Add more options for live-weather than only ON/OFF

I wish i could have more options in live-weather especially now after the forced METAR integration. I understand those who needs it but we who bought this sim with forecasted weather only have no option to get it back as it was without.

The options i would like to see in live-weather is.

100% meteoblue-weather for those who likes that including me

Hybrid METAR/meteoblue- weather for those who likes that

100% METAR-weather for those who likes that.

I know we had gusts before su4, i would like that back with options to turn them off if we want to do that.

As this is a wish for including more options in live-weather feel free to add options you wish we had in live-weather.

Stay in topic of Live-weather only.

Cant you do these things with the weather editor. That how I use mine, lookup the weather at departure,
key it into the editor, take off, fly along, when I get about 1/2 to my destination, key in arrival airport weather, fly through that and land.

But why do that when live weather could easily pull that off automatically for you? That’s the whole point of live weather.


Because doing it that way looks better then the live weather…plus you can tweak the winds to be more or less, and visiblity etc…sometimes flying in normal weather even when bad can be a little boring, nice to spice things up a bit…

Agree, but i think in live weather we have no options at all to spice things up at the same time have it automatically set. I remember using active sky for example in the past sims we had tons of options and at the same time have it changing the weather automatically. Like increase or decrease turbulence. I want to set my weather to feel dynamic all the time and not have any METAR integrated that destroyes that feeling.


Setting the departure and arrival weather like that also means that your weather is incorrect for the entire flight except for takeoff and landing.

Wanting live weather and to ‘spice things up’ at the same time makes no sense. Live weather is supposed to be as close to real life as possible, simulated in the sim. So as soon as you tweak it, it defeats the point.

1 Like

You used to be able to save live weather, and then mod it, but it seems they took that out or maybe Im just missing it, I was looking for it a couple of weeks ago but the UI for this game leaves alot to be desired…

Cool 2220 hours in steam on this game … too funny game says 169.

I can see here on the forum that weather is viewed as realistic in many ways. For example. Some wants the weather to be 100% match to METAR to feel realistic, for some it doesn’t matter if the weather is matching METAR as long as it feels/looks dynamic and realistic.

To me those fog circles around airports destroyes the immersion. Also that the wind rate is locked at metar wind. I only want one source of data to create the weather for me in the sim. And to me meteoblue weather is best for having a global simulation of weather.

Thats why i want options in live-weather.


I agree to having the choice between the two.

It should be easy to implement a simple choice between pure meteoblue and hybrid METAR/meteoblue because when you fly to airports without an active METAR you are using pure meteoblue anyway. So the game just has to not load the METAR data.

But there must be an option for those of us (myself included) that want to use the METAR hybrid. The tranisition between the two does need improving, but that’s already being discussed in several other threads.


Agree. Maybe 100% METAR not many wants but i think some wants that too. That we had options to have before su 7 to use with 3rd party addons but we now have none to have it 100% meteoblue as we had at release.


Why does this need to be an option? Shouldn’t the live weather improvement be just Hybrid METAR/Meteoblue data instead?

Start with METAR data from airports and airfields or any other weather observation stations and create the live weather from there. Any missing/supplementary weather data is built from the Meteoblue data. So you have a combination of both dynamic and realistic looking weather, while the parts that’s important for takeoff and approach are more accurate as it comes from the METAR data.

These options would be helpful because the weather and clouds display has degraded since the last service update with the Metar integration.
This can be found here in some forum topics.
In summary, all cloud variants now seem to consist of puffy cumulus clouds, no real stratus clouds, fog circles around Metar airfields, massive volcanic ash clouds in some places, incorrect weather display despite metar data, etc.
I mean, we don’t see a single rain cloud moving over part of the airfield now either, as I’ve experienced before. Metar is essentially static and the same everywhere near the airfield until it is updated at some point.
This is also how the weather often looks now. More or less the same clouds in various densities.


Then the hybrid/metar would be perfect for you. Not for me that wants the complete picture of meteoblue weather. I don’t need it to be accurate everywhere. I want it to be believable. To me it felt real. Unpredicted like weather is. Not the same everywhere.


Well METAR is only supplying the wind direction, barometric pressure, cloud cover and visibility, right? In other words most of it are not completely visual based as it is just a line of text-based data. I mean for example:

METAR could say BKN022 which means broken (over half the sky) cloud layer with its base at 2,200 ft. That’s barely tells us anything about what the broken cloud actually looks like. That’s why the Meteoblue data could help us interpret this BKN022 METAR into a broken cloud visuals that is visually stunning and believable according to the Meteoblue algorithm.

I’m not seeing the point of a fully Meteoblue weather without METAR if the Meteoblue algorithm works and looks exactly the same way when fed with the METAR data anyway.

If meteoblue has an outdated data without METAR, they could render the weather as overcast, for example. But that would look just equally the same way as if the METAR feeds the data with OVC050. Just like a outdated Meteoblue renders a broken cloud would look exactly the same as when fed with BKN022 data.

My suggestion for an additional weather option is actually a Random/Dynamic weather that’s completely offline. But still uses the same meteoblue algorithm from the sim but offline and it can generate its own METAR weather report format based on the meteoblue dynamic/random weather mode that it’s generating in that flight session.

