45 minutes ago, ATRguy said:

Who says they’re ignoring it?  Maybe they just can’t fix it yet. 

November 2021, bugs still not fixed and yes they can't because they don't have the know how so instead we get stuck with their regression tactics!

1 hour ago, sd_flyer said:

METAR is only good with 5 stature miles of the station beyond that weather can vary. I really so no big deal because I experienced weather little worth or better comparing with METAR reporting. Have you ever shot an approach when METAR showing OK minimums, until you find out at missed approach weather suddenly rapidly deteriorated ?

Perhaps I should have taken a picture inside the 5NM mark to show exactly the same conditions were at 10NM. In any case, we should not see such a drastic discrepancy at that distance. While METARs are issued hourly, SPECIs are issued for significant changes. Key elements that trigger a SPECI include wind shifting at 45 degrees or more with speeds in excess of 10 KTS, visibility, ceiling, or a drop or increase in the one reported, ts, hail, precipitation, etc. As we can see, there is a difference between what the EFB shows in the METAR body and the Summary, and the real METAR. That said, those "rapid" changes are covered as advertised by SPECI. Also,  @ryanbatc explanation is clear and on point.

Let's focus on improving ASOBO's WX depiction, rather than continuing this back-and-forth, given the clear shortcomings. I don't think challenging each other is productive, and the issues with certain ASOBO implementations remain unresolved, update after update.

I just ran another test. Pictures are worth a thousand words. If anyone can't see the issue, Houston, we have a problem. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 1May 1 by LRBS

4 hours ago, Langeveldt said:

So we are just going to have AI aircraft landing without gear being displayed forever now??  How is this not a bigger deal?

Apparently not, Asobo keep says it's the AI 3rd party models fault, yet you can see the missing AI traffic wheels in Asobo's own intro video when the sim starts so it's clearly NOT a 3rd party issue and IS Asobo's issue.  Sadly we seem to have lost out to the FPS obsessed over visual quality.  It's such a easy thing to fix to adjust the culling (it's a simple calculation) but because it would have an FPS impact, they will not provide us with an option.

If XP12 can show AI landing gear consistently and at VERY stable and consistent FPS, I don't see why Asobo can't achieve it?

Edited May 1May 1 by SayAgain

42 minutes ago, SayAgain said:

yet you can see the missing AI traffic wheels in Asobo's own intro video when the sim starts so it's clearly NOT a 3rd party issue and IS Asobo's issue

Hello @SayAgain,

The footage in the intro video was recorded using a pre-launch WIP version of MSFS 2024 prior to v1.0 shipping in November 2024. I believe the team made changes to make landing gear LOD culling less aggressive in a subsequent Sim Update (I want to say it was SU4, but I'm not 100% sure about that). If you have video or screenshots of stock first party aircraft exhibiting this behavior in the current live SU5 build, please let us know!

Thanks,

SeedyL, MSFS Community Manager 

Edited May 1May 1 by SeedyL

4 hours ago, B777ER said:

Which they’ve known for quite a long time and have still failed to address. 

How can they address something that isn't their fault?

 

the Avifyne IFD is a nice little unit.

Edited May 1May 1 by Tuskin38

1 hour ago, MarcG said:

November 2021, bugs still not fixed and yes they can't because they don't have the know how so instead we get stuck with their regression tactics!

So just an observation. Take it FWIW.  To blithely assert Asobo lacks know how when in the last six years they have developed, released and support TWO World Class Flight Simulation Platforms shows that your comments are cheeky at best and wildly hyperbolic at worst.  Question:  How many flight sim platforms have you developed and supported these past few years?  My guess and only a guess is zero. None. Nada. Zilch. 
 

Again, just an observation.  YMMV. TANSTAAFL. Blue skies,

-B

3 hours ago, LRBS said:

 

Unfortunately, it's not only that. In any other sim available for our hobby, when a WX phenomenon is reported, it at least resembles or simulates it to some degree. This example shows it is exactly their weakest link. In this picture, as is often the case, we see a METAR reporting a visibility of 5.4 NM, while the runway and surrounding areas are clearly visible from far away, with visibility exceeding 10 NM. It is not, as some claim, "incredibly GOOD" compared to other sims. Actually, quite a serious discrepancy. 

This is how the metar should look.

