In terms of "write" access to MSFS live weather not being possible yet I wonder if it's purely technical issues given the client/server architecture of MSFS (above and beyond any Meteoblue licensing issues that may or may not exist). Unlike other sims the MSFS live weather system is partly/mostly being processed and served up from the server-side AWS cloud to all its client machines, so there is no "local to the end-user" live weather system purely on the client machine per se that could then be overwritten/modified via 3rd party extensions. I could well be wrong in this interpretation though and happy to be corrected.

So if that's the case, the only way to "write/modify" weather on the MSFS client machine would be via control of manual weather? And then it's a matter of MSFS providing APIs low-level enough, and fine-grained enough, to modify and control manual weather which 3rd party plugins could then populate with their own data. I guess what currently exists in terms of APIs are the just the controls for manual weather we users see in the options?, which some 3rd party weather add-ons manipulate to varying degrees of success.

All that said, I'm with the camp that would like to see MS/Asobo keep advancing default weather in the sim.. yes METAR integration in SU7 was a step back global live weather wise, but since then various SUs have improved the situation a fair bit, and they're looking do to do more in coming SUs (on an aside, re: turbulence in clouds Seb confirmed in the March Q&A that due to live weather rendering clouds not dense/thick enough that then effects the level of turbulence within them, whereas with manual weather with the proper clouds in place turbulence is seen, and they're looking to fix this).. And in MSFS 2024 the stated intention is to improve weather significantly (i.e. simulation of proper storms and T-cells, tornadoes, etc.. such level of simulation therefore implies core weather is getting improved in non-trivial ways).

MS/Asobo are quite open to 3rd party development in all aspects of the sim obviously, where it makes sense.. for example how they are ensuring to always review what high fidelity aircraft are being developed to not then also do the same via AAUs or contracting out. Just because legacy sims required 3rd party weather add-ons shouldn't have to mean MSFS also should, and nor should it mean it goes out of its way to accommodate such add-ons at the expense of default weather not getting the improvements. But, if MS/Asobo can continue to advance the default weather while also allowing for more flexibility for 3rd party weather add-ons, then sure I'm all for that.
 

Edited April 2, 20242 yr by lwt1971

27 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

No it’s not. I’m perfectly happy with P3D and given most of my flights are IFR and above 20,000ft why would MSFS be a better choice? I can fly Concorde anywhere in the world in daylight using historical weather. Until MSFS has that feature it’s not under consideration.

Yes it is, MS/Asobo are in no way shape or form "responsible" for doing what they like regarding their game, their licenses and their product overall. If it affects other companies it's you those companies to deal with themselves.

Edited April 2, 20242 yr by MarcG

1 hour ago, Damian Clark said:

No matter what happens, don't worry about losing access to ASP3D or any of our recent-generation products.  I've worked very hard over the past year to provide a secondary client-direct download system from NOAA that bypasses our very comprehensive and expensive data network, and at the worst case, if we have to shut that down, things will continue to operate, even with historical weather.  Downloads take a little longer but work great and the same as before.  We've already rolled this out to ASP6 and ASXP12, and our upcoming product, to be announced soon.  ASP3D and ASXP(11) will also get this soon.

Well, we started with MSFS in 2000.  We are very grateful to have ever had an opportunity over all these years.  They giveth, they taketh away.  But I'm hoping it's not the final chapter.... Regardless, they make a wonderful sim, especially if you love visuals and scenery.  Hard core simmers and real pilots have a hard time liking MSFS2020 because of its focus on eye candy, but the realism seems to be catching up incrementally in each update an devs are figuring out how to improve things further.  Worth another try regardless of HiFi's participation.

Ms2020 was always made for kids and profit not for simmers.  If they cared about simmers they would of spent time effort fixing simmers issues , and not spending time and money on Dune aircraft and top gun junk for kids or sales.  
 

