Tom_L

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?

Yep, it looks like they are about to change their "no third parties for core functions" paradigms. As I'm a bit invested in weather related threads over at the official forums, I'd like to share my thoughts on that: When MSFS came out, the Live weather simulation imho was revolutionary, but being based solely on the Meteoblue forecast model it lacked the necessary accuracy for planning purposes and online flying. Following user demands, MS/ASOBO introduced with Sim Update 7 a new simulation in order to integrate METAR data into the data stream delivered from Meteoblue. Although having gained sufficient accuracy (over the course of 18 months since SU7) in terms of where clouds and weather phenomena in general (rain, snow, visibilty) are simulated, Live Weather often lacks a plausible and convincing depiction, as cloud rendering is cumulus centric and neglects atmospheric conditions. As an example, multilayered stratiform cloudscapes associated with warm fronts are inaccurately rendered with high reaching convective clouds in the sim. High overcast layers seem to be missing, higher level clouds generally seem to be generic. Cirrus clouds are missing entirely, although attempts with thin layers of convective clouds are honorable. Reduced visibilty is simulated primarily when associated with precipitation, aerosol density doesn't seem to be implemented. CB's are not rendered convincingly (weak), Thunderstorms are either missing or they are depicted underwhelmingly and have no impact on the flight, as typical physical phenomena inside of clouds like turbulence, up- and downdrafts and icing aren't simulated or incorrect. That might even be an advantage, as a reasonable weather radar is still missing, so there's no chance of circumnavigating those threats, one of the few remaining challenges in an otherwise pretty boring commercial aviation environment. I'm listing Wx radar here, because to my understanding the limiting factor is accessing live weather data and not so much programming a gauge. Generally, clouds in Live Weather seem to have a lower density than preset clouds, probably contributing to many of the above mentioned deficits. Widening the view from Weather to Atmosphere and Environment, there's even more deficits like snow coverage still being way too inaccurate with LOWI covered in snow at 19 degrees Celsius in Spring. Frozen Fjords in Norway and New Zealand are as immersion breaking. Now that we have learned about the plans for the further development of MSFS within the immediate future, it seems that we'll get more of the same: Aircraft and Avionics will improve with more AAU's, Scenery will get better due to several World and City updates, and a further Sim Update will enhance some core sim functionality. It will likely contain only minor improvements to the areas I described. Therefore, I have a strong feeling that there's an imbalance in the development of MSFS: while Aircraft, Scenery and Core sim are covered with dedicated personnel and timelines, Atmosphere, Weather and Environment are treated as a minor matter and improvements happen incidentally. But fllying an airliner with all bells and whistles avionicwise, but no reasonable WXradar, through whispy smoke puffs mimicking a CB without any impact and then land at LOWI on a snow covered runway in spring is arcade. I'd like that to change, therefore I've voted for this thread: https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/can-we-have-a-weather-atmosphere-and-environment-update-only-please/519593 Maybe some of the argumentation in that and many other related threads have finally resonated with the officials, but scarce ressources prevent a timely implementation. However, I would prefer in-house development or the Working Title approach: Look for third parties capable enough to enhance Atmosphere, Weather and Environment and make them contractors. Only if that's not possible - for whatever reasons - then it'll probably be best to open up for third parties. In the end, being probably payware, they'll only succeed if they can deliver a better product than already present.

QED: The frustrating part is that Live Weather is considered "accurate" as long as there's CU, CS or TCU exactly where reported. The current Live weather does that admittedly better than the release version. But a warmfront has different cloud formations associated with it than a cold front, and their respective back sectors also look very different. Neither is depicted well in Live Weather these days. The OP is indeed a prime example that a METAR report has to be put into context. Only if the underlying meteorological conditions are simulated as well, you'll not be surprised to see solid OVC and light rain at your arrival eventhough the METAR reports NCD. The sim did it in this case for EGLL, but still lacks a lot nonetheless. My point: the weather engine is capable enough, so why settle for a mediocre atmospheric simulation and not demand more? Sufficient accuracy AND plausibility AND immersion! They do it for Scenery (WU) and Aircraft (AAU) and the core sim (SU). Doesn't the atmosphere- where the flying actually happens - deserve the same attention?

