ActiveSky FS Released

[MrBitstFlyer 3,897]

1 hour ago, Ron Lefebvre said:

Still not sure I understand even following all of this, but this is what I want to know.

If I use Active sky with the commanche 250 or even the 414

will my flight be more bumpy as in real life or will it still be the same as the default MSFS.

 

The turbulence effects in ASFS are far better than default.

[Bobsk8 12,879]

Just now, Virtpilot said:

I have not made may mind yet... And I have a dilemma... Sometimes after reading things here from Avsim, I have decided that I will buy it, and then I go to Youtube watching some reviews, and I don´t buy it.. 🙃. I have read complaints about clouds being flat. Well, as I watch the sky here in northern Europe, the sky and the clouds are as flat as flat can be. And seeing those videos and pictures about solid overcast layers, that it should look like. Not like those dramatic volcanic cumulus things with the default weather. So one could say that I´m on the fence here.... I keep following the debate some more...

Guess what, many times clouds in real life are flat. Some of the reviewers on Youtube aren't worth anything. They don't read the manual, are clueless how to adjust the app, and complain that it is no good when it doesn't work for them. 

[RALF9636 1,999]

15 minutes ago, Andrewpilot35 said:

Hi guys quick question turbulence msfs settings (in menu low, medium, realistic) doesnt matter when using AS with AS Preset control right ? because everything is under AS control.

The in-sim turbulence setting still has an effect. Set it to your liking. ASFS was developed with the setting to low. But you can set it higher if you like.

 

[Fiorentoni 4,405]

23 minutes ago, Virtpilot said:

I have not made may mind yet... And I have a dilemma... Sometimes after reading things here from Avsim, I have decided that I will buy it, and then I go to Youtube watching some reviews, and I don´t buy it.. 🙃. I have read complaints about clouds being flat. Well, as I watch the sky here in northern Europe, the sky and the clouds are as flat as flat can be. And seeing those videos and pictures about solid overcast layers, that it is it should look like. Not like those dramatic volcanic cumulus things with the default weather. So one could say that I´m on the fence here.... I keep following the debate some more...

I think a common misconception is that AS only creates flat clouds. It doesn't. It creates different types and variations of clouds, some will be flat, some will be like MSFS default volcanic ash clouds. It's interpretated from the data AS uses.

[SN737 142]

13 minutes ago, RALF9636 said:

The in-sim turbulence setting still has an effect. Set it to your liking. ASFS was developed with the setting to low. But you can set it higher if you like.

 

That's right, I use msfs in "realistic" with PMDG 737's and I'm very pleased with AS turb effect in it's default 50 value.

Edited April 21 by SN737

[Gogolathome 5]

52 minutes ago, Fiorentoni said:

If LNM has this option, why wouldn't it be usable? Basically any other addon can read a .txt file that is regularly updated by ActiveSky with the (live or historical) weather data it uses.

That is exactly what I was thinking, but I want to be sure. Now we both are thinking the same. 😉

Edited April 21 by Gogolathome

[vgbaron 3,724]

55 minutes ago, espent said:

It is a shame for HiFi if only the inteligencia of AVsim have the capability to run the software. 

Not sure I understand your point but any software can be run by anybody. Some are simpler than others. AS requires that you at least TRY to read the manual. ALL of the negative reviews I have seen on youtube shows me that the reviewer doesn't know how to run the program or what to expect. One comparison video has the reviewer switching back and forth between settings and the manual explicitly states this will mess with the weather.

You do not have to be "intelligencia" to read a manual.

I just feel AS should get a fair shake, if you use it as it is intended and don't like it - fine! You are entitled to your opinion.

Like not putting air in the tires and complaining that the car is no good because the ride is bumpy.

[Juliett Alfa Romeo 561]

FSHud - Air Traffic Control announces integration with the newly released Active Sky FS by HiFi, and more.

 

Now released in the version 1.3 beta channel, FSHud – Air Traffic Control now includes compatibility with Active Sky FS by HiFi Simulation Technologies. While connected to Active Sky FS, FSHud - Air Traffic Control is able to receive and utilize more precise weather information and forecasts. This will allow for more accurate traffic configurations and runway selections at your airports.

 

Along with Active Sky FS integration, FSHud – Air Traffic Control has received the latest updates to its traffic engine. These updates provide significant improvements in aircraft vectoring, spacing, speed control, and ground handling.

 

All these features are now available for FSHud users via the beta version 1.3 channel. The BETA version can be selected as an option after purchase.

 

The FSHud team is also announcing new social media channels which will allow users to get the best Air Traffic Control experience, and to keep on top of new FSHud developments. These channels will improve the user experience through expanded information and guidance on how to use and configure FSHud, and will include video content that walks users through both basic and important modes of FSHud – Air Traffic Control operations.

 

 

 

[rjquick 234]

How are people determining that the turbulence is 'correct' or not? Is it an opinion or based on a real world flight comparison for that day?

[Ron Lefebvre 127]

Wow. I was really skeptical, but just a quick flight was enough to convince me.

Clouds so much more realistic and seeing the dashboard bob up and down in the 172 is so much more what I remember from flying.

Can't wait to load up the commanche.

 

[cyyzrwy24 129]

21 minutes ago, rjquick said:

How are people determining that the turbulence is 'correct' or not? Is it an opinion or based on a real world flight comparison for that day?

How...? Try to land now at EHAM with Realistic mode and you'll find out. It doesn't get better then this....

[Cognita 1,114]

I miss the global picture with more variety of weather in different directions, but I have to agree with others here that the representation of weather in active mode is almost always more convincing, as is the interaction with the air. So, it seems, I will need to let go of my desire for a more global picture and take the more authentic portrayal produced active mode. It is really too bad that Asobo did not give weather the time it needed but maybe they will now have a better appreciation for what a company like Active Sky can do.

[MrBitstFlyer 3,897]

33 minutes ago, rjquick said:

How are people determining that the turbulence is 'correct' or not? Is it an opinion or based on a real world flight comparison for that day?

Many on Avism have flown a real aircraft. My experience is the Piper Tomahawk, Piper Cherokee and Cessna 172.  ASFS turbulence feels more natural, like it is the air moving the aircraft, where MFSF turbulence feels like 'pre-packed rythmic movements' IMHO.

[Luis Hernandez 591]

Ouch, this discussion is worse than even P3D Vs MSFS!

The other thing I see is that no one is taking about FPS. I'll take it as a good sign. Anyway, now I'm only waiting to see if SU15 wrecks it or not...or until I run out of excuses first😂

 

Edited April 21 by Luis Hernandez

[motishow 132]

Any fix for that?  historical weather is totally useless , QNH of historical weather isn´t the same of plane QNH

Edited April 21 by motishow