Still no historical weather options for MSFS?

[Fiorentoni 4,284]

2 minutes ago, lwt1971 said:

Just want to reiterate though that I certainly don't think that's MS/Asobo's current line of thinking (i.e. one of protecting default weather from competition). IMO, the reason they've not opened up live weather write access in the SDK yet is one or more of:

a) It's technically difficult/impossible given the client/server architecture of MSFS, where live weather is calculated/processed in the AWS cloud and then served out to client machines
b) The work to do it is non-trivial and costly
c) The work to do it ranks lower in priority to other work they have planned are doing currently (including core weather improvements coming in MSFS 2024)
d) There are contractual or license issues with weather data providers like MeteoBlue
 

It's likely all four of those reasons.

[mmcmah 426]

3 minutes ago, lwt1971 said:

Just want to reiterate though that I certainly don't think that's MS/Asobo's current line of thinking (i.e. one of protecting default weather from competition). IMO, the reason they've not opened up live weather write access in the SDK yet is one or more of:

a) It's technically difficult/impossible given the client/server architecture of MSFS, where live weather is calculated/processed in the AWS cloud and then served out to client machines
b) The work to do it is non-trivial and costly
c) The work to do it ranks lower in priority to other work they have planned are doing currently (including core weather improvements coming in MSFS 2024)
d) There are contractual or license issues with weather data providers like MeteoBlue
 

Since we're speculating, I don't disagree that all of those possibilities are objectively reasonable and plausible. However, I do feel that the result of those options is the impression of them wanting to protect the default weather from competition.

If they wanted to offer an expansive weather ecosystem beyond what the reasons you outlined above would allow, one imagines they could have reached out to Rex or HiFi to talk about potential solutions. It does not appear, from Damian's comments that that ever happened, and that more than that, there seemed to be active resistance to the idea.

After all, something that got a fair number of votes (opening weather up) on the official forums, was flatly rejected and Jorg seemed genuinely surprised why anyone would want/need historical weather on one of the developer streams.

Moving beyond MS/Asobo's motivations, I'm happy to finally be able to see AS in MSFS and to experience the effects and visuals that might be achieved, even in the currently hampered (versus an ideal, API-facilitated) state.

[Fiorentoni 4,284]

14 minutes ago, mmcmah said:

However, I do feel that the result of those options is the impression of them wanting to protect the default weather from competition.

In what way "competition"? They don't lose money if people buy an add-on on top of base MSFS. That's like saying the Fenix is a competition to their default A320neo. I don't get it.

[mmcmah 426]

1 hour ago, lwt1971 said:

If you're thinking of AS as in competition with MSFS weather or "replaces" MSFS weather, then please understand, this is not the case at all, not from our perspective.

@Fiorentoni I think that when we both are speaking of competition, this is the meaning that we're referencing, since that was the first recent mention of competition.

I certainly don't see it as competition, but if you think that MS/Asobo doesn't want their weather data copied/manipulated/exposed/replaced or whatever from the various plausible reasons above, then an addon that actively modifies it could be competition, especially if they feel that the base sim should offer everything anyone should need, as Damian has indicated they appear to feel.

[mmcmah 426]

HiFi's web page just changed to include the pricing:

Pricing

Introductory pricing for ASFS is 23.00 EUR + Taxes/VAT. See your preferred reseller for more information on final pricing with currency conversion and tax. Pricing is subject to change!

 

[Damian Clark 1,272]

2 hours ago, mmcmah said:

After all, something that got a fair number of votes (opening weather up) on the official forums, was flatly rejected 

This was the #2 wish list item for a long time, and even was #1 for a brief moment IIRC, until they closed it after assigning it not planned and now you can't even discuss it.  I think that proves there is plenty of interest and demand, but rejected anyway.  So I don't think the decision has anything to do with lack of public interest, UNLESS that "vocal minority" that I keep harping on about influenced things.  But regardless, we don't know and probably won't ever know, and MS/Asobo don't ever have to tell us.  I'm just hoping they reconsider, and I do hope that the community continues advocating for additional SDK access and capabilities, in weather, and in all areas.

