1 hour ago, jcomm said:

Do you **really** believe AS's Synthetic Satellite images are based in METAR data?

The reply you received from "Maxam" is not from an HifiTech programmer, and certainly NOT from Damian Clark who could probably gladly explain how it's done in ASP3D. Maxam was at the date of the reply AFAIK simply a member of the HiFi Beta Team.

Also in his answer he's simply saying that the synthetic satellite images are consistent with local observation at stations that cover the area. OFC I don't even guess what area that is, and as you know that can make a big difference because of the reference MSA, specially if in Europe and away from mountainous areas.

I used Active Sky as well as cloud enhancement packages by HiFi since it was release for fs9, then fsx, p3d, xp... and miss it's functionality and enhancements in MFS.

It's probably not in ASOBO / MS plans to open support for such apps, at least not for fs 2020. Maybe fs 2024 ?

Both major sims now use GRIB /NCEP data for global weather simulation  instead of  METAR based depictions your beloved company has been using since its inception. I dont't judge a product by a myriad of options and enhancements but by the verisimilitude to the real thing in which AS was lost in translation from human weather observation to weather sensor numbers.

Edited June 21, 20232 yr by versus

52 minutes ago, versus said:

he verisimilitude to the real thing in which AS was lost in translation from human weather observation to weather sensor numbers.

Would you please restate that for clarity and better understanding?

I just want two version of weather: METAR-accurate or dynamic simulation.

I don't fly on VATSIM, so accuracy of weather at my destination isn't important to me. What is important to me is watching a cold front slide under a warm front in real time, the life cycle of a thunderstorm, dynamic and realistic movement of air masses and moisture. I can't get that if my sim is relying on 55 minute old METAR's from a station that can't even differentiate between rain and snow.

If ASOBO is going to focus 100% of its energy on the former, I'd pay for any 3PD that can get an API to develop the later. Just my personal wish-list. I know it won't ever happen.

2 hours ago, versus said:

Both major sims now use GRIB /NCEP data for global weather simulation  instead of  METAR based depictions your beloved company has been using since its inception. I dont't judge a product by a myriad of options and enhancements but by the verisimilitude to the real thing in which AS was lost in translation from human weather observation to weather sensor numbers.

Where did you get that idea from - that ActiveSky is based *only* in METAR?

Just wanted to tell you that you're plain wrong about it, but believe / defend whatever you want, just don't try to make it true, because you believe it.

If you're so familiar with the internals of AS, could you please care to elaborate if you really "know" AS  only uses METAR ( out of MFS OFC, because MFS is a different beast without access to the core weather engine unlike FSX and P3D) ?

In MFS we started with a full model-based weather engine. From the higher levels down to surface the weather was rendered  and effects simulated based only in forecasts.

Then in one of the SUs ASOBO introduced a new model with METARs being used for local weather depiction and effects calculation, and in successive updates are trying to create a good merge between the two sources, but under most circumstances that's far from being the case, with rather abrupt variation of some of the variables, namely wind direction and intensity as well as additional characteristics like variability and gusts. 

Under some circumstances there's also discontinuity between cloud cover and visibility, as well as precipitation, in the blend between METAR-based depiction and model/GRIB-based data for aloft conditions.

EDIT: Regarding geopotential height, indeed in all of their previous versions both FSX and derivates and X-Plane were based on standard pressure levels.

Both MFS and XP12, in somehow different ways, changed this to a more advanced model of geopotential height that AS or any other quality weather injector could take advantage of for a more realistic representation of weather, specially under low  or high temp operations.

For instance, MFS limits the modelling of non-standard geopotential height to Real World Weather, while XP12 models it even in the case of manually defined weather.

A good weather injector with access to the necessary data structures / operators / procedures could probably enhance manually defined weather and presets in MFS with that important feature.

Edited June 21, 20232 yr by jcomm

8 minutes ago, jcomm said:

Where did you get that idea from - that ActiveSky is based *only* in METAR?

Just wanted to tell you that you're plain wrong about it, but believe / defend whatever you want, just don't try to make it true, because you believe it.

If you're so familiar with the internals of AS, could you please care to elaborate if you really "know" AS  only uses METAR ( out of MFS OFC, because MFS is a different beast without access to the core weather engine unlike FSX and P3D.

I am no longer using P3D, but AS was my main weather engine on that platform. Active Sky uses worldwide METARS for the current hour plus a subset of parameters from the GFS model. I know it includes worldwide winds and temperatures aloft at multiple pressure levels, with the geopotential height of the standard pressure surfaces, along with (I believe) predicted cloud cover and some other parameters. It is not the full set of model parameters from the GFS worldwide model, as that would take multiple gigabytes of data, but sufficient for setting weather away from areas with METAR coverage, and enhancing it in areas with METAR.

8 hours ago, versus said:

AS uses METAR primarily. Its' not question of FS SDK, its a question of source data. Their method is wrong not the implementation.

Incorrect.  We use METAR, TAF, Sigmets, Airmets, Storm Data, GFS Data, ECMWF Data and more.  We create a global synthesized hybrid model integrating all data sources and we've been doing this for a very long time.  We do weight surface cloud conditions on METAR more than aloft data, when the METAR data is fresh, valid and consistent, but all data is in use all the time in variable ways.  One example:  If a METAR states CAVOK or is missing sky conditions, we will heavily weight towards GFS/ECMWF data for clouds determination.

Our imagery presented depends on which modes you are talking about.  In detailed / radar enhanced mode, the imagery is specific to the actual cloud/precip positions in the simulator, it doesn't get any more accurate.  In generic non-detailed mode (via the map screen for example) the clouds/precip is a cellular-based low resolution approximation of the anticipated clouds/precip of the same data.

MSFS2020 certainly has done amazing things with weather/cloud depiction, and their imagery map is very nice.  The data used for such is very similar to how AS has been doing it for a very long time.  It's true that MSFS2020 has weighted more to the model data vs METAR data, especially in the earlier versions, when compared to AS.  When we tried weighting more towards model data years ago our user base was fairly unanimous in demanding we bring it back towards METAR weighting.  Now we're looking at ways to provide some user control in data weighting, as well as adding dynamic satellite imagery analysis.  We're always trying to make things better and more advanced.  It sure would be nice to be able to continue weather development.  Incorrect speculation that misrepresents our product as an argument to keep us and other weather developers off the platform continues to erode that possibility.

4 hours ago, Damian Clark said:

We're always trying to make things better and more advanced.  It sure would be nice to be able to continue weather development.  Incorrect speculation that misrepresents our product as an argument to keep us and other weather developers off the platform continues to erode that possibility.

Thank you for publicly responding here.  It is easy for many many in this community to recognize the value you have offered and what must be current frustrations. I have greatly valued your products.  Weather is in my background and thus very important to me in my sim endeavors.  Best to you in your efforts to move this forward!

Edited June 21, 20232 yr by fppilot