If METAR says BKN022 and meteoblue predicted clear sky? Clear sky can’t help BKN022 look realistic. Asobo need to create that BKN022 by hand. And that we now know looks generic with CB clouds or comulus everywhere. And visibility we also know looks generic in a circle around the airport. When we have this system that they call big improvement i can’t see they making it much better in the future. Easier for them to only use one source of weather data. No need of transissions either that way. Transissions in weather is immersion breaking for me. Have you ever seen any kind of transissions in the real weather?

METAR says good visibility, meteoblue predicts low clouds. The lower clouds needs to be removed to not interfare with METAR visibility.

I don’t saying your point is wrong. I don’t like it and want option to have it dynamic all the time with no kind of transissions. I want the weather to feel like it is the real weather. Forecast has a hard time predict the weather and that is because it is unpredicted. I want the weather to be unpredicted in the sim as well.

Look at a METAR and know exactly how the weather will be is predicted.

In the real world a METAR is an observation of the weather but the weather is still unpredicted and varied because it changes all the time. As wind for an example. It’s never fixed at the METAR value. It varies even if METAR say 5kts without gust mentioned. But we as users want it steady at that 5kts because if it’s not it does not match METAR and we can’t plan the flight or use VATSIM. That’s not realistic in my opinion and that’s why i want the 100% meteoblue weather back as an option.

That way i do not need to wait for something that i don’t know will be fixed.

1 Like

How is that possible? How can meteoblue predicted a clear sky when the real weather has clouds? seems like a poorly made algorithm to me. Why would Asobo need to create BKN022 by hand? Just place broken clouds at 2,200 ft according to the meteoblue algorithm that make it look as visually stunning as if it’s “predicting a broken cloud”.

Of course there’s no transitions in the real weather, but transitions can be done outside of the rendering range of the aircraft. For example, if you have a rendering radius of 100 nm around your aircraft. The weather that’s been loaded within that radius needs to be locked. You can’t change anything in there, regardless of the actual weather changes.

Beyond that 100nm range, are the part of the world that is not rendered, so you can’t see it anyway. In that case, the sim can still generate the weather profile for that block according to both METAR/Meteoblue algorithm, and this can change as long as you’re not flying within that rendering range.

Once that block flies into your visible rendering range within 100nm from you, it’s locked, it can’t change anymore.

So you won’t see any transitions, all you see is that there’s a weather coming within range of you vision and the weather stays.

Again, how could this even happen? I would seriously question the quality of that “prediction”. But even in that case, that could still be done. the area around where the METAR is generated could still have good visibility, but further it is you start to see low clouds or soft fog. And if the algorithm is as good as they claim, that difference would still look natural, as if you’re driving into a fog and you see a clearing after you passed the threshold.

What should be done is to render based on the data that you already have, ie METAR. Then “predict” what it would look like naturally for the area that you don’t have the data for. So it should be impossible for a METAR to say good visibility and Meteoblue to predict low clouds because that’s contradicting with the data that they work with. Instead, if the METAR says good visibility, then start with the good visibility as a base, then use the meteoblue algorithm to “predict” what the surrounding area weather conditions would be like based on that data.

Because METAR and forecasts is two completely different things and doesn’t work together if they not match. Forecast doesn’t always match real world weather that is occuring right now. As i said i don’t need forecast and METAR to match. I only want the weather to feel dynamic. Create weather based of local METAR that is stretched out 100nm to be global isn’t realistic. Thats why i not use 3rd party addons, they do that thing.

1 Like

Voted! Really hoping for Meteoblue global weather to come back as it was before SU7 or even before of that. METAR circles kill the realism for me.


Perrry, I absolutely agree with that. I just can’t sum it up that well, it’s not my native language.

I have been flying with the continuous development of Metar Tools for over 15 years and was so excited about the MSFS new weather system, with moving fronts, local phenomena, dynamic weather even over an airfield. Not just trying to transistion from one metar weather to the next and unclear conditions in between.
I understand that many users want to have predictable target weather, and I think this is mostly about wind because of runway selection. Personally, I can live well with the uncertain forecast and to me it is not worth the current visual loss I see since the introduction of Meteoblue/Metar mixing. So, of course, a choice option would be optimal.
But I can’t estimate how hard that is to program individually or how different user preferences can be served with live weather from an online server.

1 Like

If they can’t code that, they should never had completely changed the weather system without thinking of adding options for it only to make it work with crossplatform 3rd party tools like VATSIM. If those that wished for METAR got that in we that not wished for that should be able to have options to have the old weather we liked back that the sim was released & advertised with. This sim was not advertised for VATSIM only users. All should be able to enjoy it, with current system i can’t enjoy it at all. I only fire it up and see if something has changed and i’m dissapointed everytime because the generic weather is noticable instantly because those METAR-bubbles is right where we start our flights. Really bad first impression everytime i start a flight.

When all was angry that the wind didn’t match METAR. I observed the wind and decided the runway based of the wind occuring in the sim. It matched everytime. I didn’t need to look at a METAR to decide runway. I made my own observations and it felt realistic. Let’s say my wind was 240@10kts in the sim i choosed the runway 24 or a runway close to that heading because that was the wind nothing else.

Do observers IRL use a METAR to observe the weather? How do pilots make the planning on airports that do not have any METAR available? Yes, they use forecasts or observe the weather or choose a different airport to land on if the weather is not accurate to forecasts or if the weather has changed to much. That feel i want to have when using the sim that the weather can change all the time like it is IRL.