russianspd

One pro to opus over ASN is that ASN only projects weather within 40 nm of the user outward which is the visible view limit. Opus projects up to 80nm. As seen here:

Hands down my best experience ever weather wise. KPHX-KDAL

All that is necessary to have usage of the ASN weather radar is to have the ASN.DLL installed into your sim which naturally comes with the trial version. Hence, you don't need to actually buy ASN in order to get radar capability. This was proven in usage with the B777 when ASN first released their radar package for an upgraded price. As stated before. About 3-4 weeks passed I got curious and decided to do some testing between ASN and OPUS again. One big defining difference could be seen just by being on the ground at my initial weather loadup. Metar was reporting winds of somewhere at 290/11. ASN gave me 275/11 and opus showed 290/11. I tried to loadup from scratch at several different airports with more or less the same results. We all know that the FSX code isn't the best out there. One of its many and biggest flaws is the inability of the upper wind to back down from a previous value. Therefore, OPUS uses a terminology called " sim friendly". What this means is the program will take the raw data and limit what gets injected so as to not ###### off the coding and cause a shift. So if the real wind is 295/75 at FL330 and the next level at FL340 is 285/70, using sim friendly it'll keep the 75 over the 70. Turning off the sim friendly results in having the data AS IS. This can be prone to wind shifting. My personal belief is that ASN automatically has this code friendly feature from the beginning in the background software. Would easily explain why ASN users never got the wind issues that OPUS users were getting. The difference in fact is raw data as is vs data that is altered to be sim compliant. Realism VS altered. Your choice.

What in your opinion makes ASN superior? I tried the free trial back a few weeks ago. I can say for sure that my winds at my airport were off from what the metar reported. This would be congruent with OPUS's term of 'sim friendly' winds. I.e winds that don't upset the buggy FSX code. So, if ASN is using altered data and portraying it as being authentic, well, that's not entirely true. Another big plus is that the users are more involved in the development process. I've seen people bring an issue up and have a beta resolving that issue within a few hours to no more than a few days. Of course you'll get band wagoners and lifers for each product. But when one has more user involvement and development, one starts to separate from the other.

There's always going to be some rivalry in competing markets for consumers from developers. Hifisim has had the weather engine market locked down. OPUS was the new kid on the block. What OPUS has been able to do or add in the past 1 1/2-2 years is exponentially more than hifi sim has done, IMO. Having been a user of both products I can say that if you just want weather that gives you the ability to fly comfortably with FS and have some idea of what's out there, ASN works. If you're looking for a way to further enhance you're FS flights, have weather data interact with how your aircraft responds and views, and for weekly additions to software to further that experience, OPUS works.

Bringing this thread back up given the last time something was added was 11 months ago and there's been significant development on both ends. I'll add some pictoral evidnce here. Off the top of my head one big difference I like is that in one program you have the option to disable cirrus clouds. This lil tidbit has been extremely hit or miss with me. Sometimes I know for a fact in real world there's cirrus and others I know it's a completely sky blue sky with no clouds or even above the reported clouds. I've found with cirrus disabled I'm more than happy with my depictions. Reason being is that there's pretty much just one or two cirrus sets that typically gets used and it's not a very realistic texture and how it's depicted either. From the developer side, cirrus can only be an off or on option. Hence cirrus usually showing up 9/10 flights. This point goes to OPUS. My next point is that this program "somehow" seemes to manipulate the IAS speed tape in a more realistic manner more in conjunction with aviation videos I've seen ( ). The fluctuations are more "fluid" and the way the numbers jump around just seem to be more in line with changing variations than being more sudden or "blocked". I've been told that it isn't weather program dependent but just how the aircraft reads and responds to the weather. I'll have to definitely do some more testing as my memory of both needs to be refreshed. This goes to ASN for now. Next is Fog conditions. This is a big prevalent weather state current of todays weather and season. Now to my knowledge while fog can be seen as a layer of clouds it's moreso down to lowered visibility than anything. This has been a big jump trying to get smoother thansitions in FS. Haze being separate from fog I can say that if airborne having a haze layer would look pretty good. However, last night coming into Sacramento there was nothing but open ground until I got much lower and closer. As this is more visibility specific than cloud specific, you typically don't see a reduction in visibility or fog until you get well close to the airport or lower to the reporting station. I have seen more instances of low level clouds socked into to mountains around San Diego and such with one program than the other. I'd say this is tied between ASN and OPUS with the scale leaning onto the OPUS side. Cloud depictions: This is the big ticket item. As a simmer I know I want things as close to real as possible in my sim as to what's out my window. This has been the driving force behind weather development for FS users. 1) overcast, there's lots of threads and tweaks to get a full overcast. Seems that different programs over the year have been leap frogging one another with their claims to having done this. After some user trial and error it came down to a file called cloudmask1.bmp. Apparently this little file when opened in a picture viewer shows a rectangle painted black with some white spots. This when accessed by clouds will show the cloud pattern. The black = clouds and the white = holes. Refer to thread for more reading (http://www.simforums.com/forums/cloud-mask-solved_topic48334.html). Painting this completely black in theory should give you a full overcast. Unfortunately I think that altering this file is hit or miss with whether that fix works (I'll need to re read that thread, going from memory). Here's my experience with getting overcast with my cloud density changed to 12 and using the 7/8 force to overcast. 2) Cloud states and layers, this next point is one that is often debated by "loyalists from both sides. Having been a user of the earlier legacy active sky evolution for many years prior to OPUS coming to the market 2+ years ago I can say that I can accurately give a good assessment on which product offers better depiction. For starters lets go with the basics. Clouds are clouds. In FS to show those clouds, we need DATA. Both products seem to pull from METARS. However, one issue I've seen which also seemes to be fairly evident is that one product will "globalize" a central metar station relative to the users aicraft so that you get weather based on METARS but there's not too much variety. Think back to our Cirrus, either an on or off option. As the user flies the weather will meld to the next central metar, which in theory, would be somewhat similar to its neighbor. Might be the reason for the claimed no cloud popping. The other product uses metars as well. But from my evidence it doesn't take a central metar and memic it's conditions. Each metar is a completely different weather zone within the visible area. This leads to variety and the ability from my experience between having used both programs being able to fly into and out or clouds fronts and the like. Here's some pictoral evidence. http://imgur.com/jBssdlk.jpg}/img] No that's not cirris above me. Next is available data. I don't know what ASN uses. But I do know that OPUS uses NOAA GFS data. They not only use global winds but they also have incorportated lower wind data. They also pull clouds from lower mid and upper GFS data. Overcast, splt between both programs. Evidence for me goes to OPUS. Cloud data, states, depiction, goes to OPUS. I might add more later. But for now I hope this is fairly comprehensive to give someone an idea of how things have moved along with weather development for FS. ASN was tested using latest build. OPUS with OPUSFSI latest beta.

