Ugh, still have NOT fixed floating AI traffic … 😞 

Zero weather updates. Ah well should have known seeing that they completely fumbled that question on weather in thier latest q&a

While it may seem trivial, pleased that they finally have the city and town names displaying with their POI markers. Also, while I have not tested this yet, I hope it’s true that they fixed the issue of aircraft spawning at the  wrong runway at many airports in Free Flight. 
Rich

Oh man, this has to be the best update yet, sim is incredibly smooth, even at EGLL.

Hats off to Asobo, incredible job, keep it up guys.

1 hour ago, micstatic said:

Well we have an MSFS community manager here and totally ignoring the weather issue. So that says something…

 

not trying to be sharp. But many of us are tired of this being ignored. Appreciate that you are here. 

Maybe because they've said in the last two Q&A streams that weather with be addressed after the bulk of the bug fixing work is done. I vividly remember people saying they were ignoring calls to improve weather radar to...

6 hours ago, micstatic said:

I really don't understand asobo's total willingness to ignore all complaints about the weather.  Bothered me for a long time.  Whether it's massive wind shifts knocking out autopilot, or flying somewhere where it shows snow, but snow should only be on the mountain peaks in the distance.  

I completely agree. While this isn’t a certified simulator or formal Flight Training Device, the level of unrealistic behavior—especially in weather modeling—is hard to overlook.

Beyond the issues already mentioned, there are several core problems: unrealistic ash cloud coloration, questionable cloud formation types, inconsistent precipitation depiction, and—most critically—the lack of proper visibility control. You simply cannot simulate meaningful IFR conditions without accurate and user-controllable visibility, as it is a fundamental parameter.

In real-world operations, both ATIS and METAR reports provide structured visibility data: prevailing visibility (e.g., 10SM, 3SM, 8000m), RVR (Runway Visual Range), and weather phenomena codes such as FG (fog), BR (mist), or HZ (haze). These are missing, poorly represented, or not functionally usable within the sim environment.

Additionally, the interaction between weather and aircraft physics often behaves unpredictably—sometimes to the point of breaking immersion entirely, such as abrupt wind shifts affecting autopilot stability.

At some point, the focus needs to shift away from purely visual enhancements and “eye candy,” and toward building a more coherent and operationally accurate weather and atmospheric system. For a platform that aims to simulate aviation, these are not optional details—they are foundational elements.

Edited May 1May 1 by LRBS

1 hour ago, LRBS said:

I completely agree. While this isn’t a certified simulator or formal Flight Training Device, the level of unrealistic behavior—especially in weather modeling—is hard to overlook.

Beyond the issues already mentioned, there are several core problems: unrealistic ash cloud coloration, questionable cloud formation types, inconsistent precipitation depiction, and—most critically—the lack of proper visibility control. You simply cannot simulate meaningful IFR conditions without accurate and user-controllable visibility, as it is a fundamental parameter.

In real-world operations, both ATIS and METAR reports provide structured visibility data: prevailing visibility (e.g., 10SM, 3SM, 8000m), RVR (Runway Visual Range), and weather phenomena codes such as FG (fog), BR (mist), or HZ (haze). These are missing, poorly represented, or not functionally usable within the sim environment.

Additionally, the interaction between weather and aircraft physics often behaves unpredictably—sometimes to the point of breaking immersion entirely, such as abrupt wind shifts affecting autopilot stability.

At some point, the focus needs to shift away from purely visual enhancements and “eye candy,” and toward building a more coherent and operationally accurate weather and atmospheric system. For a platform that aims to simulate aviation, these are not optional details—they are foundational elements.

As a guy who spends every six months in Level D sims, the weather  in 2024 is miles better than how it looks in a real sim.  First off there is no live weather in a real sim, so it’s all presets.  
 

Take that and go set a preset in 2024 of RVR 1200, 200 foot ceilings and rain or snow, and fly it.  It’s way better than the real sim. 
 

Level D sims can’t even do rain, or wipers, or anything.  
 

People need to realize how incredibly GOOD we have it in a desktop sim, it’s the best it’s ever been. 

1 hour ago, CarlosF said:

Oh man, this has to be the best update yet, sim is incredibly smooth, even at EGLL.

Hats off to Asobo, incredible job, keep it up guys.

Yep the sim is impressively smooth with the flight i just completed. KMIA-KATL in the Fenix A321 + AIG at 85%. Locked at 36fps TAA and doubled with external framegen. Performance was on par or better than 2020.

1 hour ago, Krakin said:

Maybe because they've said in the last two Q&A streams that weather with be addressed after the bulk of the bug fixing work is done. I vividly remember people saying they were ignoring calls to improve weather radar to...

Have to come hat in hand for my humble pie with that one. Never expected asobo to try to get Tilt on the radar. Lets see how the third party devs get on with it. 

5 hours ago, sd_flyer said:

Thank you! Your profile is awesome ! Finally MSFS allows me to lean forward or sideways!

Glad it's been useful for you! But it's weird that forward/backward didn't work. It was working for me on the previous MSFS24 version. As previously shared, the sensitivity is higher with this Tobii implementation in SU5.

The stock ATC (which most of you don't use) is way more glitch free in SU5.

The controls programming Settings is worse in SU5, however. If you click "Apply to all planes" it only works sometimes. It does not work all the time like it did work all the time in SU4. (It also did not work all the time in all the SU5 Betas, just like it doesn't now in the release version SU5).

5 hours ago, bailout said:

10 hours ago, Matchstick said:

Has Asobo failed to include the Avidyne avionics equipped C172 despite mentioning it in the release notes again ?

It is now available in sim.

The Avidyne IFD variant is not available in my 1.7.27.0 (Cessna 172 Skyhawk - G1000 - Variant. Only the regular Cargo, Amphibious..). Even after forcing to download the package via the Market Place.

There's a discussion on the Official Microsoft forum: https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/aau4-avionics-and-aircraft-update/760947/17

2 hours ago, ATRguy said:

People need to realize how incredibly GOOD we have it in a desktop sim, it’s the best it’s ever been. 

That doesn't mean to say the developers ignore bugs with live weather that have been present for years though, or the fact that things could be a lot better if they just opened their eyes and realised that's we've been saying all this time.

It's seems to me they also think it's "good enough" which is a problem in itself.

56 minutes ago, vbazillio said:

The Avidyne IFD variant is not available in my 1.7.27.0 (Cessna 172 Skyhawk - G1000 - Variant. Only the regular Cargo, Amphibious..). 

I think the Avidyne variant is part of the steam gauge 172 that is in the Deluxe package. If you only have the base sim with the G1000 version then you won't have it.

AFAIK the Avidyne avionics package is part of the base sim but the steam gauge 172 is the only aircraft to use it so far.

I do have the Premium version. Avidyne IFD variant is not listed on the C172 Steam gauges version, either.

On the official forum, a user is sharing a screen shot where the IFD variant is one of the variant of the G1000. https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/aau4-avionics-and-aircraft-update/760947/17

Edited May 1May 1 by vbazillio