11 hours ago, Bobsk8 said:

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

 

 

 

It looked so good, that you prefered to follow the taxiway edge line? 🙂

1 minute ago, fsiscool said:

Is there evidence that ASFS can display more cloud types than I could create manually with a defautl weather preset?

MSFS live weather creates fewer clouds types than ASFS.

2 hours ago, Cpt_Piett said:

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

That's odd, you have some bad texture morphing there at TFFJ, I just checked on mine and I don't have it.

Edited April 22, 20242 yr by Alvega

1 hour ago, Lucky38i said:

I know it’d never happen due to not being limited to one content delivery service but DCS’s model is something I constantly praise. Being able to trial any* product for 2 weeks every 6 months. More than enough time for me to determine if it’s a product I want or not. Much more consumer friendly imo.

I don't even need two weeks. But there should some way to try before you buy, especially since the reviews are all over the place. 

Some minor points :

It's a cheap (very) tool that gives me some interesting options in the sim I actually asked about on these forums days before release. I paid 50 bucks for the 2016 version. 25 bucks for this one.

After a few minutes tweaking the skies no longer look post apocalyptic. I'm sure after a few weeks my tweaking /updates they will look more realistic. 

The sim looks LESS like a game now. 

I'm happy with my purchase. 

The very EXISTENCE of Active Sky for MSFS and the obvious fact many people WANT it to work is a big public announcement to Asobe and Microsoft that the weather system in their flagship sim is NOT 'as real as it gets'. I'm happy to vote with my cash in that regard as voting in their official forums is ignored. 

Oh finally for the first time since installing MSFS 2 months back I'm excitedly taking screen shots every flight like I used to in FSX. Probably the most important factor in my endorsement of this addon. 

 

43 minutes ago, sloppysmusic said:

The very EXISTENCE of Active Sky for MSFS and the obvious fact many people WANT it to work is a big public announcement to Asobe and Microsoft that the weather system in their flagship sim is NOT 'as real as it gets'. I'm happy to vote with my cash in that regard as voting in their official forums is ignored. 

As I wrote several times in weather addon topics: it depends on what you want. You can not say generally MSFS live weather is less realistic than AS (or REX). Take the Alps for example, when flying over them from north to south, very, very often you have almost clear skies e.g. north of the Alps and almost full overcast south of the Alps. While the MSFS weather engine has no issues to depict this, you can see it clearly from above that on one side of the mountain ridge you have clear skies while the other side is covered with clouds, both AS and REX fail simply due to the fact that they can only depict one weather type globally from horizon to horizon. 

In contrast, MSFS weather depicts snow in Milford Sound almost throughout the year, it makes the Berner Oberland an arctic area with frozen lakes and it has very limited cloud variation. If I fly in a locally restricted area, e.g. some VFR flying in and out of Milford sound, some VFR flying in the Alps, then I fire up REX to overcome these limitations of MSFS weather engine. 

Verdict: both MSFS and weather addons have their strong parts. And weak parts. But stating that MSFS weather engine is generally worse or REX and AS generally better is just plain wrong.

55 minutes ago, sloppysmusic said:

The very EXISTENCE of Active Sky for MSFS and the obvious fact many people WANT it to work is a big public announcement to Asobe and Microsoft that the weather system in their flagship sim is NOT 'as real as it gets'.

The best proof of this is the fact that I have finally decided to buy MSFS and the various add-ons I need to have a good experience (PMDG 737, Fenix A320, ATRs, FSHud....). Without ASFS and Historic Weather it wouldn't have been worth the time and effort for me to make the jump...

22 minutes ago, AnkH said:

both AS and REX fail simply due to the fact that they can only depict one weather type globally from horizon to horizon. 

This is what puts me off as well. It’s as expected, and as clearly understood but the videos and screenshots of the whole sky from horizon to horizon being exactly the same weather just seems so off. I get it does happen, but always and everywhere? I don’t know how people put up with it, but obviously many do,

Cloud turbulence being added to passive mode would be a big draw for me, but the active mode’s permanently uniform skies look like a huge immersion minus.

31 minutes ago, AnkH said:

 While the MSFS weather engine has no issues to depict this, you can see it clearly from above that on one side of the mountain ridge you have clear skies while the other side is covered with clouds, both AS and REX fail simply due to the fact that they can only depict one weather type globally from horizon to horizon.

Wait, I thought the whole point of Activesky, apart from the turbulence was that the weather pattern and type changes from point A to point B using weather stations.

Or am I misunderstanding your text.

 

13 hours ago, HUSSAR said:

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!

What's important to note is that METARs are always close approximations of the prevailing conditions by nature, except in the very moment the data is collected at the very location the station is situated. A METAR is nothing more than a snapshot of the conditions at some point in time at some location on the airport.

Most of the time the weather will be slightly different than the METAR, sometimes it will even differ greatly, and this is more apparent the older the METAR report is. For example, the actual wind will almost always be slightly different on landing than what the METAR said, and you can even have different winds around different runways. A METAR may even report headwind for a given runway while you find yourself in a tailwind on landing. The METAR may also report overcast with rain, while the actual conditions have since changed to broken and no rain.

Constantly having AI land on the wrong runways is a different matter of course, but there is a misconception that the conditions must always closely or even exactly match the METAR. That's actually unrealistic.

This is similar to uplinking winds aloft directly from ASFS into the FMC so you get the actual winds that ASFS will set in the sim. That's unrealistic too. What's realistic instead is uplinking the winds from Simbrief since that uses forecast model data. In the real plane you'll obviously only have forcasts from the models too and not the actual wind, so winds aloft in the FMC will be slightly different to the actual winds shown by the aircraft's sensors.

All of this is an approximation in real aviation so some differences between reported/forecast and actual are realistic. Everything else is a cheat. 

3 hours ago, Alvega said:

That's odd, you have some bad texture morphing there at TFFJ, I just checked on mine and I don't have it.

I know, it was terrible! No idea why 🤷🏻‍♂️

3 hours ago, fsiscool said:

It looked so good, that you prefered to follow the taxiway edge line? 🙂

I pulled off to the side while I took the photo, so not to block the taxiway. 😁

16 hours ago, fppilot said:

Where did that come from?  I just installed and configured AS MS. First run at configuring was as easy as taking a short survey of some kind where the questions are  Y or N or rating questions with a scale of 1 ~ 10.  How much easier can it be?

If someone thinks that Active Sky is too difficult to set up and use, they are in the wrong hobby. 

16 minutes ago, scotchegg said:

This is what puts me off as well. It’s as expected, and as clearly understood but the videos and screenshots of the whole sky from horizon to horizon being exactly the same weather just seems so off. I get it does happen, but always and everywhere? I don’t know how people put up with it, but obviously many do,

Cloud turbulence being added to passive mode would be a big draw for me, but the active mode’s permanently uniform skies look like a huge immersion minus.

Enjoy your immersion looking at only Cumulus Clouds, and no lightning and T storms. That sure isn't my idea of immersion. 

2 hours ago, Ricardo41 said:

I don't even need two weeks. But there should some way to try before you buy, especially since the reviews are all over the place. 

one way is  to test it  your  self,  since  as you  said  reviews are all over  the  place.