14 hours ago, Bobsk8 said:

https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/hire-hifi-sim-damian-to-fix-the-weather-in-the-sim-for-good/639851?u=riverrover

I once read a post here on how the weather in MSFS could be improved.  I wish I could find that post again.  It must have been written by a meteorologist, because I had no idea that the technical list of potential improvements was that extensive.   

Having said that, I am a fan of the global weather model provided by MS (even though there are many obvious things which require improvement) and would hope MS/MeteoBlue continue to improve on it themselves.  Even though the global weather model isn't perfect, it is still very immersive

 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 28, 20242 yr by ErichB

29 minutes ago, JRBarrett said:

There is nothing “wrong” with MeteoBlue as a weather data provider. The NEMS model that is used for MSFS Live Weather isn’t even a MeteoBlue proprietary product - The NEMS model was developed by the US NCEP - the same people who developed the GFS and HRRR models.

Oh how I wish this could be stickied and automatically posted anytime someone mentioned Meteoblue is a poor weather data provider

9 minutes ago, ErichB said:

I once read a post here on how the weather in MSFS could be improved.  I wish I could find that post again.  It must have been written by a meteorologist, because I had no idea that the technical list of potential improvements was that extensive.  

I have also read a few posts by meteorologists here at Avsim on how MSFS can improve their weather. The problem is, we live in a world where resources are constrained (ie. GPU and CPU), and we also demand very good performance (ie. FPS).

In a world where there are infinite resources (ie. GPU and CPU are not constrained), and where the common user doesn't care about performance (ie. they don't care about FPS), MSFS can have live weather that is 10 times better than what it is now.

But that's not the world we live in. Some of the meteorologists that posted here at Avsim have very little knowledge and experience about how a software project is structured. The issue with live weather is a very complex problem, and at the end of the problem, MSFS has to yield decent FPS or else people will be unhappy if they get bad FPS.

13 minutes ago, Lucky38i said:

Oh how I wish this could be stickied and automatically posted anytime someone mentioned Meteoblue is a poor weather data provider

I'm curious, is there a better weather provider than MeteoBlue? I thought MeteoBlue is the best weather provider available, to get weather data outside of METAR areas. @micstatic, didn't you mention there were other better weather providers than MeteoBlue?

I'm not a weather expert, so I would like to know which other providers can provide better data than MeteoBlue.

 

8 minutes ago, abrams_tank said:

I'm not a weather expert, so I would like to know which other providers can provide better data than MeteoBlue.

I think @Lucky38i is  effectively saying that MeteoBlue isn't actually that bad.

17 minutes ago, ErichB said:

I think @Lucky38i is  effectively saying that MeteoBlue isn't actually that bad.

Yup, I was just more interested in this topic about weather data providers. Doesn't X-Plane 12 use GRIB data from NOAA outside of METAR areas?  Does anybody know how does GRIB data from NOAA compare to MeteoBlue data?

Edited May 28, 20242 yr by abrams_tank

I find the default weather is good enough, however, if I had to vote, it would be for MSFS to work towards making the default even better. With the exception of Navigraph and trackIR, I do not like having to open apps before firing up the sim just to make it look better.

1 hour ago, ErichB said:

I once read a post here on how the weather in MSFS could be improved.  I wish I could find that post again.  It must have been written by a meteorologist, because I had no idea that the technical list of potential improvements was that extensive.   

I doubt seriously that refers to me because I attempt to consistently refer the weather issues with references to MS/Asobo/Metroblue though not necessarily in that order or gramatical format. I could care less about the difficulties in structuring code, as mentioned by another users post.  My single-most complaint is that here almost four years in, weather in MSFS is not up to the par of what we had available in previous simulators. 

