Mods may kill this thread if they think it's necessary, i have my answers. I'd rather stay on holding pattern for now and see how things would develop. 

IMHO opinion (been doing LOTS of testing and comparisons): to be.

3 hours ago, Ron Lefebvre said:

The only way is to buy and try it would seem.

This. Again, from my perspective (which is probably worth less than sand in Sahara at this stage), it’s at least 25$ better than default. 

Just my 0.0000001 cents.

EDIT:

• https://youtu.be/RostCMK3l6Q?si=Bcv5pZhwLm4AcZQh (link in the description for METARs)
• https://youtu.be/_y5Xui4xGME?si=30nIOM4XHt4hIY_g
• https://youtu.be/H6F1JQIUKh0?si=TxS1sY3zbjzQppJt&t=2072
• https://youtu.be/YPmndDbXiRo?si=TS4Kdce31mZ-lLN1 (default weather from 4mins)
• https://youtu.be/IApqImDiK-8?si=KU9Mewy7QwG_Tgmu
• https://youtu.be/XKSiRGtTYwM?si=4P1NgxOhDpkx6asj
• https://youtu.be/qxBuInjdhuM?si=vza4et0WMIk2Go1k

Edited May 2, 20242 yr by Cpt_Piett

14 minutes ago, G-YMML1 said:

Mods may kill this thread if they think it's necessary, i have my answers. I'd rather stay on holding pattern for now and see how things would develop. 

…”That is the question”, Great Thought!, “Kill IT”!

My only thought on these types of products is there is a high likelihood they will not work with 2024 since the entire weather engine is being rewritten, unlike aircraft and airports/scenery, which should still be usable even if the developer doesn't update them.

Active Sky has huge room for improvement. Yet for the price I got I don't regret. There is difference in weather depiction vs stock

To me its really confusing why people have such disdain for METAR.  METAR is everything in real aviation.  Some company policies prohibit airliners to land or takeoff without reception of the METAR (atis/asos/awos).  So much is planned around metar and taf too.  It's an accurate depiction of the weather at the airport.  Occasionally it's out of date, but not if the station provides a SPECI which transmits weather every 5 minutes.  Nothing is more accurate.    

And people don't want that in the sim....  Quite frankly I believe the reason is many aren't pilots - and that's fine.  I understand the draw of weather systems as you fly across a country etc - it can be really cool.  The weather systems in MSFS tend to be several hours behind too.  But to delete metar functionality is to go further away from a more realistic simulator.

3 hours ago, Flic1 said:

You do see more stratiform clouds which look nice from below and above and I did see several layers of clouds including 'cirrus'

I think most clouds are replications of CU, both in ASFS and default.

Quote

The turbulence setting is also very good, much better than default.  I have had to keep MSFS on 'low' because it it very unrealistic above that.  AS does provide a more plausible movement in turbulence.

Somewhat agree. Don’t think it’s a huge difference though. Still indecisive. There’s something a bit strange about strong winds in default though, aircraft tends to float down the runway making it very hard to touch down. Don’t get this with AS. I’ve done a fair share of strong wind landings in light GA (IRL), and although there’s some floating / ballooning, it’s not as pronounced.

3 hours ago, Flic1 said:

MSFS Live WX looked bad...it had the volcanic ash clouds which is my least favorite aspect of it. 

I’ve seen those atrocious “clouds” in both.

Quote

I have not tested any Thunderstorms as of yet.

https://youtu.be/RostCMK3l6Q?si=zxMMPp2yu4dbTAWg&t=52

Quote

I don't think there is a simple "which one is better" because it’s going to depend on the situation.  If you want to see a little different visual representation than what we are used to, AS will do that.  If you want to fly along seeing overcast to your right where a front lies and clear to the left matching the current real-time satellite conditions, MSFS default LIve does that very well and AS will not be able to depict that.

Well said, agree. 

28 minutes ago, ryanbatc said:

To me its really confusing why people have such disdain for METAR.  METAR is everything in real aviation. 

Couldn’t have said it better. IMHO Microsobo didn’t “break” the weather back in SU5 or whatever with mixing Meteoblue forecasts with METARs. And they didn’t do it just for the VATSIM crowd.

5th edit:

Forgot to add that I didn’t think I’d be much interested in historical weather. Turns out I’ve used it a lot lately.

Edited May 2, 20242 yr by Cpt_Piett

IMO it's worth it, cost is personal but for me it was just about right and it's much better seeing clouds like what we had pre-SU7. 

My take is that there is no ideal solution right now.  The MSFS weather has things it does well, and has things it doesn't do well.  The preset-based approach/ASFS has things it does well, and has things it doesn't do well.

As others have said -- I wish we could combine the two systems and we would have weather that is really, really good.

ASFS Passive mode is possibly a compromise at this point in time, with the effects of ASFS but the area-wide weather model of MSFS.

I'm still not quite understanding the "passive mode".  Okay it allows you to use the Active Sky interface, but I'm also hearing that there are more impressive cloud formations than all the cauliflower stuff you get with MSFS.  How is this so, if it's MSFS that is then controlling the weather? Is passive mode the happy medium between no "jumping" weather transitions and yet nicer looking clouds?

Edited May 2, 20242 yr by Langeveldt

I find it far more realistic looking than MSFS weather, and use it every flight since buying it. Each to their own i guess.

59 minutes ago, sd_flyer said:

Active Sky has huge room for improvement. Yet for the price I got I don't regret. There is difference in weather depiction vs stock

I don't get this shot, is this supposed to the improved AS shot? It looks like the clouds are sitting on the ground

53 minutes ago, ryanbatc said:

To me its really confusing why people have such disdain for METAR.  METAR is everything in real aviation.  Some company policies prohibit airliners to land or takeoff without reception of the METAR (atis/asos/awos).  So much is planned around metar and taf too.  It's an accurate depiction of the weather at the airport.  Occasionally it's out of date, but not if the station provides a SPECI which transmits weather every 5 minutes.  Nothing is more accurate.    

And people don't want that in the sim....  Quite frankly I believe the reason is many aren't pilots - and that's fine.  I understand the draw of weather systems as you fly across a country etc - it can be really cool.  The weather systems in MSFS tend to be several hours behind too.  But to delete metar functionality is to go further away from a more realistic simulator.

Naah!  Most of  time I flew IFR  and checked in with departure, ATC always asking to report ceiling and tops 🙂 . Sothe most accurate weather report is PIREP and most current wind report is magic phrase "wind check" on short final LOL

2 minutes ago, sd_flyer said:

Naah!  Most of  time I flew IFR  and checked in with departure, ATC always asking to report ceiling and tops 🙂 . Sothe most accurate weather report is PIREP and most current wind report is magic phrase "wind check" on short final LOL

That's because we have to solicit pireps every hour when the weather is below a certain criteria.  At least here in the midwest, the pireps for bases and vis were very accurate to the atis.  Wind check just comes from the direct read in the tower, which comes from the asos/awos.

2 minutes ago, Sethos said:

I don't get this shot, is this supposed to the improved AS shot? It looks like the clouds are sitting on the ground

They actually not, you perceive it like that because the cast shadow below.

 

Here is couple examples. Do the cloud touch the ground? No! But it seems like they do. Light and shadow often play tricks!

 

Here is an example of clouds casting shadow

 

So to my eye AS doesn't has a little edge over stock. But I'm not denying a lot of shortcomings as well