ActiveSky FS Released

[MarcG 3,073]

2 minutes ago, Damian Clark said:

If you have another wx add-on, it must be deactivated or will conflict.  If you are using notoolbarhandle or nohandlebar mods they will conflict and must be disabled (we're working on a fix right now for that).  If you're using an older version of Flow that can also conflict (just update flow to resolve this).  Hope that helps.

Thanks sorry I forgot to add; No other mods enabled.

[Damian Clark 1,332]

2 hours ago, GSalden said:

Anyone that can answer this question :

Are AS clouds also coordinate/cloud type/cloud structure based as in MSFS Live Weather ?

Because of the above clouds at the same time and same coordinates look completely the same on each pc. In my case with 2 view pc’s I therefore have sync’d clouds on all screens.

Probably Passive mode is able to do so but if I am correct it then is like MSFS Live Weather with some extra effects like turbulence.

I am interested in AS Live Weather and before buying 2 licenses it would be nice to know..

It should sync pretty well based on the RNG seed control being raw conditions and positional based in these newer AS versions, and same cloud specs result in same visuals in MSFS, but multi computer sync has not been specifically tuned nor tested by us.

Edited April 20 by Damian Clark

[Damian Clark 1,332]

12 minutes ago, MarcG said:

Thanks sorry I forgot to add; No other mods enabled.

Then that's a brand new issue we haven't seen.  Sorry about that.  Please visit our support forums or open a ticket, we'd be happy to figure this out and get you running ASAP.

[andy1252 4,077]

It's been an interesting experience for me, reading (ok, skimming) all this and discovering how people relate to the weather in the sim. For example, I had no real idea about the whole 'historical weather' thing and why folks want it before this and a couple of other related threads.

End result for me though is that I realise I'm not actually concerned about any of this. I have bought this in the past, along with the Rex stuff, but really just for the visual improvements in P3D and suchlike. I actively don't want to find myself being blown around in the sky by realistic weather conditions, as I'm not generally concerned about realistic flight, just as realistic-looking a world as I can get. And for me, the various presets packages do the job nicely. I have skies that I find hugely appealing visually, and that's all I want. They may not be 'realistic' in terms of strict accuracy, but they are good looking and convincing enough for my needs.

When the dust settles and after a couple of updates I'll probably pick up a copy of this just to check out the visuals, but for now I'll pass. Meanwhile, I wish HFST well and hope they sell lots of copies - I've appreciated the product in the past and may yet in the future.

[MarcG 3,073]

6 minutes ago, Damian Clark said:

Then that's a brand new issue we haven't seen.  Sorry about that.  Please visit our support forums or open a ticket, we'd be happy to figure this out and get you running ASAP.

Thank you, I'll have another go later to see if I can get it working if not then I'll do just that 🙂

[DModjo 127]

A few things I've noticed since using ASFS:

- Rainbows and storms show up which seem to never when using default live weather
- Volumetric lighting from the aircraft appears in humid conditions which never occurred using default

I think default live weather is actually broken and just doesn't use the sim's weather model to it's full potential. ASFS fills this gap.

Edited April 20 by DModjo

[AlexMD11 15]

Are there any plans to use different sources of cloud data rather than just METAR? For instance, think no cloud is reported about 5,000ft in the UK, whilst we often see cloudy conditions above that - and understand AS would depict this as clear skies as not reported on METAR?

[Damian Clark 1,332]

Thanks everyone for your support, feedback, encouragement and constructive criticism.  From my side, I've found that the vast majority of those who've actually tried ASFS are very favorable and positive (with some exceptions of course), while the vast majority of negative feedback is seemingly from those who haven't and won't, and it just looks like they are trying to influence others to stay away.  I'm personally focused on the feedback from those who've actually tried it and actually want further ASFS development, and there's a ton of great feedback there.  There's definitely some issues and adjustments we need to take care of, and we're working hard on that.  We're also working on lots of new features.  We have a big list of items we were hoping we'd get a chance to work on, and thanks to you, we've been given that chance.  It's clear that AS has successfully provided many with the features and solutions they've been looking for, and I wanted to thank everyone who's given it a try and given us an opportunity, once again, to continue further development.  Without your support, we simply could not continue.  Thank you so much for giving me and the HiFi team the opportunity to keep doing what we love.

Remember that you can give us direct feedback, suggestions and bug reports at our forums (http://forums.hifisimtech.com) and our support helpdesk (http://hifisimtech.zendesk.com).  Thanks all!

[sloppysmusic 337]

@Damian Clark

Been having some rather 'extreme' diving and climbing during approach during a mild storm so today went through all my ASFS settings.

I noticed there are two settings for MAXIMUM DOWNDRAFT RATE & MAXIMUM UPDRAFT RATE.

These were both set to 1500 fpm but the default value is clearly marked as 1000 fpm on centre of screen.

I have not changed these settings myself. This is from a 'default' install of the beta over the release version. I have reset them to 1000 and will see if that makes a difference.

If the app is fine tuned and tested to work well and airplanes are not too 'crazy' with the default 1000fpm then.....maybe if by accident ALL customers are actually starting off with the wrong defaults (boosted by 50% to 1500) then this MIGHT cause some of the sudden loss of control during flight they are experiencing?

My PMDG 739 lost all control during approach yesterday as I was about to start down the glideslope so had to land manually as trimming useless against such wild external varying forces. 

Can someone else check to see if their defaults are the correct 1000 or the 1500 mine were set to?

