not up there with REX.

[flyingpauls 66]

Last time I tried my version of REX, the real weather of MSFS was way more real on the specific airport. I stopped using it after that experience. In fact, I found the MSFS depiction quite close now. Reading some posts here, I am going to try REX once more. Do they have a new and recent version?

I miss some features of the real world in MSFS, of course, but I understand that it is impossible to represent the beautiful detailed real-life skies on a current PC simulator. 

[SubtotalGuide 133]

16 hours ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

I think you are misunderstanding.  The current weather engine has RECENTLY improved since the degradation happened.

No I'm not misunderstanding the situation at all. The live weather engine is going in the wrong direction. Each time I see a beautiful cloud filled sky irl I'm reminded how MSFS once was. The lighting, the cloud details, clouds that looked like clouds and not weak transparent puffs, turbulence in the clouds...my word it's so depressing. I so want to return to that weather in the simulator. Then to add insult to injury we have guardians writing long speeches almost congratulating themselves telling us how beautiful and realistic the weather is, failing to see what is wrong in their own images, and how it's all going in the right direction. Are the original devs proud of this or have they been replaced? If it was me I would hate to see something that was once awesome turned into a clown show.

Edited August 16, 2022 by SubtotalGuide

[jcomm 5,923]

59 minutes ago, SubtotalGuide said:

No I'm not misunderstanding the situation at all. The live weather engine is going in the wrong direction. Each time I see a beautiful cloud filled sky irl I'm reminded how MSFS once was. The lighting, the cloud details, clouds that looked like clouds and not weak transparent puffs, turbulence in the clouds...my word it's so depressing. I so want to return to that weather in the simulator. Then to add insult to injury we have guardians writing long speeches almost congratulating themselves telling us how beautiful and realistic the weather is, failing to see what is wrong in their own images, and how it's all going in the right direction. Are the original devs proud of this or have they been replaced? If it was me I would hate to see something that was once awesome turned into a clown show.

Ok, I think that I have finally understood your point ( ? ) - visuals and some effects are your main cause for dissatisfaction.

Well, regarding turbulence, mostly updrafts and downdrafts in clouds, I recall a lot of users complained about the effect being way overdone and disruptive. Same applied to variable and gusting winds which at some time were disabled, returning only now on SU10 beta whenever they're coded in a METAR. I have been testing it and overall while I am glad they're back in I find the effects way too intense. Might be due to the flight dynamics ? I really don't know yet.

I do find the almost total lack of turbulence whn flying accross convective clouds, including Cbs, disappointing though. I found it more realistic in the initial releases too, and I do agree with you on that.

Cloud variety and graphics did "suffer" a "simplification" along the SU trail, that I do acknowledge. Yet, if you haven't tried SU10 beta I would recommend using it to check that something changed, in the good way I believe.

But honestly, and comming from simulators like Aerowinx PSX or ELITE IFT, I really care a lot more for items like:

- correct representation of aloft winds and temperatures

- correct representation of METAR observation and how it blends with the aloft data taken from the forecast models

- weather depiction and the way it's variables progress along a route 

- features like the simulation of geopotential height variation with temperature, which do play an important role on operations from airfields under high or low temperatures

- features like the simulation of thermals

and these items have really been progressing positively. As you might be aware, they're also working on a better "Soaring Weather" simulation for upcoming SUs - that's intersting to say the least...

For me it's overall positive, even if with a lot to be fine tuned and some additional features to be added.

Edited August 16, 2022 by jcomm

[SubtotalGuide 133]

29 minutes ago, jcomm said:

Cloud variety and graphics did "suffer" a "simplification" along the SU trail, that I do acknowledge. Yet, if you haven't tried SU10 beta I would recommend using it to check that something changed, in the good way I believe.

But honestly, and comming from simulators like Aerowinx PSX or ELITE IFT, I really care a lot more for items like: <snip>

Of course I tried the beta. I've been with this sim since the beginning, you don't have to spin for me.

"Sorry about the simplified cloud variety and degraded visuals, but hey, the temperature and winds match the METAR to the dot!"

Asobo (MS?) giveth with one hand and taketh with the other.

[Noel 4,496]

3 hours ago, jcomm said:

Yet, if you haven't tried SU10 beta I would recommend using it to check that something changed, in the good way I believe.

I haven't tried the SU10 beta and I have found cloud depiction improving significantly over the past many weeks, which I think is a tipoff that changes happen in the background distinct from the beta.

[fppilot 4,360]

8 hours ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

Completely agree with you.  I just reverted to SU9 so I could try out the latest Rex Weatherforce update. 

 

10 hours ago, fppilot said:

It still is not equal to the combination of REX textures and Active Sky wx injection in previous sims.  Technology that has been in place since at least 2016. 

Please reread my comment. My REX reference was to REX textures (REX Sky Force 3D) in FSX/FSX SE (2016) as was my reference to Active Sky.  In all fairness, I am not aware of the extent, if any, REX WF has influence on MSFS cloud textures other than mixing default MSFS textures into presets it can use and applying what it terms some aerosol effects.  That is not the same as providing its own textures as I believe was the case with REX products for previous sims.  I consider REX WF a weather injector.

[jcomm 5,923]

30 minutes ago, Noel said:

I haven't tried the SU10 beta and I have found cloud depiction improving significantly over the past many weeks, which I think is a tipoff that changes happen in the background distinct from the beta.

Hmmm, that's interesting !