Tom_L

(Very) first impressions: I deleted the lackluster Sumburgh (EGPB) airport from OrbX (cheap FSX-port), only to find the WUXVII bespoke one even more lackluster. On the other hand, Edinburgh photogrammetry (TIN?) is fantastic! EGPH v2 from Pyreeque would need some color correction, but I'm sure that will happen pretty fast. Edit: And London seems to have improved vastly!

It's an optional update via the ingame Marketplace, so you need to actively "get and download" it there. (Or did you...?)

From the looks of it, the order of Updates seems to be (Standard version, but every other version should be similar apart from the amount of data) 307 MB Installation Manager on MSFS start 1,17GB Update WU III - Content Manager 10,5 GB - WU XVII - Marketplace (max. 23 GB, Premium version?)

Just finished my first flight into EGPH v2 with the Fenix A320. Great performance on approach, some minor stutters while taxiing on the apron with FSLTL. Not much difference to v1 though, imho. But otherwise: IT IS INSANE! There will be those who don't appreciate a detailled interior, but I do. And the landside modeling is next level as well, as are the runway and taxiway textures. I've been there irl a few years ago, and the bus stop and tram station is exactly as I remember it. For approx. 15€ (currently on sale at Contrail Shop) it is a bargain as far as I am concerned. A probable update should include internal terminal sounds, but regardless Pyreeque is no doubt on par with Jo Erlend. With the upcoming World Update and Edinburgh getting the TIN-treatment, this is THE DESTINATION in MSFS 2020.

No. Memory! And recording software.

This:

Unfortunately it proves to be difficult to discuss the obvious shortcomings of Live Weather. I find it easy to accept that aesthetics are subjective and we all have different tastes. What remains a mystery to me, however, is why the "community" is so willing to accept that a key element of a flight simulator remains shielded from external participation and only seems to receive incidental improvements, while other areas strive: Scenery: countless partners create PG, TIN and bespoke airports. AI companies make the ground 3D etc…- you name it Aircraft: several partners create sophisticated Aircraft, Working Title enhances Avionics, flight planning...- you name it Atmosphere: some tweaking to bring it back to reasonable after an SU7 disaster, some value changes for sunset colors. At least MSFS2024 promises to improve the lighting. Otherwise it's "yeah, you know, I guess we'll have to talk to Meteoblue some time", which has been the standard answer in several Q&A's over years now.

I think he made it clear that he found absolute deterioration as a result. It is certainly not a mistake to question your own perception from time to time. I agree that today's live weather is a matter of taste. It is very accurate, at least in terms of cloud placement, although the cloud type leaves a lot to be desired. And I won't go into visibilty outside of rain, CB, TS, lightning... . But I thought it was important to point out that the notion SU7 might not have been that big of a deterioration is ridiculous.

I think a reminder of how BAD SU7 really was is due:

I don't think so. While Live weather in the release version surely not always provided great visuals, at least it had some variety. And I think that is what most people complaining about Live Weather miss. At least i do. Stunning views are subject to perception and personal preference. And that is the greates flaw in these discussions: they mostly revolve around optics and personal preference. But the main deficit in Live weather is not that it doesn't display visually appealing stratiform cloudscapes any more, but it doesn't display them when the atmospheric conditions warrant it. The omnipresent CuA (Cumulus-Asobus🤣- credit to "jcomm") are "not bad" if the meteorological conditions warrant them. But if they are used exclusively, even if a warmfront calls for a dull, overcast sky, then they are.

That's an interesting thought. So I skimmed through my files and came up with these screenshots. Release-version: After SU5, before SU7: The diversity generally seems to still be there, as such skies (layers especially) disappeared completely after SU7 until around SU11. I didn't find the same convincing layered overcast though, but it was a relatively short period and I didn't fly that often due to the banding issue that SU5 introduced, so I'm not sure if that had already gone. What I remember (and found in more screenshots from that period) is that my overall impression was that of a more simplified and harsh, contrasty look of the sky. That's why I was surprised to find the shot at the bottom right, which I would have assigned to the release version if I didn't know better. Then I also searched for screenshots from the release version that resemble skies that can probably be seen with todays Live weather, and came up with these: So not everything that glitters was gold. But it remains to be noted that although apparently not perfect as well, the release version was at least capable of showing skies like in the first tableau.

There's that terrible killer argument again: "But it is still better than the competition". I think those who are more likely to be "jaded" are those who refuse to accept the fact that there are worlds between the visuals of the release version and today and accept that without criticism. On the other hand, if those who didn't like the release version had thought that way, SU7 might never have existed. Maybe an argument for “jadedness”?

I have! These are mine, definitely not photoshopped (yes, the storm had a greenish hue to the sky) and show what happened to cloud rendering and especially the lighting. I also clearly remember many "Wow"-moments back then and many screenshots where I had to look twice to determine that it was indeed MSFS and not a real photo. These days i recognize MSFS at first glance, and "Wow" moments come from everything else but the way the sky looks. While I agree that we sometimes tend to think of the past as better than it actually was, we also tend to settle for mediocrity too easily even though we know there could be better.

To the OP's question: Performance and a bodged METAR integration are the reasons for the generic weather display we have in the sim now. As already aptly stated, SU5 brought systemic and massive changes to cloud rendering and lighting. What tires me are the recurring arguments that SU 5 did not represent a major step backwards for PC users. People who believe that the massive performance gains on PC, which are admittedly real, were achieved without quality losses cannot be argued with. In contrast, the banding issue introduced together with SU5 was a simple mistake in one of the color tables changing a value from 10 to 8 bit and was solved with SU7. It took some time and effort to get it to the attention of devs - ask me how I know. But with the same SU7 it turned out that this was a very minor nuisance compared to what was touted as an "improvement" of live weather through Metar integration and could only be described as bottomless impudence and was destined to be that way roughly until SU12, when their incidentally made fixes finally brought it back to reasonable, yet lacking the immersion from before SU5. I accept that the majority of users seem to be mostly happy with today's live weather, but that doesn't change the fact that the weather display is the one area of the simulator that has seen the most significant regression since release.

You might want to try ENSR, ENHV and ENMS from flighsim.to, they could easily pass as payware. And let's not forget ENRA and ENLK, which came with the Nordics update. All those are not suitable for a Q400 though, currently I use the Kodiak or occasionally the CJ4 with light loading to go there.