What i have been trying to say. They need to have a good planning tool in the sim with all of this information in the sim. Then we don’t need to compare the weather with METAR. We should not compare the weather with real weather we should compare it to the predictions because that is the simulated weather we had in the sim at release. Or make their own METAR based of the weather happening in the sim. Then the METAR will always match the weather occuring in the sim and it can be fluid at the same time.
Agree, and it’s important to tell to be able to plan properly. This is what i have learned of testing since release. And now when they have more accurate predictions and updated more often in the sim that is improved they mess with it with those METAR instead.
That’s only valid if you’re standing near an airport or whether station. METAR provides zero data outside of their tiny bubble, so meteoblue getting it wrong every once in a while is better than getting it wrong 100% of the time by just using interpolation and very sparse data from weather stations miles away.
I’ll take live readings over a 24 hour old predictive model any day
That’s perfectly valid. That’s why I think it should be optional. For people who fly on vatsim or somehow think sparse bubbles of weather here and there is superior to high resolution smooth weather across the entire globe, they should get that option, and the rest of us should be able to use meteoblue only. That seems to be the only solution here.
I have no intention of flying VATSIM but I would really like to fly in dynamic “believable” weather without the weird transitional bubbles you sometimes get when Meteoblue data does not match METAR very well.
I believe this was possible prior to the injection of METAR data so how about a “Dynamic weather” option that is just MeteoBlue and “Real Weather” for the one that contains METAR and all the idiosynchrasies associated with that.
It is impossible to know the weather at every timestamp at every location in the world;
Therefore, the game needs a guess (simulation) of the weather based on the observations that are known and Meteoblue has a way to do that;
As METARs and weather in game should match, the game should provide simulated METAR’s and ATIS, based on the simulated weather. Unfortunately this means that real world data sources cannot be used.
To have the same weather conditions on networks like IVAO and Vatsim, where different games with their own interpretation of “live” weather co-exist, these networks should inject their own simulation of the weather and the METAR’s that go with that simulation. In practice this will mean that weather in MSFS2020 will be downgraded but that is the price to pay to have an equal playing field.
Of course I would like the weather to be exact in-game as it is when I look out of the window but that is simply not feasible.
Not necessarily (qualifier, obviously there are going to be complaints whatever happens!) - sure, make the ‘real world METAR’ optional (or remove it), but generate ‘in-sim METAR’ from the engine which can then be free to perform as the great weather engine we’ve seen in the past. Make the ‘in-sim METAR’ available to external 3rd party applications and also have a more robust and detailed integration of MSFS flight planning and weather data (or leave this to the 3rd parties).
The bottom line is Historic vs Metars vs Simulated weather is a choice that I had in FSX, a game that came out in 2006. The only reason there is controversary is Asobo’s insistence on continuing their proprietary weather engine and blocking third party development. Give us a choice, please Asobo!!
But in the sim, it appears they use at least 12 hour old predictive forecasts at the very least. I’ve compared weather in the sim to Meteoblue, and it doesn’t even come close to matching up at times. A lot can happen in the atmosphere in 12 hours to change a predicted forecast to utter uselessness.
If the sim used hourly instead, the discrepency between said forecast and METAR would be a lot smaller, and the blend as we move from the predicted zone into a METAR zone would (at least the majority of the time) be a much smoother transition.
In any case, I’m happy as long as the weather looks and feels real, and at least comes reasonably close to real life. Since Vatsim and the other live ATC networks use real weather and METARs, we sort of need that kind of accuracy in the sim as well.
The bottom line is that there are fewer than 10,000 METAR stations in the entire world (not counting the stations that are currently not operating), and those stations provide a tiny amount of data compared to meteoblue. A few thousand of those METAR stations are in the USA.
Let’s zoom in a little further and look at the two largest states in the USA.
Total METAR stations in Alaska: ~200 - 1 METAR station every ~33,165 sq miles
Total METAR stations in Texas: ~300 - 1 METAR station every ~895 sq miles
Some states have fewer than 10 METAR stations. Delaware has like 5. Asobo is dealing with a fairly high resolution grid of data covering the entire world, including the oceans, which is a LOT more data compared to previous sims. Meteoblue provides an API for historical weather, I guess that’s not included in their deal with Asobo?
Even if you use meteoblue’s live weather data that has METAR blended in, it still won’t match outside of the METAR bubble Vatsim uses since MSFS would have far more accurate data, and altitude will still also not match because of MSFS’s superior pressure modeling, which is another important point. The current weather engine is so much more advanced compared to the competition that it would have to be downgraded in multiple ways to match Vatsim.
Another thing to keep in mind with VATSIM flying is that everyone using that platform at any given moment will all be using different weather engines anyway. It supports most of the major sims, and pilots may be using their sim’s built in live weather, Active Sky, REX, etc.
I started a thread on this topic a month or two ago and not every VATSIM pilot had a problem with live weather prior to SU7. The live weather aspects most crucial for online flying (and the easiest to simulate across multiple platforms) are the non-visual weather elements that are defined by raw data numbers, temperature, winds, pressure (the elements of METAR that were already being injected into MSFS live weather prior to SU7).
The available weather engines out there can do a pretty decent job at ensuring pilots get the same information on those non visual elements. Where the problems start happening are when visual depiction of weather phenomena start being implemented (clouds, visibility, precip)…all of which different weather engines will depict differently.
I see absolutely no gains with this new weather system other than now we have visibility. Other than that, we have less cloud types (most of the time looking like Hunga Tonga exploded a few miles away) and sudden transitions, and it still doesn’t match the METAR half the time anyway. I think they’d be better off just using the non visual elements of METAR, that will still allow VATSIM controllers to direct flights to the proper runways and provide for proper spacing. Perhaps they can find a different source for implementing visibility since that is a much needed addition we didn’t have before.
All the circles on the map is the METARS. Matches good and would look more natural than have a circle around the airport. RED means IFR and GREEN means VFR on those METAR circles.
And if they absolutely need that visibility in the sim without remove that feature i would like them to set all of those cloud bases reported from meteoblue below 3000ft at 3000ft instead of changing them into fog or removing them. I think that causes most of those clear skies we see when the clouds should be at the groundlevel because we can’t have them there if METAR says VFR.
The METAR fog they are using are always set from ground level to 3000ft. Below that they should not set any clouds at all from meteoblue but it’s not a fix to remove them or make them generic because of that.
With this they not need any METAR-bubbles or change the clouds. The only thing they need to do is to set 3000ft as ground level for those clouds reported below 3000ft then we will have all the clouds as they should be injected from meteoblue. Not at accurate height but they will be there.
All the low cloudbases should be set above the foglayer. Not displayed as fog or removed.