Probably a good example for the limitations of METAR reports, especially if they are created by automation. "NCD" is only used in automatic reports, and there are certain limitations (source: Australian Bureau of Meteorology): The following issues should be considered when using cloud reports generated by ceilometers: If the ceilometer is directly under a clear patch of sky in otherwise cloudy conditions, it may result in an incorrect report of clear sky. If slow moving cloud remains directly above the ceilometer for a period of time, it can result in an incorrect OVC report. In a situation of rapid onset of broken or overcast stratus, the ceilometer observation will lag behind the actual cloud present. Higher layers will not be reported if they are obscured by lower cloud. The follow-up report reads EGLL 281320Z AUTO 18011KT 9999 -RA SCT040 BKN047 08/05 Q1017 , so imho it speaks FOR the quality of the METAR blending in MSFS (although I'm not a big fan of it, but credit where credit is due) that the sim doesn't display a circle of blue sky above the airport based on a single datum, when the surrounding conditions don't warrant it.

Showing one example here for convenience: Where might the airport be?🤔 Although to be fair, it wasn't that noticeable from the cockpit, but I've seen other examples of huge TCU's in a circle right above an airport in otherwise relatively fair surrounding weather. If you're flying airliners with Live weather, you'll come across these bubbles regularly, and oftentimes they are immersion breaking. To the OP: Live weather is obviously under constant development, and it is improving. It has gained accuracy in terms of where and at which altitude clouds are displayed, but at the cost of lost variety and immersion - e.g. stratiform cloudscapes were stellar in the release version, now it's mostly the "puffy" cloudtypes in varying thickness, multilayered cloudscapes are reduced to mostly one layer only, thus creating towering cauliflower-type of clouds. It is obvious that METAR synthesis does not sit well with the weather engine, but they are trying. For the most part, I consider it reasonable. Had I not gotten used to the immersive Live weather in the release version, I probably wouldn't miss much.

Silent as the grave ever since! Since many of the weather related threads on the MS forums (go vote/participate!) have been tagged "bug logged" or "feedback logged" since the beginning of the year I have some hope left for a "WAU" (Weather and Atmosphere Update) one day. Would make sense after "Sim-", "World-" and "Aircraft-" updates.

Due to the current state of cloud depiction in Live weather I endorse the opening of the weather system for third parties. However, the discussion should not omit the fact that - cirrus clouds aside - the cloud depiction from release until SU5 (changes in cloud rendering and lighting, SU7 - METAR integration - initially killed it entirely) was superior to all I have seen before (see screenshot). It lacked accuracy in terms of cloud height, visibilty and overall correspondance to real world METAR reports, but it was on the other hand largely plausible. You could even see convective clouds forming leewards over the islands in the caribbean, and they managed stratiform cloudscapes quite well. I fear that the "ingestion" (I put it in parenthesis because I have no clue about the actual process) of METAR data is somewhat incompatible with the overall weather simulation process. And it seems obvious to me that it takes the developers quite some time to get the hang of it. And that's where the experience of the "known suspects" could probably make a difference, as they always had to "blend" local weather areas into a greater picture.

Due to this paradigm change Live weather gained (some) accuracy, but at the cost of * being entirely cumulus centric * a generic look, at first glance identifiable as a gaming environment * consisting mostly of one single cloud layer, perhaps added by some high "fluffs" * missing or not convincing high overcast * producing clouds with seemingly lower density than presets * lost variety in cloud depiction * no plausible storm depiction, including thunder and lightning * less convincing low overcast * less convincing convective cloudscapes * discernable METAR areas And as Live weather- at least to my understanding - in its current state is synthesized in large parts from "ingested" METAR data and thus isn't much different from what HIFISim or REX and others have done for decades, I think the point MS/ASOBO may have had with protecting the different and advanced, forecast based weather generation in the release version of MSFS is now obsolete and they should open the weather system.

The approach has been layed out by the authorities that way. I don't know how ATC in EGGD handles the traffic, but usually somewhere during initial approach I would expect to get vectors to the final and not flying the procedure. The same goes for many STARs or transitions in Europe, normally you'll be vectored onto the final.