METAR LRSB 011200Z 31006KT 5SM SCT058 11/M04 Q1024 NOSIG

I'm getting the opposite at CYHZ

Edited May 1May 1 by Tuskin38

20 minutes ago, btacon said:

So just an observation. Take it FWIW.  To blithely assert Asobo lacks know how when in the last six years they have developed, released and support TWO World Class Flight Simulation Platforms shows that your comments are cheeky at best and wildly hyperbolic at worst.  Question:  How many flight sim platforms have you developed and supported these past few years?  My guess and only a guess is zero. None. Nada. Zilch. 
 

Again, just an observation.  YMMV. TANSTAAFL. Blue skies,

-B

Best post in this thread! And right on the money!

4 hours ago, LRBS said:

 

Unfortunately, it's not only that. In any other sim available for our hobby, when a WX phenomenon is reported, it at least resembles or simulates it to some degree. This example shows it is exactly their weakest link. In this picture, as is often the case, we see a METAR reporting a visibility of 5.4 NM, while the runway and surrounding areas are clearly visible from far away, with visibility exceeding 10 NM. It is not, as some claim, "incredibly GOOD" compared to other sims. Actually, quite a serious discrepancy. 

This is how the metar should look.

METAR LRSB 011200Z 31006KT 5SM SCT058 11/M04 Q1024 NOSIG

 

A visibility reported in meters, which is standard in most locales outside North America, is done using a 4-digit representation, e.g. "2500" would be 2500m prevailing vis.  PV is a minimum value.  A value of "9999" means 10km OR MORE prevailing visibility, and a value of 10SM signifies 10 statute miles or more PV.  Though it's permitted (and standard in North America and a few other places), there's no requirement or expectation that the visibility be reported in (statute) miles.

So the METAR in your example is fine, and it is consistent with the significantly higher observed visibility in the screenie.  The only thing wrong I see here is the MSFS EFB summary says 5.40NM visibility, where it should indicate that the vis is at least 5.4NM (and it would be more appropriate still to depict it as at least 5.9 statute miles, as that is the standard unit when vis is reported in miles).

Using METAR to accurately set regional visibility is problematic in part because the reported vis will be constrained by the capped maximum values driven by the MOR (meteorological optical range) of the reporting station (generally either 9999m or 10SM).  

1 hour ago, SayAgain said:

If XP12 can show AI landing gear consistently and at VERY stable and consistent FPS, I don't see why Asobo can't achieve it?

Official forum thread started last year has 400 votes on the subject, so maybe they'll take notice one day.....maybe.....

4 minutes ago, MarcG said:

Official forum thread started last year has 400 votes on the subject, so maybe they'll take notice one day.....maybe.....

Instead of spouting the same hot air over and over, maybe do something constructive with your time:

1 hour ago, SeedyL said:

If you have video or screenshots of stock first party aircraft exhibiting this behavior in the current live SU5 build, please let us know!

 

1 hour ago, SeedyL said:

LOD culling less aggressive in a subsequent Sim Update (I want to say it was SU4, but I'm not 100% sure about that

SU4 actually made the problem worse for me.

As soon as I update to SU5, I’ll test again with default AI and report back … but given the lack of any release notes indicating the aggressive culling was adjusted for AI traffic I’m not expecting SU5 to be any different.

1 minute ago, SayAgain said:

SU4 actually made the problem worse for me.

As soon as I update to SU5, I’ll test again with default AI and report back … but given the lack of any release notes indicating the aggressive culling was adjusted for AI traffic I’m not expecting SU5 to be any different.

Hi @SayAgain,

For clarification, there should have been no changes to landing gear LOD culling of AI aircraft between SU4 and SU5. This was adjusted in a previous Sim Update (again, I think it was SU4, but I'm not 100% sure about that and it might have been an earlier SU). 

The intro video was made at least two years ago using a pre-release WIP build of MSFS 2024 and does not reflect the current release state, so any footage you see in that video is not applicable to the current version of the sim. If you're seeing overly aggressive LOD culling for landing gear on any first-party stock aircraft while in a flight session in SU5, please let us know and be sure to mention which specific aircraft type(s) you're seeing this with.

Thanks,

SeedyL, MSFS Community Manager

35 minutes ago, Bob Scott said:

 

The only thing wrong I see here is the MSFS EFB summary says 5.40NM visibility, where it should indicate that the vis is at least 5.4NM (and it would be more appropriate still to depict it as at least 5.9 statute miles, as that is the standard unit when vis is reported in miles).

 

Exactly. And that's the discrepancy I'm talking about. 

@SeedyL and whats about the ridicously wrong snow coverage in the Alps? Its there since snow was introduced in MSFS2020, several times discussed in Q&A sessions, has a bug thread with over 900 votes yet it is radio silence about it.