The popping has to do with the clouds being redrawn as weather updates. Using OPUS, since its weather is generated from METARS, as you fly through varying conditions you may encounter multiple stations within your view receiving new infortmation thus causing a change or "pop" in different weather depictions. To eliminate this, they have an option that allows you to choose selective updates, this means that the cloud states that FSX has drawn will be preserved and will not be overwritten. I don't know specifically how which cloud states to keep preserved is decided (my guess would be on whether the METAR station has new data or not) but I've been happy with the way I have everything configured.

False, you do NOT need to use the weather generated by ASN to use the radar. All you need is the initial files installed from the ASN installation in order to get the radar interfaced and talking with FSX. The source of the weather is entirely up to user preference, aka, persons who use opus and have posted screen images using opus weather in conjunction with the ASN FILES.

AISIDSTAR still crashing. Here's the error. I've also included the link to the folder and files I am using. Question: if I only have files active for runways that aren't in use, will that cause a crash? https://www.dropbox.com/s/lipdd6t0c0e9idj/KDCA.zip Problem signature: Problem Event Name: APPCRASH Application Name: AISIDSTAR.exe Application Version: 0.0.0.0 Application Timestamp: 52d79c85 Fault Module Name: AISIDSTAR.exe Fault Module Version: 0.0.0.0 Fault Module Timestamp: 52d79c85 Exception Code: c0000005 Exception Offset: 0002a00f OS Version: 6.1.7600.2.0.0.768.3 Locale ID: 1033 Additional Information 1: 0a9e Additional Information 2: 0a9e372d3b4ad19135b953a78882e789 Additional Information 3: 0a9e Additional Information 4: 0a9e372d3b4ad19135b953a78882e789 Read our privacy statement online: http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?linkid=104288&clcid=0x0409 If the online privacy statement is not available, please read our privacy statement offline: C:\Windows\system32\en-US\erofflps.txt

Will give it a go and report back. Been using PHX at night as a tester. Very open approach path and easy to see the lights of the aircraft to assess how it's working.

AISIDSTAR keeps crashing on me. Using version Q. Seems to crash when I use my converted PMDG SIDSTAR files but worked fine with everything default from the Q download. Problem signature: Problem Event Name: APPCRASH Application Name: AISIDSTAR.exe Application Version: 0.0.0.0 Application Timestamp: 52d62b8c Fault Module Name: AISIDSTAR.exe Fault Module Version: 0.0.0.0 Fault Module Timestamp: 52d62b8c Exception Code: c0000005 Exception Offset: 0002a00f OS Version: 6.1.7600.2.0.0.768.3 Locale ID: 1033 Additional Information 1: 0a9e Additional Information 2: 0a9e372d3b4ad19135b953a78882e789 Additional Information 3: 0a9e Additional Information 4: 0a9e372d3b4ad19135b953a78882e789 Read our privacy statement online: http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?linkid=104288&clcid=0x0409 If the online privacy statement is not available, please read our privacy statement offline: C:\Windows\system32\en-US\erofflps.txt

Only main issue I have is having aircraft approach at 63 knts. Also, AI seem to be stuck in their final approach phase for quite awhile. How better can I streamline their arrivals? This is at LAS.