I have to check in the aircraft which is which, but it depends on your aircraft category, as light aircraft (A&B) have to use an outbound track of 097°, heavier ones like a 737 or A320 (C&D) have to fly an outbound track of 103° until commencing the procedure turn at 8.0 DME. The VIAs BR1 and BR2 describe these two different tracks from BRI NDB to the FAF, which is D5.8 IBTS. Edit: I just checked, in case of the ILS27, BR1 is the one for Cat C&D aircraft with outbound track of 103°

Basically the VIA is the part from the IAF (Initial Approach FIX) to the FAF (Final Approach Fix). That depends on how the approach is layed out. In the example below there are two possible IAFs: NVO VOR and COL VOR. The FAF is RARIX. The MCDU would give you three options for the ILS 32R: No VIA NVO COL It depends on your flightplan, which VIA makes sense: if your flightplan and/or the STAR ends at COL or NVO, you would enter those as your VIA. If you expect vectors from the end of your enroute segment, or you are cleared for a STAR that ends at RARIX, you would choose NO VIA. So in many cases you would need to have access to the charts (STAR and APPROACH) to make the right choice.

I was appalled by the state of Live weather after the introduction of METAR synthesis with SU7, but after SU11 I see reasonable cloudscapes returning, even overcast is oftentimes convincing- which was totally missing after said "update". Several weather related threads in the official forums have been tagged with "bug logged" recently, which by their official definition means bugs (and/or shortcomings?) have been identified. Maybe some of the fixes are applied server-side, or maybe we'll see further enhancements with future sim updates. In any case, after more than a year they thankfully seem to be back on track.

Imho it WAS a good start. I remember seeing screenshots from the release version and having to look twice to tell if it was a real photo or a screenshot. And I considered it "New-Tech", being based on data from professional weather forecast models and thus creating a lively, belieavable weather environment. Not nearly perfect, but a good start. Unfortunately two things happened: visuals were sacrificed for performance with Sim Update5, in which the lighting and rendering of the clouds changed dramatically for the worse. Sim Update 7 changed the data and their interpretation by the sim in the attempt to increase the accuracy by implementing METAR synthesis. That is what I consider "Old tech", as it was the way to display weather since the very early FS days: reading METAR reports and trying to place clouds into the sky accordingly. The result was hilarious: overcast, multilayered cloudscapes, stratiform clouds - all lost. What remained was "Some weather (TM)", displaying mostly wildfire smoke instead of clouds, and not remotely more accurate than before. Thankfully with SU11 Live weather is mostly reasonable again and accurate enough, but it lacks liveliness and fidelity. It has a generic look and feel, and every screenshot is immediately identifiable as coming from a game. But the sad truth is that the respective threads in the official forums see little participitation which results in repetitive discussions between the same individuals instead of constructive feedback by many - which is a shame, as many of those threads are tagged "feedback logged", meaning the contributions are fed into dashboards to enable forum staff to identify bugs and flaws and forward the information to the developers.Those could be and not limited to true overcast still missing multiple layers not overly convincing cirrus clouds/stratiform clouds underwhelming cloud density unsatisfactory cloudscapes in Live weather too cumulus heavy TCU and CB in Live weather look like wildfire/Storm depiction underwhelming aerosol density in Live weather generic look and feel in Live weather ...

There's a huge thread over at the official forums, as this plagues quite a few users since SU10. Although there seem to be a lot of potential causes, it also seems that reverting any overclock on your GPU, lowering the graphics settings in the sim and/or turning Hardware accelerated graphics (HAGS) to off in the Windows Control Panel may be the most promising solutions. HAGS off did it for me.

There's an announcement in the official forum: 1830Z on Nov. 18

Exactly! Synthesizing weather from METAR reports is old tech, MSFS has taken the revolutionary approach to generate Live Weather based on a forecast model, thus creating a living, breathing weather environ.... Wait! Wasn't there a Sim Update 7 roughly one year ago introducing weather synthesis based on METAR reports by user demand, thus creating cumuliform clouds everywhere, sacrificing stratiform and overcast layers in the ongoing attempts to plausibly "blend" those synthesized data into their Live weather simulation, giving us sudden transitions and disrupting the plausibilty of Live weather ever since? Must have dreamt that one, because why would they if there are several third parties like this one who have done so for a long time and have proven that this approach is not trivial and comes at the cost of a ton of compromises? Oh how I wished you were right!

According to the relevant thread in the official forums, it comes down to these possibilities (Summary by DensestSnail693) MSFS is very sensitive to gpu memory overclocks even if there’s no heat issues. Undo them. In Windows Hardware Accelerated Graphics is turned on by default and may still be turned on after a Windows update. Turn it off. The latest GForce driver causes problems for some. Install either the studio driver or revert back to something more stable, 517.48 seems to be the most recent of them. For me, turning HAGs to OFF seems to have done the trick.