2 minutes ago, Fiorentoni said:

Fair enought, but since you bought it, at least use the passive depiction mode and enjoy the awesome turbulence stuff!

I did not try that yet, maybe because I fear losing some FPS having Active Sky running also. But will try thanks!

Also will definitely keep trying future versions just to see how it develops.

Just now, rob0203 said:

I did not try that yet, maybe because I fear losing some FPS having Active Sky running also. But will try thanks!

Also will definitely keep trying future versions just to see how it develops.

Active sky uses 0.2% of CPU cycles on my system. 

On 4/21/2024 at 10:39 AM, Fiorentoni said:

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.

I am doing my first long flight (KELM to KLNK) with ASFS and I am very pleased with the cloud variety I am seeing. On climb out from KELM the clouds were flat stratus about 4000 feet thick, As I traveled further west, they changed to a base stratus layer with cumulus buildups here and there rising up through the lower layer. It is something I don’t think I have seen before with default Live Weather, but something I have seen often on real flights, and it looks very good.

Winds aloft at FL340 are spot on. They correspond almost perfectly with the predicted winds aloft at enroute waypoints on my Simbrief flight plan. Not surprising, because both Simbrief and ASFS are using wind predictions from the GFS model. Temperatures aloft are also very close to the Simbrief predictions. 

I see the ASFS configuration menu has options to set the maximum surface and aloft visibility but I don’t think that is working yet. I have the maximum aloft visibility set to 60 miles, but it appears to be unlimited above the clouds, as it is in default Live Weather. I am monitoring several simconnect weather variables with the SDK “Simvar” utility, and the “Ambient Visibility” parameter is fixed at 84.84 miles.

I am now traveling over central Ohio and the clouds have changed to scattered cumulus, but there is no volcanic ash look to them. The real-time current visible satellite image for my aircraft location shows the cloud depiction is accurate.

 

I made a video from my first flight with ASFS. I didn't draw any conclusions, as this was the first time I'd tried ASFS, and it was a short flight. I did read the whole manual before the flight, so I had an idea of ASFS features and settings. 

ASFS settings: Realism mode with download interval 15min and smoothing rate 5. 

I chose the location based on a search at https://www.badbadweather.com/thunderstorm

I'd love to hear people's opinions based on the video. It's only 3 minutes long. 

EDIT: Just remembered, I had turbulence setting in MSFS to low (Fenix suggestion). 

 

I completed my flight from KELM to KLNK, and it was very nice. Clouds cleared around Indiana, and it remained mostly clear to Nebraska, which corresponded to the r/t visible satellite imagery from weather.gov. Winds and temperatures aloft remained exactly the same as the GFS model predictions. Descending into KLNK for the runway 36 approach, it seemed that the transition from aloft to METAR wind was much smoother than it typically is in default Live Weather. 

I think aloft visibility was indeed lower than the default “unlimited” vis seen in default Live Weather, but I don’t know if it was as low as 60 miles, which is what I had set in the ASFS config menu. Not surprising, because the manual weather in MSFS does not have the ability to set visibility in standard aviation units of statute miles or yards (for RVR) but rather uses a “humidity” setting so ASFS may have to do some guesstimating.

Interestingly, Simconnect does have a weather variable called “ambient visibility” and that is expressed in miles, but there is no way to set it in manual weather using those units.

 

More ASFS testing, this time in the Cessna 152 in windy conditions at St. Barts. First ASFS, then MSFS live weather. Unfortunately the weather changed quite a bit between the sessions.

I chose the location based on a search at https://www.badbadweather.com/wind/T (Caribbean) 

ASFS settings: Realism mode with download interval 15min and smoothing rate 5. MSFS turbulence set to realistic.

https://youtu.be/IApqImDiK-8?si=w0az-sniqlwGYFwi

TFFJ ST. Barts, Sting S4 which features CFD and prop physics. Comparison with MSFS more fair as weather had not changed much. https://youtu.be/Xl0zM2Cd4RY?si=sKJxJPB5r0hKAjFI

Edited April 21, 20242 yr by JRBarrett

Just wondering on this link HiFi Previews Active Sky FS for MSFS - Threshold (thresholdx.net) it says:

Passive depiction is recommended for VFR flying, as it provides better cloud variation. 

So then we would have better clouds also with passive mode?

 

So much libelous hyperbole being thrown against this new product from a decades old and universally respected developer.  Where is our humanity?  What have we become as a culture?

Ok, that was my take of people, now my take of the product.  I bought it because I’ve always had HiFi Simulation products and never was disappointed and always felt that it bought much value, especially when stock WX engines were woefully lacking. The value was easy to see. 

MSFS does not have a woefully lacking WX engine. In fact it is probably the most capable ever seen in our hobby bar none. And before you say what about cirrus and lightning and turbulence?  All those marvelous nuances ASFS brings to the table are nothing more than complex and detailed scripts driving the Asobo wx engine.  

So I bought it because I respect and like Damien and HiFiSSim.  And I will keep it for a myriad of reasons many listed here and fully aware of its shortcomings I would buy it again and would definitely recommend it to others.

