Looking at the Wishlist for MSFS2020 got me wondering if MS/Asobo are using the release of MSFS2024 as the opportunity to provide a simulator without Meteoblue or at least a modified contract to allow for the 3rd Party WRITE Access for the Weather. Since 2024 is a new title I would assume that new contracts would have to be established and this could allow MS/Asobo to pull in the proper 3rd parties to build the code to properly provide weather systems and the supporting radar data APIs (Wishlist #01 and #04 as of 6/8/23), without having their hands tied with a contract built for MSFS2020. 

 

MODS: If this has already been stated in one of the thousands of MSFS2024 post I'm sorry, please delete...

Ah... so you know the contractual details. Do tell...

 

Didn't it ever occur to you that they simply don't WANT to open up the weather because they want to do it themselves?

One can only hope. 

38 minutes ago, Farlis said:

Didn't it ever occur to you that they simply don't WANT to open up the weather because they want to do it themselves?

I think this is the position Asobo began from but that they have since reconsidered, as Jorg indicated a month or two ago. But I think it is likely more than a stubborn unwillingness. That desire to do it themselves likely led them to make architectural decisions that made it extremally difficult to open weather. This is not P3D where we just downloaded a small data file periodically that then populated fields in the simulator and generated the appearance of weather. I am hoping based on Jorg's comments that they forked the development of MSFS to allow them to make deeper level modifications to the platform that will enable weather to open to other developers, both the Active Sky's but also aircraft developers for the implementation of weather radar. 

This being said, whether third party's can actually produce better weather than what we have as live weather is left to be seen; I am not yet convinced but am eager to see what they can do.

I just hope I don't have to end up buying a weather add on, and a environment enhancing texture add on, a cloud modification package, and several versions of a mod that create the illusion of turbulence; and on an on. I came to find that whole P3D model quite distasteful. So great that others can be involved, but I do not want that to translate into Asobo washing their hands of weather. Because to be honest, I am hoping they can get it right and I can sidestep all the third-party programs.

Edited June 19, 20232 yr by Cognita

Would be great if they binned off Meteoblue, of all the weather providers in Europe they ain't that great.

To my best knowledge only the people at ASOBO and Meteoblue have enough insight to evaluate where the difficulties with Live Weather originate, everyone else can only guess. It may be data quality, but it may also be implementation. So I would be very careful what to wish for. But given that Jorg Neumann announced talks with Meteoblue in Nov. 22 about better data and "new features" (and WXradar API), promised to inform about the outcome early '23 and never did, but instead a "new" simulator with alledgedly advanced weather features was announced gives some indication that Meteoblue might still be in business - just guessing.

2 hours ago, MarcG said:

Would be great if they binned off Meteoblue, of all the weather providers in Europe they ain't that great.

No offense, but what's wrong with them?! As far as I can tell, their data (or map) at meteoblue.com is fairly accurate. I haven't scoured the map, though, but from what I can see, the data indicate what I can observe (at least where I live).

20 minutes ago, anden145 said:

No offense, but what's wrong with them?! As far as I can tell, their data (or map) at meteoblue.com is fairly accurate. I haven't scoured the map, though, but from what I can see, the data indicate what I can observe (at least where I live).

In previous jobs I used weather data a lot and meteoblue were the "last resort" so to speak as they weren't as good/reliable as others, recent years they're still well bottom of the league when it comes to lightning detection, which could well explain the difficulty this Sim has with that area.

3 hours ago, MarcG said:

Would be great if they binned off Meteoblue, of all the weather providers in Europe they ain't that great.

There might be better ones, I don‘t know, but I‘m sure they haven‘t squeezed out everything they could of Meteoblue. The problem doesn‘t seem to be the data. For example, Meteoblue has quite accurate data on snow and ice coverage, but the sim doesn’t make use of it.

3 minutes ago, Shack95 said:

has quite accurate data on snow and ice coverage, but the sim doesn’t make use of it.

The sim uses Meteoblue's snow coverage, just the lowest resolution so it spills into areas it shouldn't.

Since MSFS came out and heard about Meteoblue I paid attention during each office briefing before the flight (domestic in the US and international) and inquire about many crewmembers from different airlines and never heard about this provider. The airline I work for doesn't use it. I can't answer why but for sure is not so popular. IMHO for sim should be enough, though the issue is a bad implementation in the sim as is the issue with the cloud types, temperatures, pressure, etc. changes. They can get the best wx provider out there but if they don't have a good algorithm/ correct interface is pointless. 

Edited June 19, 20232 yr by LRBS

40 minutes ago, Tuskin38 said:

The sim uses Meteoblue's snow coverage, just the lowest resolution so it spills into areas it shouldn't.

Yes, I know. I meant that they don’t make use of the more accurate data. I should have worded it more carefully.

3 hours ago, MarcG said:

In previous jobs I used weather data a lot and meteoblue were the "last resort" so to speak as they weren't as good/reliable as others, recent years they're still well bottom of the league when it comes to lightning detection, which could well explain the difficulty this Sim has with that area.

The NEMS 30 global model used in MSFS is not actually a propriety product of MeteoBlue. NEMS was developed by the US NOAA, who also developed the GFS global model. I believe the source code of the model is freely available, but it does require a super computer to run it.

One  factor that could affect the accuracy of the model run is the amount and timeliness of the 0000Z and 1200Z initialization data, and MB would be responsible for providing that for each run of the NEMS model on their own computers.

The model output would also have to be custom formatted specifically to work in MSFS. I doubt the sim uses the raw GRIB files that would normally be used for model output data.

X-Plane by contrast does directly use GFS model GRIB files for the live weather in XP12

I don’t know if the formatting is done by MB (to Asobo’s spec) before sending it Azure, or if it is done by MS after receiving the model run from MB.

Edited June 19, 20232 yr by JRBarrett

7 hours ago, Cognita said:

So great that others can be involved, but I do not want that to translate into Asobo washing their hands of weather. Because to be honest, I am hoping they can get it right and I can sidestep all the third-party programs.

Me too, and so far does any sim have significantly better weather and volumetric cloud depiction than MSFS does currently?  If there hesitant to wash their hands of weather it may well be they're not convinced anyone can do it much better.

I mean, I'd be ok with allowing third party hooks in there for historical and other providers, but I sure hope they don't give up on the goal of simulating the whole airmass, however they do it, and to whatever extent is possible.  interpolating METARs has its place, but I'd be interested in moving on from that.