Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Donations

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,608 Excellent

1 Follower

About RALF9636

  • Rank
    Member - 1,000+
  • Birthday 09/14/1973

Profile Information

  • Gender

Flight Sim Profile

  • Commercial Member
  • Online Flight Organization Membership
  • Virtual Airlines

Recent Profile Visitors

5,278 profile views
  1. I don't know if that would really be a problem for MS. They already provide more than 2.5 Petabytes for streaming the world scenery. Related to that, how large is a dataset for the worldwide weather for one day, when snapshots are taken every three hours?
  2. It has been a mystery for three years. They said something along the lines of "Weather is such a basic feature of a flightsim that it has to be included by default - and we are going to make it awesome". Which doesn't make much sense to me. Scenery, aircraft and ATC are quite basic for a flightsim as well and MSFS is open in these regards. And they just failed in making it "awesome" - on the contrary it is now worse than it was when MSFS was released. To me this is the most significant mistake MS/Asobo are making with MSFS. MSFS could be so much better if third parties like HiFi / ActiveSky could add their experience and expertise. I just don't get it.
  3. These were exactly my thoughts. "Good feedback. I'll bring it to the development team" Seriously? After three years of discussions and wishlist items? Where has he been? Maybe this is a semantic issue? Being a non-native speaker I had to look up "historic" and "historical" myself. Both terms have been used equivalent in the discussions in the recent three years. But they have different meanings. The weather of Charles Lindbergh's flight in 1927 or the weather from D-day in 1944 would be "historic", also maybe a "historic" hurricane; whereas the weather from yesterday noon or from a day in July 2021 would be "historical". And "historical" weather is what we want. Maybe he misunderstood and thought we want "historic" weather? Only then his remarks regarding insufficient data would make sense. Regarding the weather from yesterday or last year data shouldn't be a problem at all. Even if Meteoblue don't store all the data needed for MSFS, MS/Asobo could have done so themselves for three years now. Obviously they use the data "on the fly" to inject it into the sim. What should be the issue with storing the data? If the shear amount of data should be a problem (I don't think it is - compared to the 3D model of the world they are streaming all the time), then a snapshot every three hours should be enough for interpolation - it doesn't need to be perfectly accurate, plausible weather for the time of day and day of year would be enough.
  4. I'm confused about this. I'm not saying it's not true - but I just did a flight from NZQN using REX Weather and got decent/realistic snow coverage. The issue is with the default live weather. It has kept me from flying in beautiful regions like the Alps, Alaska and Norway for most of the time; it's a shame. But maybe it is time to give REX weather another go now.
  5. That was my first thought as well. I'm afraid this is something that cannot be fixed by a scenery developer. It's a shame this long standing most annoying bug of MSFS is affecting in particular some of the most beautiful places on earth.
  6. I have an issue with the doors of the Fenix. I use GSX for boarding, but do not use MCE to interact with GSX (I use the GSX menu). I have "Auto Door Simulation" in the Fenix turned off. After boarding is completed and GSX has closed the doors, the main passenger door and/or the front cargo door keep going open and close all the time. It only stops when pushback starts. When I close MCE the issue disappears immediately so it seems that MCE is responsible for this behaviour. I tried with both NoPaxDoorsAutoHandling=1 or =0 NoCargoDoorsAutoHandling=1 or =0 Makes no difference. Before the Fenix V2 update and the corresponding MCE update I never had this issue.
  7. It is not just about subtypes. It depends on how the modder called his mod. C182, C 182, C182RG, C182 RG, C 182 RG, Cessna 182RG, Cessna 182 RG... You need several slightly varied search terms to find each of these mods, instead of just "182" which brought up all these results at once previously (just like Google would). Actually this reminds me of some search engines of the early 2000s... This is just one of several nuisances of the current fs.to. Having defended fs.to in that ToS drama a few months ago, now I completely agree with what RW profiles said about them: Had fs.to looked from the beginning like it does now, I wouldn't have even considered bookmarking it in the first place.
  8. No, it did not. It does not show any results containing C182 or 182T or 182RG. All these are missing. Try searching for "C182" and you will get search results not included in your above results. Then try C182RG and you will get even more results that did not show up before. Previously - and with any decent search engine - you would get all these results with just "182".
  9. I understand everybody who is turning his back on fs.to these days. They completedly ruined their site with the new layout. Before the change I visited the site almost daily to see what's new or updated and browse around. Now I don't find anything interesting there any more. Some nice features are gone. Even the search function is broken (for example "182" doesn't find what is called "C182"). Now I only visit fs.to from time to time when I look for something specific - most of the time I don't find anymore what I am looking for. I rather do a Google search now than visit fs.to. It really is a shame what they did to their site. It was fantastic before.
  10. He started by saying: Injector Data Source: We do not yet know which data source we will use for traffic injection. I agree with you that being limited to real time live traffic wouldn't be a smart move, but I expect them to be aware if that.
  11. Get either the Fenix A320 or the PMDG 737 - or both. Which one you prefer depends on what you like more - the Boeing or the Airbus style. You can't go wrong with any of these two.
  12. Why Working Title? They are into Avionics. If the guys at BeyondATC are as good as it appears to be, it would be smart for MS/Asobo to contact them for a cooperation.
  13. First, FSHud is an ATC addon (like for example PF3), FSLTL is not. Second, FSHud controls AI traffic by itself. FSLTL just injects it and lets it control by the sim. Both aspects together make FSHud a complete ATC / AI solution (when it is ready) where both the user and AI traffic are controlled on the same level and interact with each other (other than for example PF3 and the sim-controlled AI traffic). BeyondATC now fortunately is committed to do the same (and more, probably).
  • Create New...