YMMV  TANSTAAFL

-B

 

Edited April 21, 20242 yr by btacon

1 hour ago, espent said:

That is the point though. No one is reading anymore. How do you think people are learning Photoshop today? People have 20 kilos of books collecting dust while they are watching YouTube videos. People are not reading on how to fly the Fenix or the PMDG’s. They are watching streamers and YouTube videos. You don’t have to like it, but if you think most people are ready to plow through 50 pages to learn ASFS then it is time to pull the head out of the sand. 
 

 

You seem to miss the point completely!  When I have a problem with something, the first thing I do is check youtube. I don't read the manual, half the time I don't have the manual BUT I demand that the youtuber making the video RTFM. If you are going to set yourself up as a source of valuable info you owe it to your viewers to at least RTFM to provide accurate info. Then the individual users can adjust and go from there. The EASY and REALISTIC modes work just fine but if the user doesn't understand what to expect when making comparisons it makes no difference. 

Just landed at KCLT, a little rainshower on short final, as I descended below a cloud, and then a rainbow.  

 

 

 

Just now, Bobsk8 said:

Just landed at KCLT, a little rainshower on short final, as I descended below a cloud, and then a rainbow.  

 

 

 

I must say that looks really good!

3 minutes ago, rob0203 said:

I must say that looks really good!

One of the most realistic looking approaches I have made in 1,000s of hours on MSFS. That little sprinkle of a rain shower on approach , is just like  what I  used to see in South Florida, flying in my Cessna. 

Edited April 21, 20242 yr by Bobsk8

18 minutes ago, rob0203 said:

Just wondering on this link HiFi Previews Active Sky FS for MSFS - Threshold (thresholdx.net) it says:

Passive depiction is recommended for VFR flying, as it provides better cloud variation. 

So then we would have better clouds also with passive mode?

 

Not really - I don't like passive mode - but realistic depiction may have stratus layers that will "spoil" the VFR view of the ground. You have to decide. Frankly, if one wants just look around, clear out all weather set the time to noon and have at it.:)

1 hour ago, rob0203 said:

Really can't go back to not having weather in the distance instead of having this morphing etc.
Flying into weather systems is really something I really like in the MSFS weather systems.

I had this same complaint in the beta - I set my smoothing rate to 5 or 10 and download interval to 15 and, although it doesn't display fronts perse, I could see the deteriorating weather in the distance as I flew. One thing, you get the best effects of this when you have a flightplan loaded. AS takes the start/destination data and manipulates as you go. Just flying around looking for stuff is not the same. With the exception of fronts, I find AS to be as realistic as when I was flying IRL.

 

1 hour ago, Bobsk8 said:

Just landed at KCLT, a little rainshower on short final, as I descended below a cloud, and then a rainbow.  

 

 

 

Amazing pic. Wasn't there a song: "Somewhere, under the rainbow...." 😄

Seriously though, I am so happy to have realistic weather and conditions that match the METAR; not something that is a close approximation, and I'm usually landing in the wrong direction in respect to AI aircraft when relying on MSFS weather!

Rob

Edited April 21, 20242 yr by HUSSAR

 

1 hour ago, Bobsk8 said:

Just landed at KCLT, a little rainshower on short final, as I descended below a cloud, and then a rainbow.  

 

 

 

Bob! That looks like a real rainbow.  It appears to have a decently long stretch from the surface up into the clouds. 

Clearly that is not the typical MSFS rainbow is it?  The native MSFS ones that form a roundish arc from the ground back to the ground, like a decoration over the entrance to a Jr Sr Prom
 

Edited April 21, 20242 yr by fppilot

3 hours ago, motishow said:

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

The user was in a live stream and perhaps flying on IVAO or VATSIM at the time. I heard ATIS from an online source; was his complaint that ATIS did not match ASFS? How could it? They're both from different sources. There were so many apps running, it was really hard to tell what he was doing right.

Before bashing ASFS, he should have taken the time to configure everything instead IMO. Don't blame ASFS for your mistakes lol.

Edited April 21, 20242 yr by HUSSAR

1 hour ago, vgbaron said:

Not really - I don't like passive mode - but realistic depiction may have stratus layers that will "spoil" the VFR view of the ground. You have to decide. Frankly, if one wants just look around, clear out all weather set the time to noon and have at it.:)

I had this same complaint in the beta - I set my smoothing rate to 5 or 10 and download interval to 15 and, although it doesn't display fronts perse, I could see the deteriorating weather in the distance as I flew. One thing, you get the best effects of this when you have a flightplan loaded. AS takes the start/destination data and manipulates as you go. Just flying around looking for stuff is not the same. With the exception of fronts, I find AS to be as realistic as when I was flying IRL.

 

I noticed this myself. I couldn't really see the weather change much unless I have a flight plan loaded. Something I'm sure many people oversee and then complain about 😁

 

Edited April 21, 20242 yr by DModjo

27 minutes ago, HUSSAR said:

The user was in a live stream and perhaps flying on IVAO or VATSIM at the time. I heard ATIS from an online source; was his complaint that ATIS did not match ASFS? How could it? They're both from different sources. There were so many apps running, it was really hard to tell what he was doing right.

Before bashing ASFS, he should have taken the time to configure everything instead IMO. Don't blame ASFS for your mistakes lol.

Watched his video, he's all over the place with so many add-ons installed and running, as you well said, he can't handle a new product review, even after naming his live video ASFS review. It's a shame that hard work from a trusted developer like Damian has to take this from click bait youtubers.

Edited April 21, 20242 yr by SN737