[psolk 3,127]

4 hours ago, Damian Clark said:

It does sound like a wake effect event, for sure, that's the only thing that we have in air effects that gives a significant rolling motion (when you're in those relevant portions of the simulated vortices).  Not sure what triggered it.  And it seems excessive to do that much damage in the aircraft you were flying.  But it may have been correct.  I have multiplayer traffic on and sometimes will see aircraft move/slew right in front of me, giving me the wake, and some times I don't see them (but then see them and their wake trail in the map).  It's possible a heavy did leave a wake trail for you.  I'd suggest flying with wake off to see if this goes away.  If you find any specific issues please let us know.

Perhaps that was it but there were no other aircraft using runway 12..  To your point, it was absolutely excessive if it was wake and I had it at default setting.  I mean it was a total uncontrollable inverted roll with an impact of 8000 ft/min with the ground.  

Edited April 20 by psolk

[Fiorentoni 4,479]

2 minutes ago, Damian Clark said:

Thanks everyone for your support, feedback, encouragement and constructive criticism.  From my side, I've found that the vast majority of those who've actually tried ASFS are very favorable and positive (with some exceptions of course), while the vast majority of negative feedback is seemingly from those who haven't and won't, and it just looks like they are trying to influence others to stay away.  I'm personally focused on the feedback from those who've actually tried it and actually want further ASFS development, and there's a ton of great feedback there.  There's definitely some issues and adjustments we need to take care of, and we're working hard on that.  We're also working on lots of new features.  We have a big list of items we were hoping we'd get a chance to work on, and thanks to you, we've been given that chance.  It's clear that AS has successfully provided many with the features and solutions they've been looking for, and I wanted to thank everyone who's given it a try and given us an opportunity, once again, to continue further development.  Without your support, we simply could not continue.  Thank you so much for giving me and the HiFi team the opportunity to keep doing what we love.

Remember that you can give us direct feedback, suggestions and bug reports at our forums (http://forums.hifisimtech.com) and our support helpdesk (http://hifisimtech.zendesk.com).  Thanks all!

I was kind of sceptical after the announcement in regards to the visual quality / immersion and thought you might just put something out for MSFS to stay in the business, something that's not really needed anymore for the MSFS generation (except for historical weather, which was worth it alone of course). But oh boy was I wrong - this product just spills quality everywhere. It's the exact opposite of what I feared - rather than a quick cash grab it's a very high quality, very sophisticated product that greatly enhances the weather / turbulence side of MSFS.
One thing though: I highly suggest putting out a trial version (7 days maybe), since there are many people that shy away from it because of those youtubers, but that might give it a quick try in a trial version.

[Fiorentoni 4,479]

4 hours ago, sloppysmusic said:

@Damian Clark

These were both set to 1500 fpm but the default value is clearly marked as 1000 fpm on centre of screen.

Still 1000 for me after the update.

Edited April 20 by Ray Proudfoot
Quoted post edited

[Damian Clark 1,332]

32 minutes ago, AlexMD11 said:

Are there any plans to use different sources of cloud data rather than just METAR? For instance, think no cloud is reported about 5,000ft in the UK, whilst we often see cloudy conditions above that - and understand AS would depict this as clear skies as not reported on METAR?

We are using more than METAR data (much more actually), but at the actual METAR stations and in direct vicinity (2 miles), we're currently hard weighting METAR NO CLOUD specs over the other data.  You have to fly a bit away from the station to get the upper air model and other data influence in this case.  This is by design.  For example, when a METAR sky condition element says "NSC" or "NCD", it's saying that it sees NO clouds up to 5000ft, or up to its entire range (depending on process/equipment).  Our users have demanded we respect that until now.  What we are seeing now, with MSFS live weather, is a blind ignore of certain METAR elements like this, and blending of the grib clouds with the empty METAR clouds.  And many like this.  And as we've seen, this can be realistic, sometimes (but not always).  Observations are based on a narrow view of the sky above the station so it's definitely possible that this measures no clouds but there are clouds just off to the side, or all over the sky, with perhaps a hole above the airport.  And with 5000ft limit for sky condition specs (every area/station is seemingly different), there could definitely be clouds over 5k.

Currently we add "additional" cloud layers based on the model data and synthesis, when the METAR DOES NOT explicitly specify no clouds.  For example, if no clouds at all are specified, we weight the other data fairly significantly and add clouds accordingly (of general CAVOK specification).

Anyhow, what we're planning on doing to improve this is not taking the no cloud designation so seriously, by user configuration, so there can be clouds even when the METAR says no.  And we're also looking at heavier weighting more model data in general.  I'm pretty excited about this.  We tried doing this a long time ago and it was shot down very quickly by nearly everyone.  METAR or bust.  But with MSFS, not only are users more open to this, they are demanding it.  For those METAR purists, however, don't worry, you'll always be able to get that same experience if you want.

Edited April 20 by Damian Clark

[AlexMD11 15]

6 minutes ago, Damian Clark said:

We are using more than METAR data (much more actually)….

Anyhow, what we're planning on doing to improve this is not taking the no cloud designation so seriously, by user configuration, so there can be clouds even when the METAR says no.  And we're also looking at heavier weighting more model data in general.  I'm pretty excited about this.  We tried doing this a long time ago and it was shot down very quickly by nearly everyone.  METAR or bust.  But with MSFS, not only are users more open to this, they are demanding it.  For those METAR purists, however, don't worry, you'll always be able to get that same experience if you want.

Thanks for the detailed explanation - that’s much appreciated and look forward to next developments!

Edited April 20 by AlexMD11

[RALF9636 2,029]

1 hour ago, Fiorentoni said:

It's not working on COM2 at the moment, on no aircraft. 

That's not true. I use it all the time on COM2 in the Fenix.

Are you sure you have COM2 turned on properly in your aircraft? And probably you need to deactivate any auto-comm features of the sim or any other addons.

Edited April 20 by RALF9636