Active Sky coming to MSFS

[Tuskin38 6,635]

10 minutes ago, Fiorentoni said:

No, from what I‘ve understood it‘s quite the opposite: It shows *everything* ahead of the aircraft, from from ground to FL400. That‘s just as useless. Aircraft don‘t divert in real life because there‘s a thunderstorm 20000 feet below them.

That’s not true at all. Yes it will show some stuff below you because it’s a cone of vision, but not if you’re that high up above it. It does not show you everything from the ground up.

 

https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/official-discussion-september-29-2022-development-update/546318/24

Edited April 15 by Tuskin38

[DD_Arthur 1,091]

11 minutes ago, Fiorentoni said:

No, from what I‘ve understood it‘s quite the opposite: It shows *everything* ahead of the aircraft, from from ground to FL400.

? I posted a video a page or two back which demonstrates that is not correct.

[Tuskin38 6,635]

4 minutes ago, DD_Arthur said:

? I posted a video a page or two back which demonstrates that is not correct.

They even responded to that post. Guess they didn’t actually watch it.

[mpo910 2,112]

11 minutes ago, Nemo said:

Experience tells me not to give too much on Mathijs Koks opinion ...

Mathijs Koks Signature text is interesting:

Have fun. Be respectful. Criticize Ideas, never people.

I would never use the approach to  "Criticize Ideas". Every Idea is a free motivation from a "Customer or potential Customer" to share something. Why Criticzing on that?

It is Off-Topic.......I know.

It´s just something that I don´t like to read from a Manager.....   

[Fiorentoni 4,364]

39 minutes ago, Tuskin38 said:

They even responded to that post. Guess they didn’t actually watch it.

I see, it‘s a cone indeed, but the original point is still valid. It‘s pretty much useless for proper aviation / navigation. This has again and again been confirmed by conservative old-school devs (PMDG) and new upcoming devs (Fenix) alike, not to mention basically each and every real life pilot here. Not sure why one would consider a post by Working Title (those that are responsible for developing the MSFS WX radar) more credible than the expertise of real world pilots and study level aircraft developers.

[MarcG 3,031]

1 hour ago, Tuskin38 said:

This is why we need an option to disable METAR

Lest we forget the Q&A where Jorg literally laughed off this idea...

[Tuskin38 6,635]

20 minutes ago, Fiorentoni said:

I see, it‘s a cone indeed, but the original point is still valid. It‘s pretty much useless for proper aviation / navigation. This has again and again been confirmed by conservative old-school devs (PMDG) and new upcoming devs (Fenix) alike, not to mention basically each and every real life pilot here. Not sure why one would consider a post by Working Title (those that are responsible for developing the MSFS WX radar) more credible than the expertise of real world pilots and study level aircraft developers.

It’s better than nothing, and several third party developers use it.

[Christopher Low 5,393]

Yes, but PMDG have proved in the past that they are reluctant to implement something unless it can be done properly.

[threexgreen 3,156]

 

1 hour ago, Fiorentoni said:

The truth is also, however, that CaptainSim are making 20x (!) the net profit of Fenix. Source: Aamir himself.

Where did Fenix get Captain Sim's sales figures let alone actual profit margin from?

Regardless, the fact that hardcore simming where we scrutinize the accuracy of the flaps 3 drag model in tailwind conditions in an addon is pretty niche is old news. It's clear there are way more non-hardcore users that don't see the value in $60 addons. That coupled with the fact Fenix have a lot less exposure to these users as a non-marketplace developer, therefore selling even fewer units, and they also have development costs that are in an entirely different league than Captain Sim's doesn't make it much of a surprise to me that Captain Sim are making a lot more profit (important to emphasize we're talking about profit, not sales figures).

[AnkH 2,282]

1 hour ago, mpo910 said:

Have fun. Be respectful. Criticize Ideas, never people.

Why am I not surprised that exactly M.K. has such a signature line? If the idea is shat and it is even transmitted by a honk, one should be allowed to critize BOTH. Although I generally concur with the line, many people hide behide such statements and M.K. belongs to this fraction sadly.

[sloppysmusic 291]

1 minute ago, AnkH said:

Why am I not surprised that exactly M.K. has such a signature line? If the idea is shat and it is even transmitted by a honk, one should be allowed to critize BOTH. Although I generally concur with the line, many people hide behide such statements and M.K. belongs to this fraction sadly.

Reminds me of the sporting euphemism "play the ball not the man". This works well as the 'ball' is not owned by any individual player so kicking it or stealing it from another player with a (clean) tackle is not a personal attack. 

The signature quoted above imo does NOT work so well as most ideas DO belong to the person who thought of them so are personal. General ideas are not of course.

File under "there's no such thing as a stupid question" and "the customer is always right".

😄

[DD_Arthur 1,091]

1 hour ago, Fiorentoni said:

Not sure why one would consider a post by Working Title (those that are responsible for developing the MSFS WX radar) more credible than the expertise of real world pilots and study level aircraft developers.

For the record Working Title did not create the perfectly serviceable wxr in the sim.

Congrats on the rest of your deliciously ludicrous post though!👍

[threexgreen 3,156]

49 minutes ago, Tuskin38 said:

It’s better than nothing, and several third party developers use it.

I think that's one of those things that ultimately come down to opinion and taste. I absolutely see why others think it's better to have something than none at all.

Personally, I don't think it helps to improve the fidelity of a simulator when you have a WX radar that's essentially half-baked because it doesn't work the way it's supposed to just to have something kinda looking like the real thing. I also don't feel like it fits into addons that aim to simulate an aircraft in the highest fidelity.

[DD_Arthur 1,091]

8 minutes ago, threexgreen said:

I think that's one of those things that ultimately come down to opinion and taste. I absolutely see why others think it's better to have something than none at all.

Personally, I don't think it helps to improve the fidelity of a simulator when you have a WX radar that's essentially half-baked because it doesn't work the way it's supposed to just to have something kinda looking like the real thing. I also don't feel like it fits into addons that aim to simulate an aircraft in the highest fidelity.

A perfectly reasonable opinion and there would also seem a perfectly reasonable solution;

enable WXR and those of us who want to use it can switch it on whilst those of us who don’t can switch it off…

[regis9 4,038]

I’ll be keeping an open mind until it’s actually released and we see what it can do.

Hifisim has a long history of finding innovative ways to do things with sim weather that go beyond what people thought was possible.