No more live weather thunderstorms?

[marcg11 125]

I actually saw lightning yesterday for the first time in ages (I thought it was actually gone completely) - but overall lightning appears way less frequently since Asobo tuned it down after the first run of issues....

[evaamo 549]

6 minutes ago, Damian Clark said:

Actually,  this is a great example of something we could easily offer "alternate experiences" with compared to default weather, that I know a lot of people would appreciate, and we would really sincerely appreciate the opportunity to try.

Alternate experiences meaning "realistic atmospherics"... as far as I remember the name of the title is "flight simulator". How you can call it a flight simulator with such a poor weather rendition (and I don't mean graphics wise) is beyond me. Then I read opinions such as the guy above claiming you would "drag" us back to the fsx/p3d and then I understand how we got to this point... 

Honestly, it's great that fair weather simmers are happy with the current state of weather, in the end MSFS is great for scenic tours of the world... but all I care is for Asobo to give us the choice of getting realistic weather depiction through fine programs such as ActiveSky. They'll have to do this sooner or later if they want the "simulator" part of their title to really mean something.

[Jeeeno 314]

2 hours ago, Tom_L said:

Apart from volumetric clouds to the horizon and slightly increased accuracy in regards to where clouds are rendered, I don't see a huge difference to the old P3D days since SU7 anymore.

I don't agree with this at all. In P3D/FSX the atmosphere was completely "static". I've recently had the chance to watch some of my old videos I made with FSX and I would never want back that weather, even if at that time it seemed ok. 

[jcomm 5,961]

27 minutes ago, Jeeeno said:

I don't agree with this at all. In P3D/FSX the atmosphere was completely "static". I've recently had the chance to watch some of my old videos I made with FSX and I would never want back that weather, even if at that time it seemed ok. 

You really don't know what you're talking about - now i'm sure!

But, even with that limitation you should at least be able to think about it in the perspective of what HiFi or any other 3pd with it's level of expertise could do, not redoing what it's already done and is surely a major step ahead in some aspects but still lacks attention to detail, precision and coherency of the kind that weather injectors like ActiveSky offer.

No one, HiFi included, is offering what they had visually in FSX or P3D. What these developers can offer is a deeper and better use of the data ASOBO / MS have access too but do not fully explore, or use incoherently... 

 

Edited May 24, 2023 by jcomm

[Damian Clark 1,272]

3 hours ago, evaamo said:

Then I read opinions such as the guy above claiming you would "drag" us back to the fsx/p3d and then I understand how we got to this point... 

Agree vehemently.  I'm biased of course but it just is just such a strange way of thinking, that a company/developer that pushed the limits of weather simulation and enabled features that users asked for, for decades, successfully, would somehow damage/harm the simulator/community if allowed to participate.  It's like they were so happy with AS and older sims like FSX, and what it added to the sim, and as a result of that success, the community needs to be sure that nobody can ever experience that again, unless the simulator developer itself creates it, they don't want it, and definitely don't want anyone else to have access to it.  Yet they don't apply this thinking to any other area of the sim, nor do they understand what this kind of exclusionary precedence that is being set and might negatively affect 3rd party development in the future.

I've been bringing this up for months and criticized and ridiculed for stating such (I've been called childish, ridiculous, like I'm hanging on to a sinking ship and need to just give up and go away already, learn how to pivot and just do something else, etc, and that's just here on this forum).  The criticism was much heavier on the MSFS forums.  But it looks like, and I sincerely hope that the tides may be turning regarding the public sentiment.  I appeal to everyone that promoting open 3rd party development is a good thing and while perhaps we will not make it as a company due to the exclusion, it would be a shame for that to be totally in vain and for other genres of add-ons to begin to to be excluded as well.

Most opposed to third party development probably won't believe me, but I really do passionately care about flight simulation and the community and want to see open development create better experiences for everyone, and I strongly feel it's a good thing and harms absolutely no one.  It's not about HiFi.  It's about you and the future of desktop flight simulation and open 3rd party access.  IOW, Stop shooting yourselves in the foot, already.

Edited May 24, 2023 by Damian Clark

[Damian Clark 1,272]

34 minutes ago, Jeeeno said:

I don't agree with this at all. In P3D/FSX the atmosphere was completely "static". I've recently had the chance to watch some of my old videos I made with FSX and I would never want back that weather, even if at that time it seemed ok. 

Given that every add-on "adds-on" to the simulator in the default state, just like all our previous weather add-ons improved the new generation sims through the years, what makes you think that an add-on for MSFS would make it somehow like a previous-generation sim, and how would this harm your default weather experience?  Can you be specific?  Thanks!

