Active Sky review

[aniiran 434]

Just now, sd_flyer said:

Here is Active Sky shows some weather ahead while I'm cruising at FL200

 

Yeah, I see that kind of stuff. I'm talking multiple cloud decks above 20 k.  Or just thick cloud decks above 20k.  My fear is that Acive sky reads FAIR and doesn't depict clouds below 12,000 feet. SloppyMusic is showing some thin high clouds at 20k feet or higher but they are still thin.

[mmcmah 445]

4 minutes ago, aniiran said:

Hmmm those do deptict high clouds,  I wonder if some people are having server issues or a conflicting mod.  I can't get anything like that.

I was at 14k or 15k in Colombia and had similar clouds, with inversion or low hanging clouds in the valleys. I took some screenshots but they're in HDR. I'll try to post.

[sd_flyer 6,089]

1 minute ago, aniiran said:

Yeah, I see that kind of stuff. I'm talking multiple cloud decks above 20 k.  Or just thick cloud decks above 20k.  My fear is that Acive sky reads FAIR and doesn't depict clouds below 12,000 feet. SloppyMusic is showing some thin high clouds at 20k feet or higher but they are still thin.

Do you realize that cumulus is not the only one type of cloud that you can see? 

[edu2703 281]

Copying my comment from the other thread

My only criticism so far is regarding the turbulence effects. Although I recognize they are better than default effects, they are still far below what I expected.

I have tested turbulence several times with ASFS by intentionally flying small aircraft in severe weather conditions, into heavy clouds. I expected very severe, almost uncontrollable turbulence. However, I only got something compared to mild/moderate turbulence, although the debug says these are the 'severe turbulence' effects. All this with turbulence, wind and windshear options in ASFS settings set to maximum.

It appears that turbulence effects have been reduced due to compatibility issues with some aircraft. It also appears that ASFS currently doesn't have microburst/windshear effects, which can be verified either by testing the 'Microburst encounter' scenario or manually triggering a microburst or windshear in Debug option. You only get a windshear warning, but nothing happens.

[aniiran 434]

5 minutes ago, sd_flyer said:

Do you realize that cumulus is not the only one type of cloud that you can see? 

yes I do, that isn't the question.   The question is why is MSFS live weather depicting high cloud layers properly matching the availible weather data from the NWS and Windy while in over 20 scenarios I have not seen one single high cloud deck from ASFS.

[mmcmah 445]

4 minutes ago, edu2703 said:

Copying my comment from the other thread

My only criticism so far is regarding the turbulence effects. Although I recognize they are better than default effects, they are still far below what I expected.

I have tested turbulence several times with ASFS by intentionally flying small aircraft in severe weather conditions, into heavy clouds. I expected very severe, almost uncontrollable turbulence. However, I only got something compared to mild/moderate turbulence, although the debug says these are the 'severe turbulence' effects. All this with turbulence, wind and windshear options in ASFS settings set to maximum.

It appears that turbulence effects have been reduced due to compatibility issues with some aircraft. It also appears that ASFS currently doesn't have microburst/windshear effects, which can be verified either by testing the 'Microburst encounter' scenario or manually triggering a microburst or windshear in Debug option. You only get a windshear warning, but nothing happens.

From the HiFi forum: https://forums.hifisimtech.com/threads/no-variable-wind-gusting-and-windshear.14888/post-66891

[mmcmah 445]

3 minutes ago, aniiran said:

yes I do, that isn't the question.   The question is why is MSFS live weather depicting high cloud layers properly matching the availible weather data from the NWS and Windy while in over 20 scenarios I have not seen one single high cloud deck from ASFS.

This might be related. It's from Damian: "We are indeed aware of a lack of upper clouds being depicted when METAR states NSC or NCD and clouds may exist in real life, which appears to affect Europe mainly. This is by design and not a bug but we understand it's not ideal. We are working on improving that. There are going to be some issues to resolve and improvements to make. We try our best to make our software as solid and capable as possible, but there are always some initial issues. We appreciate your patience and feedback while we work those issues out and make improvements."