I know I go on about it but the 787 is a perfect example 

 

it was always about making as much money as possible nothing more and nothing less

 

it reminds me of when rob a  and simbol used go about LMs ‘ year of the simmer’ - what a crock of bull.  All fart no word not allowede.

when really Lm just cared about military contacts 

 

its truly heartbreaking to hear hifi haven’t made profit in 2 years. The best developers out there in my opinion

Edited April 2, 20242 yr by fluffyflops

2 minutes ago, MarcG said:

MS/Asobo are in no way shape or form "responsible" for doing what they like regarding their game,

I’ll add one word to my post. Indirectly…

Given Microsoft / Asobo would be indirectly responsible for Hi-Fi’s demise how could I choose the sim that caused your downfall? Oh the irony.

1 minute ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

I’ll add one word to my post. Indirectly…

Given Microsoft / Asobo would be indirectly responsible for Hi-Fi’s demise how could I choose the sim that caused your downfall? Oh the irony.

backtracking, well played!

24 minutes ago, fluffyflops said:

Ms2020 was always made for kids

Nope. It's for pilots of all ages.

If it was only for kids, they wouldn't have given us probably the most accurate Garmin simulation of any flight sim.

What 5 year old would be interested in manually programming in a flight plan?

And the A310 is more complicated that anything a 5 year old would want to fly.

24 minutes ago, fluffyflops said:

I know I go on about it but the 787 is a perfect example 

The 787 flies fine.

Edited April 2, 20242 yr by Tuskin38

On 3/31/2024 at 4:09 AM, fluffyflops said:

Id argue that now it's been sold to the masses (kids) the standard of addons has never been as bad.

I'd argue that's just utter nonsense (and this "kids" trope is just comically stale now).. just because MSFS appeals to a wider audience than any previous sim ever did, and therefore a greater variety of developers producing add-ons that fall on various positions in the quality/fidelity spectrum, does *not* therefore mean all add-ons quality is lower. We still have high-fidelity high-quality add-ons coming out in great numbers for MSFS from all the usual established players and new ones (like Fenix), and yes also garbage add-ons from the usual suspects and new devs. Regardless of various sub-standard add-ons out there, the standard of work coming out from the likes of Fenix, A2A, PMDG, JustFlight, iniBuilds, FSW, Milviz, <insert major developer name here> is pretty darn good, and has never been as good I'd argue.

I've used nearly all the sims before MSFS, and yes for some only the quality add-on devs ever developed for that sim, and they did so at glacial paces.. With MSFS the pace of development and pace of updates along with how the devs interact with the user base is just so much better and refreshing. By all indications a great majority of the user base and 3rd party developer base have embraced the new world of flight simming that MSFS brought about, and thankfully let go of the legacy ways.

And just in case this is news to some, it is quite possible in 2024 for sims and add-ons to have *both* visual fidelity as well as flight realism fidelity, without either having to come at the expense of the other (another quaint legacy mindset from having been conditioned by legacy sims that needs to go the way of the Dodo).
 

Edited April 2, 20242 yr by lwt1971

12 minutes ago, fluffyflops said:

Ms2020 was always made for kids and profit not for simmers.  If they cared about simmers they would of spent time effort fixing simmers issues , and not spending time and money on Dune aircraft and top gun junk for kids or sales.  
 

I know I go on about it but the 787 is a perfect example 

I don't know what mental gymnastics one has to engage in to take an aircraft that has received high fidelity avionics as well as systems updates from an outfit hired by Microsoft to do nothing but work on avionics and systems simulation as an argument to say MSFS is for kids and ignores simmer's interests.

You can add hiring a highly experienced engineer with reputation to help advance aerodynamics, building the most profound helicopter physics in any available sim as well as working on several areas like weather, ground friction, CFD, thermals, etc. to the list of things for kids as well then.

I have my fair share of things I'm dying to see fixed myself, but this argument of how MSFS is eye candy only never fails to completely ignore half of reality. I never would have thought that after a decade of people spending tons of money on visual addons for other sims, the scenery capability of a new sim would constantly be used as an attempt to discredit it.

18 hours ago, bofhlusr said:

Check this vomit-inducing video in P3D... 

