Tom_L

We don't know anything about MSFS2024 Live weather yet - except we'll get tornadoes. I'd rather have this:

Storm depiction, thunder/lightning largely absent, cloud turbulence totally missing, rain induced low visibilty always very low and not matching METAR values, cloud density way lower than presets, snow coverage still a joke in several places (Norway, Alska, Alps...), cirrus clouds missing, clouds mostly limited to only 2 layers, stratiform coverages still underwhelming compared to release version, generic look and feel..... With SU7, aimed to increase the admittedly sometimes lacking "accuracy" for cloud coverages not matching METAR reports came "Some Weather (TM)": TCU's everywhere, resembling volcanic erruptions more than clouds seen irl. They've managed to "improve" Live weather since then (nearly 2 years now) back to a reasonable, yet mostly generic looking "Sim weather", satisfying enough for most - obviously -, but far from the natural look and feel from the release version. Let's hope tornadoes isn't the only feature they are working on for MSFS2024, because the way I see it, Live weather has gone from a key feature to a sideshow in the current sim. And don't get me started on WXRadar....

Interesting. I wasn't aware of that and wasn't able to find out if those flights are conducted using a seperate AOC, but I guess not, as it seems to be something nostalgic. I found a brief history of the "Walk on Shuttle" service. So for anyone interested, here's the link.

To my understanding the callsign is associated with the AOC (Airline Operator Certificate), under which a flight is conducted. AFAIK in the BA realm there are also AOCs for BA CityFlyer (IATA code CFE, callsign FLYER) and BA Euroflyer (IATA code EFW, callsign GRIFFIN). In these days, with airlines setting up more and more subsidiaries, it has become quite confusing, and you can't deduce the callsign from the livery. If you enter the IATA code "BAW" into v-pilot, you indicate that the flight is conducted under the parent companies (British Airways) AOC and therefore you will be adressed as "speedbird".

Except - it isn't for everything. I have a Navigraph submission for many years and won't miss it, but for the occasional VFR flight into smaller airfields alternatives are still necessary.

Good find, but as Vatsim Hungary probably isn't always up to date with the latest AIRAC: All IAP's from Europe are accessible from here. Takes some digging, as every authority has their own system of publishing the charts. For Hungary, the IFR charts can be found in /AIP and publications/AIP Archive/respective AIRAC AMDT (mostly you'd want to use the latest). Once you clicked on the AIRAC identifier it opens a new page with the eAIS package for Hungary including all the charts (left column - Aerodromes - chosse Airport and scroll down in the right window to the end where the charts are). VFR charts are found more straight forward from the front page under "VFR Manual". The other countries also have a few tricks up their sleeve: Greece has you solve a captcha before you are allowed to enter AIS Greece. Under "Publications/Aeronautical Information Publication AIP you have to click on "Browse", which will open a new Window with the AIP. Click on the "AIP Button" and you'll find the Aerodrome charts in the leftt column. Haven't checked them all, but they should all have complete charts for their country, as even Germany was forced by court verdict to publish their VFR charts that were subject to charging until last year. The downside compared to Navigraph is the effort it takes to acquire the charts, you'd have to print them or save them to some device to make them accessible, and the chart format varies from country to country. Edit: Actually, it's not only Europe, it's a worldwide directory for AIP's !

I am seeing the same low rates here (Germany, 100 MBit/s Cable, 1200Z), with larger files starting at 2MBit/s for the most part but full speed when reaching the end, then the cycle starts again with the next file. There's a thread in the MS Forums wich has the "Bug logged" tag, so the problem seems to be on their end. Thread is a month old already though....

Footage of lightning (and thunder) in the caribbean (TFFJ) from some fair weather clouds, posted in the MS Forums. At 1:15 the sun is showing through this whispy vapor storm. Clearly something to adress for a new simulator.

That would result in the same livery for each plane. I recorded two of the planes, each with its own livery, sationary on its position. Then I loaded the third - again with a different livery - and played the two recordings as AI. I assume that would be possible with SkyDolly as well.

As I wanted to try FLIGHTCONTROLREPLAY5 anyway, I purchased it while still on sale, and tried as suggested above. Might work similarly with SkyDolly.

I would imagine that you could bend the functionality of those Apps to your needs: if they handle real formation flights with different airplanes they should be able to handle a formation "flight" where the position of each aircraft stays the same over some period of time. Try to record a formation "flight" by recording your airplanes as instructed by the manuals, but simply don't move any of them for a period of time while recording. Then stitch the recordings together as instructed by the manuals. I'm just guessing, but I would bet it works.