Default FSX had a better more accurate and complete set of textures when it was released in 2006.  That was followed with great 3rd party improvements in real-time wx rendering and particularily better weather related textures and forms of weather rendering such as thunderstorms and icing (thank you Hifi, REX, and MSGRW). MSFS 2020 has taken occasional stabs at icing and thunderstorms but has failed miserably.  Those are most often horribly overcooked, or non-existant, and nothing in-between.  And the refusal to open the locked SDK door to weather is an element of this I find maddening.  "not planned".  Like GPS avionics, the weather developments/developers were there for the picking, but ignored.  And still are ignored today as far as I know.

I am now getting better default real time rendering of the more basic weather elements, winds, percent of cloud cover, pressure, and precip. Better rendering of bottoms from underneath broken and overcast layers. But still when on top in overcast conditions get cumulus, altocumulus, and altostratus that look more like blown-in attic insulation than real clouds.  No default cirrus, alto cirrus or true altostratus; and no true TCU or cumulonimbus in default.  Default is as many as 17 years behind on some of that.  And in cases 17 years behind its own legacy.

Edited May 28, 20242 yr by fppilot

8 hours ago, Silicus said:

My biggest problem, no, pet peeve, is the clouds in msfs. Everything is dramatic looking cumulus. If there is cloud layer reported in real weather,  msfs mashes all those layers together into giant cumulus. 

There are 16 cloud types defined in real weather. msfs has maybe 3. It is a shame. Don't tell me msfs is 'for simmers', the clouds they are producing are 'gamer clouds'. The more dramatic the better.

I have been using Active Sky since it came out in April and I have never looked back. The cloud variety, the defines layers, the fog/visibility depiction is convincing and I have been enjoying the weather in msfs much more. 

That's not true everything IS NOT dramatic looking cumulous, but agreed there is more of that than in the RW in general.  How many MORE cloud types does AS bring into the sim? 

The basic problem with cloud depiction is the method and performance implications used to create them--we simply do not have the resolution to create distinct cloud types and there is little to nothing HiFi can do to address this--it's built in and hugely performance dependent.  Perhaps Asobo will tweak this area enough to allow their algorithms to create something less like this, which is shown mainly to illustrate just how low-density the voxel grid is in the current approach:

...and a little more like this:Some day we will get to this, but right now performance demands hugely limit what can be done w/ cloud depiction.

 

 

 

 

31 minutes ago, fppilot said:

Default is as many as 17 years behind on some of that.  And in cases 17 years behind its own legacy.

Sure, go back to 2D sprites and you can have it all back again.  

14 hours ago, ca_metal said:

 

 That said, I’m not a big fan of the Active FS. Doesn’t look accurate based on my experience, I think the default weather does a better job. 

I have never seen real weather that only consisted of Cumulus clouds. 

2 hours ago, abrams_tank said:

The issue with live weather is a very complex problem, and at the end of the problem, MSFS has to yield decent FPS or else people will be unhappy if they get bad FPS.

I don't remember poor FPS up to the point the weather was degraded.  

13 minutes ago, Bobsk8 said:

I have never seen real weather that only consisted of Cumulus clouds. 

If you mean cumulus always and everywhere, yes - but there are plenty of real-world situations where the only cloud type in the sky at a particular place and time is cumulus. Now that we are in the warm weather months here in the US the predominant cloud type on any given day will tend toward cumuloform clouds.

While here, what have we heard if anything about clouds/weather in MSFS 2024?  I won't be buying any ATC nor weather addons until 2024 is released....unless we have it on solid authority neither of those will be updated in 2024.

And....to compare apples n apples, since XP12 and P3D both can use, or do use, volumetric clouds, how do they compare in terms of cloud morphologies, to what we have in MSFS?

Edited May 28, 20242 yr by Noel

3 minutes ago, JRBarrett said:

If you mean cumulus always and everywhere, yes - but there are plenty of real-world situations where the only cloud type in the sky at a particular place and time is cumulus. Now that we are in the warm weather months here in the US the predominant cloud type on any given day will tend toward cumuloform clouds.

So MSFS can look realistic during the summer months at least 🙂