These Turbulent Times - Prepar3D (youtube.com)

Aaah, those clouds that actually look like clouds ... they are still the best looking/depicted clouds in any flight simulator even if they are from REX 2D sprites that are front facing ... they work in 97% of visual cases and very light on performance loads.

 

6 minutes ago, CO2Neutral said:

Aaah, those clouds that actually look like clouds

No they don't. They look like cutouts of clouds.

Edited April 2, 20242 yr by Tuskin38

18 minutes ago, CO2Neutral said:

Aaah, those clouds that actually look like clouds ... they are still the best looking/depicted clouds in any flight simulator even if they are from REX 2D sprites that are front facing ... they work in 97% of visual cases and very light on performance loads.

 

Those clouds look terrible, LOL.

31 minutes ago, Tuskin38 said:

They look like cutouts of clouds.

Ok, then pick a different REX cloud set, so many to choose from and thank you REX.

ESRB rating is E (Everyone) ... Parent reviews rate MSFS as Ages 10+ ... so yeah it's for kids, does that matter?  Doesn't say "exclusively" for kids.

Back on topic, consoles usage age range:

13-17 = 11%

18-24 = 22%

25-34 = 27%

35-44 = 23%

45-54 = 11%

65+ = 5%

Source

Consoles are around $500.  

Microsoft have indicated they are getting out of the "hardware" business but no immediate plan to terminate XBOX but they MS did layoff 1900 employees from their game development workforce ... so I'm not exactly sure how this will evolve with their subscription platform?  It sounds like MS will still sell games, but they'll be multiplatform and not necessarily tied to any specific hardware.

IGN Source

 

 

 

Edited April 2, 20242 yr by CO2Neutral

2 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

I’ll add one word to my post. Indirectly…

Given Microsoft / Asobo would be indirectly responsible for Hi-Fi’s demise how could I choose the sim that caused your downfall? Oh the irony.

Come on Ray; it’s like saying the Japanese killed off the British car industry. I say this as a one time owner of an Austin Allegro and a Hillman Hunter. 

According to Damien the obverse appears to be true; his business started in 2000 thanks to….MSFS.

27 minutes ago, DD_Arthur said:

Come on Ray; it’s like saying the Japanese killed off the British car industry. I say this as a one time owner of an Austin Allegro and a Hillman Hunter. 

According to Damien the obverse appears to be true; his business started in 2000 thanks to….MSFS.

The difference back then was Microsoft was very open to third party developers. Damien said as much. Asobo on the other hand are protectionist despite their early claims to be open to developers. There’ll never be a weather SDK so you’ll never get historical weather. For some like me that’s a red line.

My uncle served in WW2 but still bought a Toyota in the 70s because it was better than any British equivalent.

3 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

The difference back then was Microsoft was very open to third party developers. Damien said as much. Asobo on the other hand are protectionist despite their early claims to be open to developers. There’ll never be a weather SDK so you’ll never get historical weather. For some like me that’s a red line.

And how have you come to the conclusion that Asobo is being "protectionist"? Just because they haven't opened up live weather write access yet, and/or prioritized it higher yet, and/or given us any explanations as to why it might not be doable and why (on my earlier post above I gave my hunches to possible technical roadblocks).. all/any of these does not then translate to them intentionally holding back. They have been very open and welcoming of developers, as witnessed by the healthy ecosystem of add-ons thriving for MSFS. We can't really make sweeping claims about MS/Asobo's intentions without confirmation on their side. And re: historical weather, well, the reality is that it's not high priority for the majority of users (and I completely get that it's a deal-breaker for some). If it does turn out that MS/Asobo really don't want to prioritize the work to open up live weather to 3rd party devs even if it's technically feasible, that's just still a prioritization decision (as to where to allocate their dev resources), and not anything to do with being open or protectionist.

If they were being protectionist, they certainly wouldn't be doing all the things they're doing for add-on developers outside of weather, one big example being the open sourcing of and making available the Working Title core avionics framework suite for developers to use/extend as they like. 
 

Edited April 3, 20242 yr by lwt1971