Take a look at FLIGHTCONTROLREPLAY 5 by Fabio Merlo. I don't have it, but according to the advertising* it should provide what you're looking for. Currently on sale at Simmarket. * Simulate formation flight during your flight replay. Your recorded flight path is replayed as AI Traffic. Add as many aircraft as you want : You can manage up to 5 AI aircraft to replay your flight path as AI Traffic with each FCR instance. And reach unlimited traffic with AI Aircraft by using more than one instance of FCR addon at the same time.

Unfortuntely some great features from the WT mod didn't make it into the AAU version (now default). Chart integration is said to be brought back by Navigraph though, as has been done for the G3000 already. Probably that will include Simbrief FPL import as well. Passenger announcements are gone due to licensing issues, they said. And you're right, you do not need a mod - although there's a great "CJ4 Wooslemod" which features passengers, window blinds, map display, opening door and more on flightsim.to.

Here's what one of the Community mamagers had to say six days ago: "A full resolution for this issue did not make it in for the AAU_02 release, but we are targeting a fix for this in a later update. Thanks, MSFS Team " Just now he added: "We don’t have any further information to share at this time, but we will provide an update as soon as we have one. Thanks,MSFS Team" https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/white-dot-visible-since-1-33-3-0-only-partially-fixed-in-1-33-8-0-release-version/591712 And there's another thread regarding that white dot, squares and other anomalies. I doubt it helps, but voting wouldn't do any harm either: https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/mouse-cursor-pointer-behaving-weird-white-dot-in-the-middle-of-the-screen-and-missed-clicks-on-interaction-with-cockpit/598218

Amen to that! As a pilot I for instance care for the differences in cloudscapes associated with coldfronts vs. warmfronts. I am no meteorologist, but I know what to expect when there's a warmfront approaching my destination airport. To date, MSFS fails to simulate even those well predictable (by any forecast model) aspects. And for their new game they advertise tornadoes, hard to predict even by specialized forecasters? I doubt I will feel that wave!

To my best knowledge only the people at ASOBO and Meteoblue have enough insight to evaluate where the difficulties with Live Weather originate, everyone else can only guess. It may be data quality, but it may also be implementation. So I would be very careful what to wish for. But given that Jorg Neumann announced talks with Meteoblue in Nov. 22 about better data and "new features" (and WXradar API), promised to inform about the outcome early '23 and never did, but instead a "new" simulator with alledgedly advanced weather features was announced gives some indication that Meteoblue might still be in business - just guessing.

Here's what I don't get in their communication "strategy": Sep. 21 - Jorg Neumann announced SU7 and a further, “spectacular” weather update for 2022/23, which didn’t happen,and no further information was given since. Nov. 22 - he announced talks with Meteoblue about data resolution, WXradar API and “future features” and promised to inform about the outcome in early 2023 - also never happened. May 23 - vague statements hinting at opening the weather API for third parties, which was sacrosanct from the beginning. June 23 - “New” Sim announced with a trailer showing content, content, content. I get it that marketing wants to hype the consumer base, but there's a lot of adults playing this game, and if much needed improvements for Live weather are planned and I would have been properly informed, I would be hyped now instead of feeling taken for a ride.

From the reactions in the official forums it seems that there's enough customers willing to adopt to MSFS2024, and with the promised comaptibilty of the Marketplace the impact might not be as big. Even most of those being very critical at the moment will probably take the plunge - me included, sometime. But will I invest in expensive addons outside of the Marketplace before I fully know if and how it will work next year? I'll probably wait until it's out. I think those developers will love the probable hiatus in sales which obviously has surprised them as much as the announcement has most users.

I'm with you that Thunderstorm depiction needs serious attention, however I doubt that with conditions as described in the METAR reports you quoted we can have a 100% match with real life conditions. While frontal Thunderstorms can be fairly well predicted even by forecast models, "VCTS" hints at an unstable airmass producing the occasional thunderstorm "somewhere in the vicinity". The CAPE index and other indicators from forecast models may describe a certain probability, but that's about it. When you say you had CB (although their depiction tends to be underwhelming in my experience) in the vicinity ("to the East"), I would consider the weather in the sim to be reasonable. The expectation to always have conditions at the airport exactly matching the METAR report is unrealistic, as with that METARs alone I would also expect the possibility to land in bright sunshine. That's why taking the general weather situation (Highs/Lows, fronts, stability/lability, local particularities....) into account is part of any irl flight preparation. But again - that's not to say that storm depiction/thunderstorms don't need serious attention, as do many aspects of the Atmosphere-, Weather- and Environment simulation in MSFS.

