They should not get rid of any cloud type, rather only show the correct ones based on the conditions.
In the latest Q&A they mentioned again how meteoblue injects METAR into their models. Why then are we still seeing incorrect cloud types if it’s all blended together somehow on that side?
This is the type of follow-up questions to be asked during the interview to understand how this all works and what problems are being faced. A generic “we’ll keep working on it” doesn’t instill a lot of confidence.
Agree, it doesn’t matter if they get rid of or add more cloudtypes if they are placed in a specific pattern like it looks like it is now. If they add more cloudtypes without knowing where to place those it will be more mess than now actually. A METAR doesn’t know cloudtypes or where to place them in the sky. It most often just tell how much of the sky is covered of clouds.
The lower clouds does not come from meteoblue anymore. It’s a complete different data they use for those now. I don’t really know what data it is for those lower clouds. It doesn’t match METAR or Meteoblue. It looks like something they add too make sure Visibility match all the time. I’m not sure because we can’t see what data is injected. We only know 2 types of weather sources is and will be in use since su7.
Would be good to know what match what. I’m really confused after su7. Nothing matches the sources anymore.
Before i knew it should match meteoblue. Now it should match both because it’s a hybrid right? Or when should METAR match and when should meteoblue match?
Within limits I absolutely agree with this statement.
Not sure about anyone else but I am personally getting sick of seeing clouds grow and shrink at unbelievable rates, overall weather changing DRASTICALLY within the literal blink-of-an-eye, etc.
Bottom line, and this is just my opinion, the more they try to make it ‘real’ the more ‘unreal’ it looks. I’ll take (slightly) ‘unrealistic’ live weather that ‘looks real’ any day.
Too bad they already said we will only have the more accurate version to choose. It doesn’t matter what we say. Accurate is the thing we need. They know what everybody needs. I know what i need to enjoy the sim. It’s the detailed meteoblue weather that i know not will look the same everywhere, i also know that weather is already calculated to fit everywhere. I also know it will be less accurate but i accept that for sure.
I don’t know if they will manage to calculate every METAR to fit meteoblue. Only time will tell.
I wish i could enjoy the sim in the meantime they find a way to do that. But i can’t.
When i start a flight the clouds and foglayer feels like a placeholder in an alpha-build because i knew what i had before su7 and it was much much better than this.
I’m getting tired of flying in rapidly, constantly changing, UGLY weather because a lot of my fellow recliner pilots can’t deal with the fact that they see clear skies with 2 clouds outside the front but sim METAR they are landing at is depicting clear skies with only 1 cloud, unacceptable darn it, unacceptable.
Never mind the fact that I’m landing at a different airport only 5 miles away from them and the METAR is reading 500 ft. overcast and light rain. That’s the airport I’M landing at so that is the ‘real’ weather.
Well, that is true. i have no patience either. I would like it back pre METAR right now Can’t wait for it. But i now know that will not happen. I don’t know anymore what to wait for actually. A circle of overcast around airports maybe. That would make overcast 100% match that statement. Quick fix. But overcast of what? A thin or a thick layer? Where do i find that information on a METAR? Because that information is needed if meteoblue reports clear sky right? Well maybe that doesn’t matter as long as it matches METAR right? But to me a varied thickness of clouds is more realistic than when it matches METAR OVC statement 100%.
Same with the fog layer. Predictions maybe not always predicted fog where they are IRL but when it did predict fog and injected it in the sim it was realistic in the sim. It moved dynamically over terrain as fog does instead of that static fog layer around airports now in the sim. It needs to stay like that to match the fixed statement on METAR.
Same with wind actually but that thing we can’t see. But it’s never a constant thing like it is now at ground in the sim. The wind is also always dynamic IRL.
I think we need to choose. A dynamic weather system or a fixed weather system and we have chosen the fixed one with some elements of dynamic things. We get the most fixed weather at airports where we get the first impression because there is were we start our flights.
Do they really need to change the lower clouds from meteoblue data to match visibility? Isn’t it realistic if we also get low visibility if it’s not stated on METAR. Fog/visibility can change fast and we need to be aware of that when flying? As it is now we always know it will be low visibility when it’s stated. We also know 100% that it will be vfr when it’s stated on METAR right? Is that realistic to know for sure what to expect all the time? I just ask here? Because i don’t want them to remove or change the lower cloud-layers from meteoblue. I don’t understand why they need to change those at all.
They could just add that fog layer from METAR without removing or changing things from meteoblue don’t you think?
Feels like they make it more complicated than it needs to be.
The visibility many wanted from METAR then just add that fog layer from METAR. The rest we know from pre su7 meteoblue handled well right? It is the fog that is hard to predict just add that do not completely change the weather system to implement that thing.
Maybe some need it match METAR 100% but it was nice to have fog around airports without METAR. Now i know it’s never fog layers around those because predicted Meteoblue fogs or lower clouds near ground are removed or changed now.
I get those CB clouds OP describes instead. Those are not predicted at meteoblue, thats for sure.
Can’t wait for it. But i now know that will not happen. I don’t know anymore what to wait for actually. A circle of overcast around airports maybe. That would make overcast 100% match that statement. Quick fix. But overcast of what? A thin or a thick layer? Where do i find that information on a METAR? Because that information is needed if meteoblue reports clear sky right? Well maybe that doesn’t matter as long as it matches METAR right? But to me a varied thickness of clouds is more realistic than when it matches METAR OVC statement 100%.