Edited May 24, 2023 by Damian Clark

[evaamo 549]

7 minutes ago, Damian Clark said:

Agree vehemently.  I'm biased of course but it just is just such a strange way of thinking, that a company/developer that pushed the limits of weather simulation and enabled features that users asked for, for decades, successfully, would somehow damage/harm the simulator/community if allowed to participate.  It's like they were so happy with AS and older sims like FSX, and what it added to the sim, and as a result of that success, the community needs to be sure that nobody can ever experience that again, unless the simulator developer itself creates it, they don't want it, and definitely don't want anyone else to have access to it.  Yet they don't apply this thinking to any other area of the sim, nor do they understand what this kind of exclusionary precedence that is being set and might negatively affect 3rd party development in the future.

I've been bringing this up for months and criticized and ridiculed for stating such (I've been called childish, ridiculous, like I'm hanging on to a sinking ship and need to just give up and go away already, learn how to pivot and just do something else, etc, and that's just here on this forum).  The criticism was much heavier on the MSFS forums.  But it looks like, and I sincerely hope that the tides may be turning regarding the public sentiment.  I appeal to everyone that promoting open 3rd party development is a good thing and while perhaps we will not make it as a company due to the exclusion, it would be a shame for that to be totally in vain and for other genres of add-ons to begin to to be excluded as well.

Most opposed to third party development probably won't believe me, but I really do passionately care about flight simulation and the community and want to see open development create better experiences for everyone, and I strongly feel it's a good thing and harms absolutely no one.  IOW, Stop shooting yourselves in the foot, already.

Frankly, I don't understand it either... and, it profoundly saddens me that teams/companies such as yours could pay the ultimate price because of such myopic decisions. I sincerely hope you're able to stay in the game for a long time. Otherwise, what a great loss it would be to our community. I've been a loyal customer of yours since the start, both in the FS and XP world, and I thank you for all the dedication in improving my simulation experience during all these years.May the wind soon change in your favor!

[Jeeeno 314]

20 minutes ago, Damian Clark said:

Given that every add-on "adds-on" to the simulator in the default state, just like all our previous weather add-ons improved the new generation sims through the years, what makes you think that an add-on for MSFS would make it somehow like a previous-generation sim, and how would this harm your default weather experience?  Can you be specific?  Thanks!

I'm not referring specifically on you, but most developers  have the tendency to recycle everything they can from old pieces of code which were used in FSX/P3D: PMDG did that and in addition to some issues the aircraft has, now they have problems with the EFB.

[Damian Clark 1,272]

8 minutes ago, Jeeeno said:

I'm not referring specifically on you, but most developers  have the tendency to recycle everything they can from old pieces of code which were used in FSX/P3D: PMDG did that and in addition to some issues the aircraft has, now they have problems with the EFB.

Developers re-use code, in every single type of software, they always have, and always will.  Yes we do that too.  We also completely re-write things occasionally and make brand new things all the time.  It's the luxury we have (or did have) of being supported and compensated to enable further development.  I don't understand how that has anything to do with causing your sim to be ruined or look like a decade-old simulator, just by allowing others to have the option to have a weather add-on.

Edited May 24, 2023 by Damian Clark

[Saucey12 40]

Last night I had it on real world weather.  And in the "real world" there was a decent size t-storm just north of the field.  I never saw any lightening or anything else.  I took off in msfs in the pmdg 737, I only encountered thick clouds, no noticeable turbulence, no violent shifts in winds.  It was pretty uneventful. Who knows if MSFS will ever really improve upon it or if a 3rd party will step in some day.  We will see. 

[MarcG 3,025]

"what lightning in clear skies bug?"

🤐

[threexgreen 3,152]

I think there is a lot of overreaction in this thread. I don't know what may have been said in other threads, but personally, I think the weather in MSFS is really good, even if they have taken away some of the features since release for whatever reason. I certainly wouldn't want to go back to P3D/FSX style weather simulation.

The reason I would prefer MS/Asobo to double down on the weather and atmospherics is simply that it's supposed to be a big selling point of the simulator in being superior to everything we've had, so they should deliver that experience. Weather is a core element of a flight simulator and it should come with the simulator, not through third-parties because that's just going back to the days of patching up the base simulator because it's lacking. On MSFS, I have pretty much only bought aircraft and airports, the only exceptions are FSRealistic and REX airport textures, while in P3D you have to patch up all kinds of things to get a somewhat believable world with all it encompasses (Active Sky is a must because default weather is just bad to the point there isn't even live weather). I think simmers have become way too used to buying all kinds of third party addons that aren't even addons but rather patches to fix the simulator. It's not perfect now either but that has thankfully stopped for the most part with MSFS and you mostly buy aircraft and airports - as it should be, because those are actual extensions, not replacements for where the vanilla simulator is underwhelming.

