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.

While Majestic bringing the Q400 to MSFS would be great, I'd rather have them - or someone else - develop the -100 series. Short flights, short runway operation into scenic airports in Norway would provide a different experience than operating the same routes that can be flown with already available aircraft. Many airports from the Wideroe Network are already available as pay- or freeware, and there is currently no airliner available that fits the 800 meter runways. And while the Q400 gets replaced by Embraers and C-Series jets irl, Wideroe is making a major effort to double the number of takeoff and landing cycles of its fleet because there is no better aircraft for this type of flying.

100% agreed with the first part, but I have different thoughts on the second. There is a reason that MS hired the Working Title crew to bring the avionics to a more realistic level than before: because it is a simulator, and it should strive to simulate the real world as accurate as possible. I think people rightfully have high expectations for the realism of aircraft, avionics and scenery. So why should it be enough to paint a few cumulus-like clouds in the sky to simulate the weather? It's not just the optics: a warm front means extensive, layered clouds with the risk of icing, while the cold front is more likely to be associated with convection and turbulence. Due to the simplification of the weather representation, a whole dimension of real world aviation is missing. And we wouldn't accept it if there were only G1000 as avionics in the simulator, would we?

I hope they didn't "cumulize" the weather because the gamers would find realistic cloudscapes "dull". And while we're at it: what disturbs me in all the reviews and latest discussions pointing out "fronts" as a major advantage of Live Weather is that while it may generate CuAs (loved that one!🤣) with stunning precision compared to satellite imagery, it actually lacks every other meteorological aspect. A warmfront has different cloud formations (not present in today's Live weather, but before SU7 - see below) associated with it than a coldfront, and even those aren't convincingly depicted.

The messed up yaw behavior has been alleviated and it is now possible to keep the aircraft on the centerline during the landing approach. However, the underlying issue is still present. It still tends to fly sideways. This can be reigned in more effectively than before, but nonetheless will make you drift off the track again. There will be fans of this flight behavior (motto: if it is so hard to control, it must be realistic), and they should be granted it. I'm deleting the PC-12 because imho it has a fundamental problem with the flight model that requires a major overhaul rather than tweaking, and I don't see that coming any time soon - if ever.

Same here. The Working Title approach of integrating third parties as first party has provided a huge quality boost for the avionics. I would have loved to see a similar approach for Live weather, which in my eyes has become the most neglected area of the sim.

Yaw behaviour. While it is acknowledged and is said to be adressed with the next update, probably due after SU15, I can't help but notice that it is still downplayed on the developers discord. Just recently their consulting pilot told a user who was reporting his struggles with crabbing on approaches of "a slight issue with flaps 40 and it being really sensitive to wind". I agree that otherwise it's a fantastic aircraft and I hope the update restores my faith in the developer. Here's me trying to stay on the localizer with preset weather, no wind, turbulence set to "easy", trim as recommended. I shot this approach multiple times with all possible trim- and flaps settings, and yet I couldn't keep it on the localizer. My control inputs can be seen in the input viewer.

I can, because I recorded many of my flights back then. For reference, I made a video of the WOW-moments I encountered. While Live Weather admittedly has gained accuracy and most of the atrocities of SU7 have been ironed out over (too many) months and years, I am missing those moments. As I was paying close attention to the development of Live Weather (see what i did here?😁) I pretty well know the sequence of changes: SU5 (XBox) brought changes to the way the clouds are rendered and the lighting changed dramatically to a more simplistic, contrasty look. The weather depiction was still mostly intact, it was the subtlety that took a hit. I think it is fair to assume performance reasons behind those changes. SU7 then introduced basically a new Live weather system with more emphasis on METAR data. Although it has gained good accuracy in terms of where clouds and weather phenomena in general (rain, snow, visibilty) are simulated, it often lacks a plausible and convincing depiction, as cloud rendering is cumulus centric and neglects prevailing atmospheric conditions (e.g. warmfronts are rendered as high reaching, convectice clouds). Thankfully since SU12 they managed to get back to a more reasonable cloud depiction, but it is still far from the splendor and variety the release version was capable to display. We will most probably see improvements to the cloud density in Live weather for MSFS2020, and I agree that it will make a huge difference. However, I hope that MSFS2024 will be a major step forward in terms of the simulation of atmospheric conditions, including the accessibilty of data for a full fledged weather radar.

Yep! Imho the development of Live Weather largely reflects the content of the article: at the beginning it was said "we're making a sim for simmers", but with SU5 (XBox compatibility) it became clear in which direction it was going. SU7 (METAR synthesis) then served all those for whom weather that looked somewhat similar to the report was enough. We were back in the Olden Days, so to speak, with clouds that correspond surprisingly closely to the satellite image in terms of coverage, but largely lack meteorological precision due to their cumulus-heavy nature. Performance considerations, especially with regards to the weaker consoles, probably lead to a significant limitation in the layers shown, so that, for example, there is no plausible distinction between warm- and cold fronts in the sim. Since then, aircraft, scenery and the basic simulator have been constantly improved and further features (e.g. Dune) added. We fly around with airliners whose simulation depth is hardly inferior to the original, if it weren't for the completely unrealistic lack of a decent weather radar (my opinion. I know the discussion, so no need for it here), which would make most flights impossible in reality. In the early days, Jorg Neumann said "Weather is one of those things. It’s where planes live, it’s got to be awesome. We will get it as good as you can get it. That is really the goal", only to never talk about the further development of the weather again. I can only assume that the technically possible implementation of all missing or inadequate weather aspects would be unattractive from a cost perspective, which would be another parallel to the content of the article. For me, avoiding flying into bad weather ("dodging clouds") would be equivalent to hitting an opponent in a shooting game, but I learned that most Simmers unfortunately don't seem to be interested in creating the most realistic atmosphere possible. A common standpoint can also be found in this thread: "It's not perfect, but it's better than the competition and sufficient for me." With that widespread attitude, there's no incentive for the developers and no progress is to be expected. That's why I also think that content will continue to have absolute priority. Not a bad thing per se, but a missed opportunity in terms of simulation depth. I'd be happy to be surprised if MSFS2024 should be a major improvement in atmospheric simulation beyond the representation of tornadoes, which I consider to be more on the content side of things.

Thanks guys, encountered the same yesterday and planned to look into it over the weekend when I found this thread. No admin mode necessary for me as well.

No. They just announced on their Discord that there's a "maintenance plan" for the Kodiak which includes "big", spaced out updates. The ESI500 and climate control will be reworked, new cockpit modelling and texturing is announced as well as updating the G1000 display with the improved possibilities of the Wt plugin system. Unfortunately no word about flight dynamics, but it is said that it will receive the same updates as the soon to be revealed -900 model. Maybe flight dynamics will be affected then. Even more unfortunate is a definite "no" with regards to bringing the engine simulation to the same level as their recently released PC-12, as it has flaws as well (Ng limit instead of ITT in climb).