1 minute ago, mmcmah said:

Agreed, and it's on both sides of the like/dislike spectrum.

I mean, if nobody pooped in your cheerios this morning none of this warranted.

UNLESS its Captain Piett.

😁

 

5 minutes ago, Cpt_Piett said:

...

Indeed. Btw I sort of knew I would meet some resistance just by asking this simple question, in a completely non-offensive manner.

It's getting bad lately.  From certain users who you would expect to know better as well.

24 minutes ago, Bobsk8 said:

If I had a dollar for every reviewer that didn't even  bother to read the manual, I could go out for a 5 star restaurant dinner tonight. 😉

If I had a dollar for every "reviewer" that didn't even try the product, I'd go with you.

 

8 minutes ago, Sonosusto said:

I mean, I love active sky (xp11 and now 12) but will likely opt out for msfs. Default is good enough.

That's where I stand as well.

I love Active Sky as a product line. And I think it's great that it is available for MSFS.

I recall my first hifisim purchase was back in 2005. Since then plenty of iterations has passed by in my sims (AS evolution, AS2012, AS next, AS2016...I also own Active Sky for XP)

But for my style of flying in MSFS which is mostly VFR in largely remote swedish terrain, Meteoblue model is  close to the forecasted VFR-areas (vis +5km and BKN/OVC layer +1000ft AGL)  published by our local authority. 

But for other styles of simming I can see ASFS has its audience.

Options are never a bad thing.

7 minutes ago, Cpt_Piett said:

Indeed. Btw I sort of knew I would meet some resistance just by asking this simple question, in a completely non-offensive manner.

Unfortunately so. As a first time Active Sky user, I too felt the process had quite a bit of things to get through before being fully set up. I also had to restart my computer after the beta update came out and the connector utility needed to be updated after the base software was updated, because the program wouldn't start again without my restarting the PC.

Additionally, the interface can appear daunting, with the lots of information shown as well as the myriad options available. They make perfect sense, though, when you think about it, so I don't think it's unnecessarily complicated at all. Actually, it's what I was hoping for in a weather add-on, as I never had any real granular control of the Rex weather settings in MSFS.

All in all, the installation does require more than a simple button press, and then to get it working well for what you want from it, you really do need to look at all of the option settings.

I am happy with the software and looking forward to its evolution. I am also looking forward to whatever MS/Asobo will bring to the table in 2020 and 2024, but I believe that I will continue to be happy to have alternatives/choices for weather as well as other aspects of the sim.

55 minutes ago, bobcat999 said:

It's getting bad lately.  From certain users who you would expect to know better as well.

It’s an internet phenomenon. I very rarely experience anything remotely similar in real life.

Edited April 20, 20242 yr by Cpt_Piett

40 minutes ago, Fiorentoni said:

No idea what site you're reading, but what I quoted is writen here: https://hifisimtech.com/asfs/

You have no idea what site I'm reading because you didn't read the site of the link you posted yourself. Try reading it to the end. 🙄

With MS2024 around the corner "meteoblue" will still be the dominent weather forcaster. In 4 years WF from Rex has tried, now AS.

So, for the next 4 up to 2028, maybe even beyond, nothing will change and the developers of weather engins knows it. MS and Asobo is one ahead , common it's not so bad, by the way it's only a simulator and not a "game"

55 minutes ago, SAS443 said:

That's where I stand as well.

I love Active Sky as a product line. And I think it's great that it is available for MSFS.

I recall my first hifisim purchase was back in 2005. Since then plenty of iterations has passed by in my sims (AS evolution, AS2012, AS next, AS2016...I also own Active Sky for XP)

But for my style of flying in MSFS which is mostly VFR in largely remote swedish terrain, Meteoblue model is  close to the forecasted VFR-areas (vis +5km and BKN/OVC layer +1000ft AGL)  published by our local authority. 

But for other styles of simming I can see ASFS has its audience.

Options are never a bad thing.

You took the words right out of my mouth 🙂 

Like you I bought my first AS version in 2005 (ASV in June '05) and I have acquired every single version for the ESP platform since then. Although my primary use case is not the same as yours (FenixSim A320 for BAVirtual) I find the default wx engine entirely fit for purpose, except for the somewhat poor cloud depiction. DEP/DEST metars have been accurate, upper winds close enough to those used in Simbrief when planning to result in fuel consumption very close to planned amounts.

I have been following this thread to help me decide whether I should purchase ASFS, but so far I'm not convinced. In fact, the fairly rabid rebuttals towards any sort of criticism of ASFS has actually had the opposite effect for me, but hey, it's still early days ...

17 minutes ago, SierraDelta said:

have been following this thread to help me decide whether I should purchase ASFS, but so far I'm not convinced. In fact, the fairly rabid rebuttals towards any sort of criticism of ASFS has actually had the opposite effect for me, but hey, it's still early days ...

I won't try to speak for anyone else but to me, the majority of the criticism comes from people who have not tried it, people who tried it without reading the manual or even understanding what it does, people who haven't a clue what real clouds look like or people who feel compelled to be counted by saying I like msfs weather as it is.  Those sort of comments tend to get a rise out of me and I am sure will provoke "rabid" responses from others.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, I personally do not like to fly airliners but I don't feel the need to jump into every thread about PMDG or Fenix and complain about why flying airliners is a complete waste of time or that the exorbitant prices of these addons are a cash grab.

I follow all these threads as a mod and I see the same people complaining about the same things, over and over and the same people jump in and complain about the people who are complaining or complaining about the fact that people do complain.

and my opinion?  buy it - it's not perfect but once setup properly it is an exceptional product and HiFi has more features that they are working on.

1 hour ago, Alvega said:

You have no idea what site I'm reading because you didn't read the site of the link you posted yourself. Try reading it to the end. 🙄

Indeed, actually I didn't even see the link. My bad, sorry. Anyway: All turbulences are working in each of the two modes AS offers.

24 minutes ago, Fiorentoni said:

Indeed, actually I didn't even see the link. My bad, sorry. Anyway: All turbulences are working in each of the two modes AS offers.

This is the last paragraph in the link. 

 

Is cloud turbulence provided?

Cloud turbulence is a work-in-progress, currently supporting higher-coverage layers and thunderstorm-related turbulence in ASFS Preset depiction mode. We are working on additional cloud detection capability to support cloud turbulence in sparser types of cloud layers as well as use within Passive/MSFS Live wx mode.

Edited April 20, 20242 yr by Bobsk8

Whoever has ever seen a satellite image knows that this is something highly artificial. Real weather is just not a sum of METAR bubbles with random smoothing in between.

 

Edited April 20, 20242 yr by versus

9 minutes ago, versus said:

Whoever has ever seen a satellite image knows that this is something highly artificial. Real weather is just not a sum of METAR bubbles with random smoothing in between.

 

And no one said the map was a satellite image OR a highly accurate depiction. It has always been a representation of the weather not a reproduction. In P3D the weather RADAR was accurate, this map is just provided for reference. Use the briefings or the comms to get current data.

From a RW A320 flight, FL300, EDDL to LSZH. If I knew the date, I could probably use historical weather in AS to compare. 

https://youtu.be/aOQpOIfuanQ?si=w1OoYY1vMaPA_48o