Ideal situation would be if they can blend the METAR into the current system so we don’t get sudden weather changes or weather suddenly popping in. Best of both worlds, that was the idea i think.
But what i am seeing now is they didn’t succeed in this. Yesterday i was on final with only some clouds but 10 mile visibility and suddenly i was in a CAT III situation and i couldn’t see the runway.
It’s real tricky to blend i suppose. It’s old weather that needs to blend with predicted. I think they need to match to be good. And how many times do predicted weather match current real time weather 100%?
I think they are not that far off now to be honest. There is a problem with cloud height and visibility. Hopefully it’s an easy fix because i like the idea of this system.
I just don’t get why they don’t test these things before release, it’s not something they could have missed with a little testing.
Agree and if they change the approach this much since release we should have options to turn it off. This is not what was advertised. It was advertised as a dynamic weather system. Not static like this. They started to make the winds static now they have the clouds static too. Soon everything will be static because it’s easier to manage static things. It’s easier to paint on a picture to make it fit than painting on a movie to make it fit but most of us prefer to watch movies. As it is now it feels like they trying to paint on a movie 
Maybe that is good but they need to paint it frame by frame and that is hard because this movie does not have an end and nobody has seen it before and it needs to be painted in real time.
Exactly, and i dont like it. Thats why i never voted for a METAR based system.
Well, as i fly on VATSIM only, in-sim weather close to the real METAR is essential, and i appreciate they are improving it. But this first iteration is not really statisfying. The transition needs to bee smoother, and it should not just change appruptly.
Wait a second i have clouds now at 350 feet and the METAR says FEW035 (Which means 3500 feet). Do they think FEW035 means 350 feet? Ground is at sea level.
Hello everyone, quick message to let you know that we are aware of issues impacting the weather since the latest update.
The team is currently working on it.
As long as we don’t have to wait for a fix for weeks till next WU or SU 
Thanks for letting us know! Appreciated! 
Great to hear! Thank you!
thank you for the feedback 
Thanks for that, can you please find out about the Mouse in VR bug as well that’s affecting lots of people? It also requires urgent attention and a Hotfix, thanks
Thanks for the update! This is all a work in progress and it can take some trial and error to get it right, I think letting simmers know it’s being looked at and or worked on can go along way to settle down the masses with the pitchforks.
Keep in mind that we are also using official tags to give the status of Community reported issues.
You will find more information here: New Tag System
The original premise of Live Weather was that it was supposed to be 100 percent dynamic based on the MeteoBlue predictive model, and that was the case at the release of MSFS. The problem with that, is that a predictive model is just that - a forecast of what the weather at an airport “might” be at a given time - not what it actually is. While it is true that a METAR is static - it is a snapshot of what the weather was at a given time - it is an exact representation of the actual weather at the time of observation in terms of wind direction and velocity, temperature, pressure, visibility, cloud cover and precipitation.
Even in real world aviation, a pre-recorded ATIS broadcast is just a verbal readout of the most current METAR, and in most cases that is “good enough” for arriving and departing aircraft to know “what to expect” in terms of weather. If weather changes significantly, both the METAR and ATIS will be updated.
AWOS is different. That is an automated voice broadcast that gives the exact conditions at that very moment based on the readings of automated weather instruments.
Even for VFR arrivals, a tower controller will often give a verbal update of the exact wind direction and velocity (at that very moment) when an aircraft is on short final - especially if the direction of speed is varying - likewise an update of visibility (in terms of RVR) when conditions are low IFR. None of this is really possible in a flight simulator.
The problem with using a predictive model alone to set airport weather is that it may at times be very different than the actual weather. This was a big complaint with MSFS from the very beginning.
Those who are emulating IFR (or even VFR) using real world weather expect to find conditions (at the destination airport) reasonably close to the latest METAR. This is important to correctly determine well in advance of arrival which runway or runways will be active, and whether conditions will be IFR (requiring an instrument approach), or VFR (permitting a visual approach). It is especially important for anyone using an online network like VATSIM or Pilot Edge whose controllers will be using the latest METAR.
Now, with this new system, it’s obviously a big problem if the METAR cloud bases or visibilities are incorrectly rendered, turning what should be an easy VFR approach into unexpected IFR - and MSFS users are 100 percent justified in expecting this to be fixed. But, I would not want to see the developers abandon the attempt to blend r/w METAR data with the existing model weather. I don’t think there would be an easy way to disable the new system because the new cloud and visibility data is probably embedded into the overall Live Weather feed from the server. The only solution for those who do not want to deal with the current problems would probably be to use one of the weather presets, which override Live Weather.
Even though I personally enjoy flying with r/w weather most of the time, I will often use the “clear sky” preset if I simply want to do some VFR sightseeing without bothering with clouds or wind - or if I am testing a new aircraft model.
So, do I get this correctly: none of the devs at Asobo realized that it makes not a lot of sense to read the METAR cloud base heights as above sea level instead of above ground level? Seriously? Even worse, they obviously did not test a single airport before releasing it, otherwise they would have instantly recognized this bug. Seriously, Asobo, not the first time I really wonder what is going on on your side that such bugs slip QC. Unbelievable…
There are things called bugs, not sure if you know about code and or programming but these do happen even in the real business world with apps. It happens and is not ideal of course, you always hope you have tested every scenario but sometimes you have to pull the trigger on your project and work out the bugs when it is live.
I tend to believe a lot of the complaints early on was due to the forecast hour issue that was eventually solved earlier this year. It just took months to find and fix.
Since it was resolved, I personally found the weather was mostly accurate, with the only real discrepancy being timing (for example the weather being an hour or two off) and a few bugs here and there. But the winds were mostly accurate at the airports I visited and there was enough dynamism in the weather to mimic real life.
The airport winds, pressure and temperature have been coming from METAR (not from the model forecast) for almost a year now. It was implemented in December of 2020. The new elements from METAR in SU7 are clouds, visibility and precipitation.
Fix or roll-back the VR issues while you are at it. OR. Roll back this whole update to SU6.