This is not the first time I have attempted to publish a review for a product purchased through SimMarket. Unfortunately, whenever a review raises legitimate concerns or identifies discrepancies between the advertised features and the actual product performance, it appears that such feedback is not always published. This is yet another instance where a review was withheld.

I find this practice deeply concerning. Honest customer feedback—whether positive or critical—is an essential part of maintaining transparency and trust within the flight simulation community. Preventing the publication of legitimate criticism undermines the credibility of both the marketplace and the products being sold.

Equally concerning are marketing statements such as:

"StrataWx is the modern alternative to Active Sky's clunkiness."

and

"Custom per-channel smoothing (coast, then ease out, with a cold-start snap so you load straight into correct conditions) is purpose-built to eliminate the abrupt jumps of older weather engines like Active Sky."

These statements not only make direct comparisons to another developer's product, but they also create expectations that, in my experience, are not reflected in the actual performance of the software. This raises an important question: since when have SimMarket and StrataWx considered it acceptable to promote a product through potentially misleading claims while simultaneously disparaging competing developers?

This is a troubling trend and one that should concern both customers and developers alike.

For reference, the review I submitted was as follows:

"Despite the attractive interface, I have noticed persistent issues with visible weather transitions. The overall experience is far from smooth, particularly when compared with the default weather system in MSFS 2024.

One of the most frustrating issues is the turbulence implementation. All aircraft, including both default and third-party models, appear to be affected by unrealistic wind and turbulence reactions. It would be beneficial to provide users with a slider or adjustment option to reduce or fine-tune this behavior.

Additionally, cloud coloration often appears noticeably darker than the default MSFS 2024 atmospheric rendering, resulting in a less natural visual presentation."

This review was submitted in good faith and reflects my honest experience with the product.

how does it compare against activesky msfs

1 hour ago, pete_auau said:

how does it compare against activesky msfs

Both have the same issue: rough, visible wx transitions.

We all know why it cannot be fixed.

AS offers many useful adjustments to address certain MSFS shortcomings, and we can manually set the visibility range to useful values. This is an important feature for simulating visibility during VFR/IFR conditions.