Sounds good.

I have everything converted. I have set the program to hold AI at all waypoints to achieve spacing. I am not able to get timely approaches. I have 5 aircraft inbound to STL and they are all being held for whatever reason. What am I missing or can do to better have things tighten up and flow?

I have my bug spray ready to go. It's been quite awhile Roland. Finally bolstered my AI enough to be able to fly with it on. Only problem is trying to remember how I converted my PMDG SID-STARS to the correct format.

While in flight you could always use the in game camera control shortcut box and when the issue pops up you can re correct it or over correct it so when it changes again it'll slide into the proper position???

I think what OPUS is saying is not that they pioneered weather themes. It's that they pioneered weather themes that were used DYNAMICALLY. I don't think anyone is really saying that before OPUS came along that weather themes weren't used or developed in FS.

If HIFI sim was using GRIB data since 2006 then why were there hardly any reports to users experiencing wind shifts? OPUS comes along and offers real upper wind data and users are having wind shift alley? Because they were probably altering the initial data to make it sim friendly compatible without letting the user know. THAT is misleading. Now if back in 2006, HIFI gave users the options that OPUS has which are to use un altered GRIB or altered GRIB to keep the sim happy then I can see how they were the ones using "REAL" data first. They may have offered the data first, but they chose to manipulate it without being forth right about it IMO.

As OPUS has stated. They had things magically set with wind targets in version 3.37. Something got tweaked and 3.38up to .3 had been skewed. That has been fixed. And in a timely fashion at that. It was only EARLY this morning I reported it. You AREN'T going to get that type of service and response from AS. Most you'll get is a "we'll investigate" and then a few weeks or months down the road you'll get a patch or what not. OPUS does it within hours. Have you ever wondered why users using AS aren't the ones having wind shift issues? And then OPUS comes along, introduces forecasted GRIB data, and the wind shifts galore start happening for almost all users. MY theory is that AS knew FSX had an internal weather bug with wind and decided to implement the "sim friendly" approach right from the get go and manipulate the data while still putting a face to realism on their product. IMO, it's only REAL if it isn't altered behind the scenes. Thankfully OPUS started with the brass tax approach and then gave us the option to choose how to better stabilize our sims if need be. You'd be hard pressed to deny that something was being done to AS data without being open about it, otherwise AS users would be getting shifts just like OPUS.

Did a quick comparison between ASN and OPUS at KORD. Only clouds reported were Scattered at FL250. ASN showed clear below FL200 in their in sim messages and left a high altitude cirrus. While OPUS showed scattered clouds high up with the cirrus. My first impression just from that is that ASN does not depict cloud levels above FL200.

Quite possibly very similar to what OPUS has already provided via the LWE maps? Only difference is in sim and with a different "coloring" scheme?

Looks like you have your work cut out for you for next year. :lol:

This is a double thread. The braking action is primarily based on the aircraft. I don't believe that FS can have weather like rain or snow affect the aircraft's braking ability. I would guess the braking or movement of the aircraft is uniform regardless of the weather. Now wind affects on the aircraft is a different story.

With the recent squawk and gabble of what Activesky is bringing to the table with their Activesky NextGen and what other competitors are claiming to be something never before done, I thought I would compile a brief timeline of what OPUS has done since I joined. November 5,2012-I joined November 22,2012-OPUS Releases GRIB Forecast BETA Development. November 30,2012-Initial release of upper GRIB and Temperature data. December 18,2013-Lower Atmosphere GRIB wind and temperature beta. January 2,2013-CAT Turbulence implemented. March 04,2013-Cloud Smoothing beta. March 14,2013-Cloud Icing introduced. April 02,2013-Three levels of Windshear introduced, slight, moderate, and severe. May 01,2013-Flight Planning Assitance beta. August 06,2013-Flightplan and Cruise Altitude beta September 06,2013-PMDG 777 Upper wind and Temperature text file for FMC. October 29,2013-Buttkicker initial beta support November 28,2013-Prepar3D Volumetric Fog fix beta

I'd say if it is not working the way it should be that you should document what it is not doing that it should be doing through either photos or text and looking for assistance in figuring out what the issue is. Stephen, Cheryl, other user, and I are more than happy to help you out. Ranting and raving won't get you there.