That however in no way means that Hifi would screw things up or fail at the job.

Edited May 24, 2023 by Nixoq

[Saucey12 40]

58 minutes ago, Damian Clark said:

Agree vehemently.  I'm biased of course but it just is just such a strange way of thinking, that a company/developer that pushed the limits of weather simulation and enabled features that users asked for, for decades, successfully, would somehow damage/harm the simulator/community if allowed to participate.  It's like they were so happy with AS and older sims like FSX, and what it added to the sim, and as a result of that success, the community needs to be sure that nobody can ever experience that again, unless the simulator developer itself creates it, they don't want it, and definitely don't want anyone else to have access to it.  Yet they don't apply this thinking to any other area of the sim, nor do they understand what this kind of exclusionary precedence that is being set and might negatively affect 3rd party development in the future.

I've been bringing this up for months and criticized and ridiculed for stating such (I've been called childish, ridiculous, like I'm hanging on to a sinking ship and need to just give up and go away already, learn how to pivot and just do something else, etc, and that's just here on this forum).  The criticism was much heavier on the MSFS forums.  But it looks like, and I sincerely hope that the tides may be turning regarding the public sentiment.  I appeal to everyone that promoting open 3rd party development is a good thing and while perhaps we will not make it as a company due to the exclusion, it would be a shame for that to be totally in vain and for other genres of add-ons to begin to to be excluded as well.

Most opposed to third party development probably won't believe me, but I really do passionately care about flight simulation and the community and want to see open development create better experiences for everyone, and I strongly feel it's a good thing and harms absolutely no one.  IOW, Stop shooting yourselves in the foot, already.

We have an interesting group of flight sim consumers these days.  We got a whole new generation of simmers who are new and want xbox and to do away with all the C++ oldies and such.  Then we have other simmers who are veterans from way back who just expect way better in the year 2023 and are disgruntled to no end.  Then you have simmers like me who get to maybe fly a handful of hours a week, been around awhile, and are just happy with whatever we can get! 

I can see how as a developer that all the negative feedback from numerous outlets can get you run down.  I feel for ya!  

[Saucey12 40]

3 minutes ago, Nixoq said:

I think there is a lot of overreaction in this thread. I don't know what may have been said in other threads, but personally, I think the weather in MSFS is really good, even if they have taken away some of the features since release for whatever reason. I certainly wouldn't want to go back to P3D/FSX style weather simulation.

The reason I would prefer MS/Asobo to double down on the weather and atmospherics is simply that it's supposed to be a big selling point of the simulator in being superior to everything we've had, so they should deliver that experience. Weather is a core element of a flight simulator and it should come with the simulator, not through third-parties because that's just going back to the days of patching up the base simulator because it's lacking. On MSFS, I have pretty much only bought aircraft and airports, the only exceptions are FSRealistic and REX airport textures, while in P3D you have to patch up all kinds of things to get a somewhat believable world with all it encompasses (Active Sky is a must because default weather is just bad to the point there isn't even live weather). I think simmers have become way too used to buying all kinds of third party addons that aren't even addons but rather patches for fix the simulator. It's not perfect now either but that has thankfully stopped for the most part with MSFS and you mostly buy aircraft and airports - as it should be, because those are actual extensions, not replacements for where the vanilla simulator is underwhelming.

That however in no way means that Hifi would screw things up or fail at the job.

In the case of FSX.. Microsoft abandoned it long before we stopped using it.  So 3rd parties were a must.  At least with MSFS they have had some updates and improved upon the weather.  

[evaamo 549]

6 minutes ago, Nixoq said:

 I certainly wouldn't want to go back to P3D/FSX style weather simulation.

This same argument has come twice in this thread, and I can't for the life of me understand what you mean by that. Have you guys been using the same Active Sky version I've been using in P3D (version 4 or 5)? Because save for MSFS graphics, weather simulation using P3D+AS combo is miles and miles beyond what MSFS has to offer today.  If by "really good" you mean somewhat accurate METARs and a few beautiful clouds when flying your Piper Cub around your home airfield in VMC, then we have different expectations or case-uses regarding flight simulation.

I don't mean this in a derogatory way at all, nor I'm I looking to engage in an endless debate here,  I'm just trying to understand what you find so "good" about it when - to me and others in this thread - weather seems like an afterthought to Asobo.