Unfortunately the weather related threads in the official forums tend to follow a certain pattern: in the beginning a variety of users contribute with short messages, added with screenshots to emphasize their point. It then boils down to a Few pleading their case with mostly well thought, but lengthy, text overladen and repetitive posts, so that most casual forum visitors, although they might be generally interested in the matter, probably won't bother to participate. And indeed the communication from MS is awkward. In Sep. 21 Jorg Neumann announced SU7 and a further, "spectacular" weather update for 2022/23 - which didn't happen - and then back in Nov. 2022 he announced talks with Meteoblue about data resolution, WXradar Api and "future features" and promised to inform about the outcome in early 2023 - also never happened. Instead the last Q&A delivered some vague statements hinting at opening the weather for third parties, which was sacrosanct from the beginning. While some users think the radio silence hints for a "surprise" announced for later this year, I fear it has more to do with overload.

Apart from volumetric clouds to the horizon and slightly increased accuracy in regards to where clouds are rendered, I don't see a huge difference to the old P3D days since SU7 anymore. Although we don't know the internals of Live weather generation, it is fair to assume that the broader approach from the release version - simulating weather on a larger scale based on forecast models - has been replaced by a smaller-scale, METAR centric weather synthesis. And that is basically what third parties have done for decades. Add the excruciatingly slow progress of incremental "improvements" (fixes is probably a more appropriate term) for Live Weather after the SU7 desaster, I think the point MS/ASOBO certainly had initially with Live Weather being a unique asset has become obsolete. They simply don't seem to be able to deliver on their promises. Given the experience of third parties like REX and HifiSim, maybe they can, although I expect there to be a longer process as well. I'm still in favor of an in-house approach, as I still have hopes that MS/ASOBO might be able to surprise us by exploiting the potential of the engine and their collaboration with Meteoblue, but in any case - being entirely optional - Addons won't harm what is already there. It's about options and choice.

The "Where are thunder and lightning" thread in the official forums has the "bug logged" tag, meaning it is acknowledged and a fix should be in preparation, yet nothing has happened so far - and the thread started in late 2021. There's so much to be desired regarding the simulation of Atmosphere, Weather and Environment. One major problem may be the definition off "accuracy". The Live Weather simulation introduced with SU7, which was supposed to increase "accuracy", did so mainly in terms of where clouds are placed into the sim (laterally), but that's about it. Thunderstorms, cloud types including CB, thickness and number of cloud layers, cloud density, shallow fog or fog in general and much more that was present in the release version hasn't been seen since, others were never implemented, e.g. turbulence inside clouds and reduced visbility without precipitation. As the release version has shown that the potential ist generally there and most data are obviously available on the Meteoblue website, it seems to be a problem with proper implementation or unwillingness of further investments for better resolution data or dedicated personnel. But there's also the truth that most users seem to be satisfied with the gaming environment [sic!], as there are quite a few related Bug Report/Wishlist threads in the official forums that struggle to gain enough traction (votes!), contrary to e.g. topics demanding bridges to be modified so that they can be underflown. According to the recent Q&A MS has dedicated 10 employees for that task. Sarcastically, one might say that users and MS seem to agree on the key aspects of a flight simulator. But not only with regards to their pre-launch announcements ("for serious simmers") and further announcements related to Live Weather*, but also to match the increasing complexity of aircraft and scenery some more dedication to Atmosphere, Weather and Environment is certainly desirable. * Head of MSFS, Jorg Neumann (Sep 29th. 2021): "Weather for us is a Big Deal. It is something we are heavily, heavily investing in. I think with Meteoblue we have a great partner. Late this year you will get this first Update (remark: SU7), we’re planning on another which will be really awesome when it happens. It will probably be in 2022, it could be as late as 2023. 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."

Although this thread may have run its course, the Youtube algorithm just washed up this video for me, that demonstrates where all those "fine for me" candidates are missing out: the challenge to commence your flight safely despite adverse weather conditions. Prerequisites currently missing in MSFS: Wx Radar, convincing depiction of storms and physics like turbulence and icing.

That is a major point and imho very unspecific throughout all weather related discussions. Some want to get rid of METAR, others want the release version back and for many visuals are most important. In my opinion the goal must be to have an accurate, visually appealing, meteorologically and physically plausible Live weather system in the sim that requires and allows flight planning as realistic as possible with means available preferrably outside of the sim to maintain cross platform compatibilty and is largely adaptable to different user requirements.

I hear that a lot, and I won't argue against it. But does that change any of the shortcomings or is sufficient reason not to ask for the exploitation of the full potential of a probably much more capable engine?