Edited April 17 by Damian Clark

[omarsmak30 4,068]

19 minutes ago, Damian Clark said:

This was the #2 wish list item for a long time, and even was #1 for a brief moment IIRC, until they closed it after assigning it not planned and now you can't even discuss it.  I think that proves there is plenty of interest and demand, but rejected anyway.  So I don't think the decision has anything to do with lack of public interest, UNLESS that "vocal minority" that I keep harping on about influenced things.  But regardless, we don't know and probably won't ever know, and MS/Asobo don't ever have to tell us.  I'm just hoping they reconsider, and I do hope that the community continues advocating for additional SDK access and capabilities, in weather, and in all areas.

If I recall they discussed this in of dev streams and I think Jorg mentioned something about license or legal thing with Meteoblue, maybe Microsoft its deal with Meteoblue has an exclusive clause on it, wouldn’t be surprised. 

[Damian Clark 1,272]

1 minute ago, omarsmak30 said:

If I recall they discussed this in of dev streams and I think Jorg mentioned something about license or legal thing with Meteoblue, maybe Microsoft its deal with Meteoblue has an exclusive clause on it, wouldn’t be surprised. 

Yeah, the differentiation between read and write access gets messy in this I think.  I don't think data license issues as discussed explains why we can't SET weather.  But then again the wish list item was to "OPEN UP the weather system" ambiguously.  Not sure.  We are asking for enhanced weather SET / CONTROL capability!

[Cognita 1,109]

I think the read part was directed at the PMDG and FENIX teams that wanted to read the data in order to make a fully realistic weather radar with tilt operation, etc. And the response to that specific request was no, not now and likely not ever, and the reasoning was licensing issues and that Asobo cannot give access to data that belongs to Metroblue, and assumably Metroblue does not want its data distributed directly, only through the processed model in MSFS, the processing protects the raw data. So that I felt was a definite answer and rational. And I now see PMDG seems to have moved on and will use the MSFS weather radar in the triple seven. 

Then this issue of read and write access is a bit of a different question. And I think Damian is correct that it likely was never presented clearly to Asobo, just a general "open up the weather API" is likely a little confusing. Their response was to say they are going to continue to work on weather. which they have done with mixed results. However, through all of this they have been pretty clear that they are not open to this route to allow either read or write access and they are not going to tell us why. People can keep asking and asking but at some point it sounds like flogging a dead horse in the hope that it will keep working.

And their lack of providing a reason I understand because no matter what they say it will be picked apart and speculated on, it adds fuel to a pointless fire. If they say it is licensing issues, people will begin to ask that they change their agreements, after all isn't Microsoft the biggest company in the world, certainly it can demand a different agreement. If they say given the architectural decisions made early on that it would be extremely difficult and very costly for us to make the necessary changes and we are not willing to invest that time and money then they will be criticized for their prioritization and not understanding simulation. If they say it is not a priority because all of their data tells them this is not what the majority of their customers are asking for, they again will be criticized as not understanding simulation, not having complete data, etc. So probably they have learned it is best to just leave it and talk about other things. 

 

[mmcmah 426]

3 minutes ago, Cognita said:

I think the read part was directed at the PMDG and FENIX teams that wanted to read the data in order to make a fully realistic weather radar with tilt operation, etc. And the response to that specific request was no, not now and likely not ever, and the reasoning was licensing issues and that Asobo cannot give access to data that belongs to Metroblue, and assumably Metroblue does not want its data distributed directly, only through the processed model in MSFS, the processing protects the raw data. So that I felt was a definite answer and rational. And I now see PMDG seems to have moved on and will use the MSFS weather radar in the triple seven. 

Then this issue of read and write access is a bit of a different question. And I think Damian is correct that it likely was never presented clearly to Asobo, just a general "open up the weather API" is likely a little confusing. Their response was to say they are going to continue to work on weather. which they have done with mixed results. However, through all of this they have been pretty clear that they are not open to this route to allow either read or write access and they are not going to tell us why. People can keep asking and asking but at some point it sounds like flogging a dead horse in the hope that it will keep working.

And their lack of providing a reason I understand because no matter what they say it will be picked apart and speculated on, it adds fuel to a pointless fire. If they say it is licensing issues, people will begin to ask that they change their agreements, after all isn't Microsoft the biggest company in the world, certainly it can demand a different agreement. If they say given the architectural decisions made early on that it would be extremely difficult and very costly for us to make the necessary changes and we are not willing to invest that time and money then they will be criticized for their prioritization and not understanding simulation. If they say it is not a priority because all of their data tells them this is not what the majority of their customers are asking for, they again will be criticized as not understanding simulation, not having complete data, etc. So probably they have learned it is best to just leave it and talk about other things. 

 

Well put. And despite the rationality of your points, I hope that MS/Asobo will change their stance.

[DD_Arthur 1,069]

1 hour ago, Damian Clark said:

This was the #2 wish list item for a long time, and even was #1 for a brief moment IIRC, until they closed it after assigning it not planned and now you can't even discuss it.  I think that proves there is plenty of interest and demand, but rejected anyway.  So I don't think the decision has anything to do with lack of public interest, UNLESS that "vocal minority" that I keep harping on about influenced things.  

You certainly do like to keep harping on about this mysterious 'vocal minority'.

I guess we'll never know how they've 'influenced things' but seeing how the user base is now enormous and diverse - unlike the cottage industry that was 3PD - it seems unlikely that anyone would be able to grab the attention of Microsoft/Asobo long enough to truly influence any of their contractual decisions.

If they don't want to do it they simply won't.

As to not being able to discuss it, there appears to be a discussion thread about Active Sky on the official forums right now;

https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/new-activesky-weather-program-incoming/638086?u=ddarthur5357

No sign of any vocal minority though, just a bunch of simmers discussing the same pros and cons that have been talked about here....

[VHOJT 181]

11 minutes ago, DD_Arthur said:

You certainly do like to keep harping on about this mysterious 'vocal minority'.

I guess we'll never know how they've 'influenced things' but seeing how the user base is now enormous and diverse - unlike the cottage industry that was 3PD - it seems unlikely that anyone would be able to grab the attention of Microsoft/Asobo long enough to truly influence any of their contractual decisions.

If they don't want to do it they simply won't.

As to not being able to discuss it, there appears to be a discussion thread about Active Sky on the official forums right now;

https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/new-activesky-weather-program-incoming/638086?u=ddarthur5357

No sign of any vocal minority though, just a bunch of simmers discussing the same pros and cons that have been talked about here....

I have not seen you make a polite or pleasant post in this thread yet.  Referring to people who are in the thread as "he" and "this guy" is not polite, and you do the community a disservice in using these rude ways to address people who are here.

There are/were some people who espoused that weather in MSFS was close enough to perfect, and that it shouldn't be touched or opened up.  I remember reading such posts myself.

Edited April 18 by VHOJT

[DD_Arthur 1,069]

4 minutes ago, VHOJT said:

I have not seen you make a polite or pleasant post in this thread yet.

There are/were some people who espoused that weather in MSFS was close enough to perfect, and that it shouldn't be touched or opened up.  I remember reading such posts myself.

Lol. Is this a beauty pageant?

People are perfectly entitled to their opinions whether you like it or not.
 However, if you don’t like their opinions or mine I urge you to use the ignore function provided by these forums.

As to ‘politeness’; I’m not the guy pushing the conspiracy theories here.

[VHOJT 181]

If you read my post, it's not your opinion I called you out on. It was the rude way you were referring to others.

I'm not going to sit here replying to you all day, I just ask that you treat others with a bit more respect and address them politely.

As an aside, I have noted your presence in quite a few topics such as this one, where you don't seem to have an interest in the topic itself, rather you like to argue for the sake of it. Maybe I'm wrong, but your posts would be much more mature and pleasant to read if they weren't addressing people rudely and not throwing stones that don't need throwing. 

Edited April 18 by VHOJT

[Damian Clark 1,272]

34 minutes ago, DD_Arthur said:

You certainly do like to keep harping on about this mysterious 'vocal minority'.

As to not being able to discuss it, there appears to be a discussion thread about Active Sky on the official forums right now;

No sign of any vocal minority though, just a bunch of simmers discussing the same pros and cons that have been talked about here....

Ok, I disagree with you, that's all.  I guess the thread I mentioned and it's closing posts say it all, IMO.  But whatever opinion you have, that's fine, I look forward to you harping on about it as much as I harp on about mine.  🙂