[mmcmah 445]

Also, for those of you that own the software and want to tweak your transition settings, this is also from Damian: "Start at any airport, then enable developer mode (MSFS options) and then use the Teleport tool to go to a different airport with the cloud conditions you want to try transitioning to. This will enable a smooth transition to the new conditions as AS does not detect a location change and the associated instant update in this case."

[aniiran 434]

3 minutes ago, mmcmah said:

This might be related. It's from Damian: "We are indeed aware of a lack of upper clouds being depicted when METAR states NSC or NCD and clouds may exist in real life, which appears to affect Europe mainly. This is by design and not a bug but we understand it's not ideal. We are working on improving that. There are going to be some issues to resolve and improvements to make. We try our best to make our software as solid and capable as possible, but there are always some initial issues. We appreciate your patience and feedback while we work those issues out and make improvements."

Ah okay, so it looks like they are working on upper level cloud depiction still.  Thanks for the post.  

[vgbaron 3,715]

10 minutes ago, aniiran said:

yes I do, that isn't the question.   The question is why is MSFS live weather depicting high cloud layers properly matching the availible weather data from the NWS and Windy while in over 20 scenarios I have not seen one single high cloud deck from ASFS.

Because essentially MS is incorrect. Typically, the higher you go the thinner the clouds except for clouds with vertical development like thunderheads. MS puts thick clouds there because thats what users like to see, not that it is realistic. AS will put the proper clouds where they belong in most cases but they might not look like what you hope for, but they are realistic. MS is more cinematic. If you really have to have those kind of cloud depictions, use AS in passive mode - AS doesn't touch the clouds but you get more accurate wind effects anyway. Also - AS use the available metar data not windy.com.

 

this is in addition to what was posted above.

[aniiran 434]

26 minutes ago, vgbaron said:

Because essentially MS is incorrect. Typically, the higher you go the thinner the clouds except for clouds with vertical development like thunderheads. MS puts thick clouds there because thats what users like to see, not that it is realistic. AS will put the proper clouds where they belong in most cases but they might not look like what you hope for, but they are realistic. MS is more cinematic. If you really have to have those kind of cloud depictions, use AS in passive mode - AS doesn't touch the clouds but you get more accurate wind effects anyway. Also - AS use the available metar data not windy.com.

 

this is in addition to what was posted above.

Windy.com METAR and NWS AWC data always match.  

The clouds in question north of Denver are opaque on the visible blue GOES 18 the tops are between 20-24k feet in altitude they are not cirrus.  They are altocumulus. or altostratus or mixed.

AS does not depict them at all.  It depicts no clouds above 12000 over Denver right now.

Edited April 22 by aniiran

[fppilot 4,397]

30 minutes ago, aniiran said:

I have not seen one single high cloud deck from ASFS

Cirrus layer today over Iowa.  My Hondajet was at FL370.  Based on my climb the layer was at about FL350.  Nice cirrus appearance from below when there was more verticle distance involved.

This was my second day flying with ASMS.  Gaining a lot of appreciation for it.  I did dumb down my turbulence slider(s) to below 30 and liked that result.  QNH and winds aloft have been spot on.

 

 

 

[aniiran 434]

1 minute ago, fppilot said:

Cirrus layer today over Iowa.  My Hondajet was at FL370.  Based on my climb the layer was at about FL350.  Nice cirrus appearance from below when there was more verticle distance involved.

This was my second day flying with ASMS.  Gaining a lot of appreciation for it.  I did dumb down my turbulence slider(s) to below 30 and liked that result.  QNH and winds aloft have been spot on.

 

 

 

This what im talking about,  I'm not getting this anywhere.  Looks like I need to submit a support ticket.

[kholt 22]

On 4/20/2024 at 12:45 PM, d.tsakiris said:

Is there some kind of obligation to post it here if one uses the function?

What a weird thing to say…

[mmcmah 445]

A few pictures at climbing out of SKBO and then at FL200 en route to SKCL: