Tom_L

6 minutes ago, Reader said:

How things look is totally subjective and the forensic dissection of cloud types is something best left to meteorologists,

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?

34 minutes ago, MarcG said:

I think it's a major issue that people have got used to Asobos cumulus puffballs everywhere, which granted do look very good but *only* when they're supposed to actually be there.

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.

52 minutes ago, filou said:

I would have preferred 100 times an announcement of collaboration and integration from ASOBO with AS for the future.

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.

1 hour ago, hangar said:

anyone care to share what it is about the flying that they feel needs attention?

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.

2 hours ago, Krakin said:

I can barely remember what clouds looked like pre SU7

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.

9 hours ago, CO2Neutral said:

To each his or her own, I'm perfectly happy flying around but as posted, weather depiction is not accurate and seems have no real impact on my flight planning nor enroute ... I never divert because I know I can land it in any condition presented in MSFS in any aircraft.  Fuel planning is almost useless without proper weather depiction especially when most aircraft try to hop on a jet stream ... just not simulated at all in MSFS.

For some, shooting things provides the "purpose", for others like myself, flight is a challenge WHEN the environment is simulated enough to make it a challenge ... right now MSFS just doesn't do that for me ... and sadly I doubt it will ever do just because I don't think the majority of users are interested in a high level of simulated fidelity ... I'm forever a niche user looking for a massive investment in development of a flight simulator that does it all and does it well so that I do feel challenged ... catch-22 ... there will never be a large enough user base to support the level of development needed to make flight realistic and a challenge.

So for me "purpose" is a realistic simulation of every aspect of flight from weather to ATC to ground surface and sadly that doesn't really exist to any degree where it would impact my flight or decisions during a flight.  But with that said, shooting and blowing things up is probably a much easier task to simulation for Asobo and my hunch is we'll see something like that in future -- anyone else remember Microsoft Combat Simulator 1 and 2 and 3 based on the same engine?

 

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.

3 hours ago, s0cks said:

Am I wrong? Is my install corrupt?

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).

So everything's fine?

Obviously, the numbers are there in the debug tool, but unsifficient cloud density in Live Weather prevents them from being interpreted correctly. Unsufficient cloud density in Live weather has been brought up by the community immediately after SU7, the same goes for missing cloud turbulence. Unsufficient cloud density has been adressed in one of the Q&A's before, and yet all Seb was able to say now is "we put it in our backlog". And to put their focus on Live weather into perspective: despite all those "bug logged" threads and promises, Seb only managed to check for it in the sim the day before the Q&A because thankfully community members brought it up again. Reminds me of his testing for SU7 accuracy back then: "there was fog in Arcachon, I spawned into the sim and there was fog, so it's working". The rest is history.

So while you all are right insofar as cloud turbulence seems - technically - to be there, my main point that the simulation of the atmosphere is neglected is not refuted.

12 hours ago, Cognita said:

It is not perfect and I can appreciate that someone who is knowledgeable and interested in weather will see heaps of issues, for someone like me it is adequate.

Your point is valid, however it may warrant a deeper look:

From my point of view, there are three main challenges in real aviation: knowledge of the flying environment (laws and regulations, airmanship, ATC, SOP's...), the safe control of the aircraft and the safe execution of the flight taking the weather into account.

Thank God we have little to do with laws and regulations, ATC can be added via IVAO, Vatsim or PilotEdge as desired and there are tons of videos for SOPs (standard operational procedures) and for the technical mastery of aircraft and avionics Manuals to download. Anyone who flies online also gets to know a little about the do's and don'ts that make up virtual airmanship and has an idea of how complex things can sometimes be in a real environment.

The virtual aircraft are constantly improving, and thanks to the employment of the former mod developers from WorkingTitle, even the avionics of the standard aircraft are now quite impressive. Regular world and city updates ensure constant improvement of the sightseeing factor. And considering what the sim now offers, the performance improvement measures taken “under the hood” with the SIM updates also deserve recognition. After all, all of this runs on consoles and affordable hardware.

However, there has been no progress with regards to the most important element in aviation, the weather.

The weather simulation in the release version, based on the implementation of forecast models from the provider Meteoblue, offered a consistent and plausible weather representation with different cloud types. According to my observations, this even went so far that the formation of cumulus clouds over the land masses of islands was plausible. But prediction models have inaccuracies, and due to user requests, a modified simulation was introduced with Sim Update 7, with an emphasis of synthesis of METAR data. This was a less than successful experiment, especially at the beginning. Now, after more than two years, the agreement with METAR data is relatively good, and the placement of clouds matches the respective satellite image with amazing accuracy. At least that is true here in the European region.

Unfortunately though, the weather display remains relatively uniform; convincing stratus layers, for example, are virtually non-existent. As before with the METAR synthesis addons such as ActiveSky, REX or similar, cumulus clouds predominate, regardless of the atmospheric conditions. Convincing CB's are missing, and the associated effects are inadequate or not simulated. Cloud turbulence is completely missing in live weather. In addition, the simulation currently used does not provide access to the data necessary for the realistic implementation of a weather radar. The shortcomings of Live Weather fill numerous threads in the MS forum, and quite a few even have a "bug logged" tag, which means that they have been reproduced and confirmed by the developers. Regardless, there have only been selective fixes since SU7 and no consistent improvement like in all other areas of simulation.

There is still too little information about the atmospheric simulation for MSFS 2024 to be able to have a serious discussion. Hopefully many aspects will actually be improved - beyond the tornado depiction. Because at the moment the simulator falls short of the demands expressed by Joerg Neumann: "Weather is one of those things. It's where planes live, it's got to be awesome."

2 hours ago, lwt1971 said:

I'm seeing a pattern here with all these IRL pilot reviews

I agree. My personal benchmark for Airbus is Blackbox711, a former A320 Cpt., now a 787 Cpt. I learned a ton from his videos back in the P3D/FSL days, and his verdict of Block2 is mostly positive. Sidestick input still seems a bit off, but considering the limitations of MSFS as a platform and the gaming input devices we all use Fenix Simulations seem to have done a great job:

Since there seems to be a bit of confusion about what has been said and done I checked the source. While J. Neumann indeed pointed out that the new editing tool did not work adequately in the Bahamas region, that improvements still need to be made and therefore the new watermasks in that area have been removed, he also said this: (13:53) " I think we removed too much, so we need to go back and...but...we'll update it...I think it's server side, so I think it will be fine. It's just a few more days."

So the way I understand it is that the new watermasks created by their new tool weren't good and therefore removed without attempting to apply the already existing ones afterwards. That's a mistake, and those can happen. But not reverting to the previous masks within the promised timeframe (more than two weeks is not "a few more days" imho) without any further communication makes the management process appear to be in need of improvement.

3 minutes ago, bigifooti said:

it's not as bad as all these threads seem to make you believe it is.

That is your opinion and of course you have every right to feel that way.

But to add another perspective for @brucewtb and others, I would also like to express mine:

There's a ton of explanations ("pilots are not able to use rudder; too fast on approach; flaps/trim not as recommended; it's weathervaning; you haven't flown the real one; YD is to be kept on as long as possible; yadayadayada...") for the crazy yaw behaviour of the SWS PC-12 on the developers discord, but all those only circumvent a serious flaw in the flightmodel. If anyone wants to dispute that, they should first show me a handflown ILS approach, YD off, preset weather with no wind, turbulence set to "easy", stable powersetting, speed, flaps and ruddertrim "by the book" - or even by own preference, if that helps - and just stay coordinated on the localizer for only 4 miles. It should be easy, and yet I couldn't do it. I don't want to declare myself as the measure in these things, so I avoid using the term "impossible". But contrary to a widespread misconception in the simulation community most airplanes irl usually don't "bite you" unless you treat them totally stupid or aren't "a handful" to fly in normal conditions.

The issue is acknowledged, the next update is said to adress it and seems to be in testing already. If it solves it sufficiently, the PC-12 is indeed a very likeable airplane.

16 hours ago, JYW said:

But please, don't tell us that this aircraft flies appropriately to the real PC-12 and that we're just not getting it.  Because that is just not true. There are issues with the SWS PC-12's flight dynamics in yaw.  Period.

Youtuber landing in "brutal" , "wicked, wicked" crosswind 🤣

No mod needed, however, if you like the plane, you might want to consider getting the great Wooselmod. It adds opening door, working window shades, inflight map and more. Here's some explanation from Matt Nischann (WT Developer) and Filbert about how to fly the thing. There are some updates - like Simbrief flightplan import and ground power - since that video, but the basics are well covered:

26 minutes ago, Christopher Low said:

LGIK Ikaria is quite short for a 737

I think they are operating ATRs there. Looks like what started as an inquiry into Rhodes is about to turn into a major investment 😁

18 minutes ago, Christopher Low said:

Greece is one area that I would like to explore more in Microsoft Flight Simulator.

You might want to consider getting Samos (LGSM, Terrainy Studios, available from Orbx -not currently on sale though-, probably also on MP). Decent scenery and a challenging approach (there's a longer video available on that channel):

18 hours ago, JYW said:

Sometimes I feel like I'm flying sideways 😄 

1 hour ago, pinepix62 said:

even with no wind the plane was sliding / yawing all over the place on finals approach.

It doesn't fly like a real airplane on a handflown approach. It took some effort over on their discord to prove that something is wrong and a pilot with some irl PC-12 time to chime in and confirm a "screwy" yaw behaviour, but it is acknowledged. Fixes didn't make it into ver 1.1.0 though, as to my understanding there are several areas to be worked on, and it will need quite some testing to keep the balance with the otherwise imho very convincing behaviour of the flight model. I expect some significant improvements when they are back from their holidays in January.

3 minutes ago, regis9 said:

This one seems to be polarizing, some seem to be having a great time with it, and others still have a lot of issues even after several patches.

I usually tend to buy airplanes later in their development process, and the experience with the PC-12 makes me think about going back to that habit. On the other hand doing some flight testing was an interesting change in sim routine, and I deem SWS a developer worth of support. Having issued several patches in a short period of time shows dedication and the willingness to get it right. If you're on the fence, I'd wait until the next patch, then it should be good to go and well worth the money.

I think youtube and searching for "MSFS"  +  "camera system", "drone camera" or "custom views" is the way to go.

You can also save custom camera views with leftCTRL/leftALT + number (not Numpad). Basically you adjust the view you are currently in to your liking, press CTRL+ALT+1 and can recall this view with ALT+1 from wherever you are. I have set up my cooliehat to pan left-right-up-down, and with pressing another button on my joystick together with cooliehat movement I change views Pilot-Copilot-Overhead-Pedestal.The camerasytem in MSFS is very versatile, but it needs some time to explore all the possibilities.

Here's how i set it up: I adjusted the pilot view to my liking, saved it as "User Defined Camera 1" (CTRL+ALT+1). I can change to that view anytime by pulling the lever (4) and simultaneously pushing the cooliehat to the left (POV <-). The other views are defined accordingly. Here's a sceenshot. It's german, but you'll get the drift.

Double post

Defintely something to keep an eye on, although there seem to be different symptoms. I had it twice in the SWS Kodiak these days, and basically I wasn't able to control anything, not even the views including the cooliehat for looking around. However the sim kept running and the aircraft slammed into the ground, sound was ok, and I could leave the sim to the Main Menu. Reloading the flight didn't change the freeze, but changing the aircraft did. Therefore I blamed the Kodiak, although it didn't show this behaviour ever before. So further reports with detailed descriptions of symptoms will be appreciated, as I'm not sure we all have the same issue.

40 minutes ago, Dreamflight767 said:

If I recall, there was a similar learning curve with their Kodiak upon release.

I own the Kodiak and I enjoy it a lot. However the feedback so far leads me to believe that both planes share a common denominator in that "being a handful" to fly is considered to be an indicator for a realistic flight model.

I'm on the fence for the PC-12 and so far like what I've seen and read in several videos, threads and on the developers Discord. I will hold off until the takeoff and landing characteristics have been tweaked to somewhat more reasonable, because an aircraft that drives you off the runway if you exceed the rotation speed by 10 knots doesn't exist in the whole aviation world. Although I have only flown light single engine pistons irl and no turboprop so far I am pretty sure that basic characteristics of any airplane are the same from the C152 to the A380, and that includes not killing you if you apply sensible control inputs.

Here is what the FAA has to say in FAR Part23:

23.2135 Controllability.

(a) The airplane must be controllable and maneuverable, without requiring exceptional piloting skill, alertness, or strength, within the operating envelope -

...

2 hours ago, ThomseN_inc said:

You should come to germany. We have plenty of nice Regs....D-GEIL,

29 minutes ago, 109Sqn said:

Even though I speak some German, I had to look that one up. I'm sure they meant 'cool' right?😏

22 minutes ago, turbomax said:

no, horny. but that can be cool too, I heard.

D-GEIL would not fit as a registration for the PC-12 as it would be for a multiengine aircraft up to 2 tonnes. The registration for a single engine turboprop would have to be D-F * * * 😁. For further clarification regarding the term "GEIL" please refer to the following: