I dont know what it will take @Perrry you and i have been on this topic in multippe threads for A LONG time now and throughout 10+ SU we both have only seen like 2 or 3 fixes regarding weather.
Main item’s we have yet to see:
FL220-FL240 clouds stop unless its high base alt clouds. So thunderstorms wont reach its reporting echo tops
Degration in flow and transitioning
Degration in all types of clouds rendered
Meteoblue data vs msfs weather engine mis aligning
And much much more. The degrations im labeling because of this 2 platform 1 system (pc + console). Have to limit rendering and server outputs.
Thunderstorms are not apparent at and or above FL220-FL240 has been there since the beginning and not a peep about it. Meteoblue, allisonhouse, etc all have very very good data and analysis of weather, turbulence, winds, echo tops, depth of the storm, what its producing, how fast it is moving and in what direction. MS could honestly invest the money in that as well. The weather data has been fixed drastically but still has issues in many parts of the world that meteoblue cant get the data from.
I think it would be a dang gold mind and eye candy for A LOT of people visually and also pose a better realistic flying experiences like in the past simulators with 3rd party programs.
I may sound like bitty and mean but the points are we havent heard anything regarding these issues. I would love to see SU17 or a specific update like they did for the default aircraft just for weather. Heck it will be a testing bed for MSFS2024 weather (whatever that has instore if anything new).
It has more benefits in the run than cons in development.
Well i know that we are some users that wants the more dynamic/chaotic/organic/fluid approach of a weather system that never feels same everytime we fly like weather is in real life. I know the weather reports are accurate at the time it is reported but it doesn’t describe how a weather system behaves over time. It’s a static report that is static until the next static report are available because it’s known static values. The forecasted system is a description of weather in the future that are not static and are able to change overtime because it’s not fixed in stone values. I preffer the last system because in my opinion thats more how weather physics behaves in real life weather. I also understand those who preffer the first system from reports.
The sad thing is that they were not able to give us options to be able to choose the system we as users liked the most. Hope to see more options of weather in MSFS 2024 available at release Like this, custom weather, Meteoblue, Meteoblue/METAR-hybrid.
MSFS seems to determine cloud density in live weather in the same way it determines it when you use a weather preset: It seems to be based entirely on cloud coverage, cloud thickness (distance between cloud layer top and bottom) and to a lesser extent, cloud scatter (all per weather tile). The cloud density slider in the manual preset window is simply a modifier/multiplier that doesn’t seem to fluctuate in live weather. With manual weather presets, if you keep the cloud density at the same value and just use the other sliders, you should still clearly see the cloud density changing, especially if you use the weather debug window in dev mode.
One of the biggest problems I have with the cloud generation (which has been the problem since day 1) is the fact that low coverage, low thickness and high scatter cloud layers results in too low of a cloud density, which makes the clouds look weird and not produce enough lift for gliders. The lower density limit is too low IMO. This results in those ugly translucent puff balls we get when live weather produces “few clouds” on nice days and at the edge of storms as cloud coverage smoothly fades out. I will gladly share some early screenshots with anyone that doesn’t believe me that the clouds have always been like this. I don’t think this is technically a bug as the system is generally working as intended, but it definitely requires tweaking. It’s like they stopped at “good enough”, when it could be so much better, as we see with weather presets.
It appears that all they have to do is tweak a constant or two and that would fix a lot of the complaints people have about the cloud generation (even though many don’t seem to realize it), including gliders not getting enough lift. IMO the cloud rendering looks better than ever when using presets or when the weather engine generates dense clouds. The shading, blending and colors have only gotten better over time. It’s the low density clouds that have never looked good since release IMO. Unlike a lot of the incorrect information that is spread about the weather engine, this particular issue is 100% verifiable and actionable.
At the moment, CB clouds are implemented terribly. I often fly in to/from tropical destinations, such as Singapore, Bangkok, Denpasar etc. The apparent CBs hardly reach above 10-15,000 ft when in reality they can stretch up to 60,000 ft.
In tropical environments and tropical routes, for airliners, flying above 30,000 ft for example, it’s not unusual to have to dodge Cumulus or Cumulonimbus buildups or at least see them rise to those heights. But in MSFS 2020, hardly anything. Is this a bug or designed this way?
Yep. Here in South Florida, we see these things 60k feet very commonly. We just don’t get proper storm cells in MSFS, and it’s incredibly disappointing. IRL you can be cruising at 35K feet and have to vector around tall CB clouds. Never had to do that in MSFS because they don’t ever render tall vertical clouds.
In MSFS the clouds are too orange/yellow/brown/gray kinda colour imo.
I think the weather accuracy has improved, though of course it always could be better, it’s just the look of the clouds now for me that just look really bad and unrealistic a lot of the time.
I have just realized with some horror that I have not yet supported this suggestion with my vote
(done).
Especially for someone who almost only flies gliders, the clouds are crucial because they also illustrate the air movement.
However, a beautiful cloud will not be of much use if the weather situation is not appropriate. Therefore, “only” a beautiful cloud display is not very practical.
I can remember very well in FS2020 times that Mr. Wloch talked about the planned weather improvements. Then all the information stopped and unfortunately we haven’t heard anything about this topic since then.
So I would be very excited to hear in the next developer stream what the current state of progress is and how things will continue there.
Even though I can imagine that it is very difficult to interpolate a complex weather system with the “little” data that is currently available for the live weather display. But perhaps it is possible, with the current state of the art, to develop an AI that implements something like this for the FS from the transmitted data.
A view like the beautiful clouds in the pictures further up here in the articles naturally also means a great deal of effort in calculating the volume and shape of the clouds.
However you want to develop it, the main thing is to continue with this project.
Well it’s pretty simple, my friends. MSFS 2024 was promised to be “the future of flight simulation”. In my honest opinion, realism in a flight simulator has a lot to do with atmospherics and cloud depictions. And, after seeing what Laminar has done with their simulator, it’s seems fair to ask for Asobo to do so as well. Let’s face it, MSFS’ weather depictions are awful. If you don’t see it, here it is:
Let’s get this on to Asobo’s radar. (And while we’re at it, maybe we can get a functional WX radar too…?) The weather is so important for any game, let alone a flight simulator. The Bing ground data is wonderful, so let’s create a digital twin of our skies too.
There is a thread already requesting the use of Damian Clark from HifiSimulations, similarly to the way Microsoft hired Working Title to do their avionics. This is a fantastic idea, and Damian has already said he’d be glad to work with Asobo to create a highly realistic weather system for MSFS. Hire HiFi Sim Damian to fix the weather in the sim for good! - #48 by LateAura49
I have already written several posts about the atmosphere and clouds… I would be happy if there were some plans in the future (such as: “hey!! we are building a new engine from scratch”)… they should think about introducing a hybrid between ray tracing and ray marching for the lighting to hang on a vortex grid etc etc… we are very behind from this point of view… in fact we are not yet in the nex gen phase… I hope they have gathered at a table to talk about the weather and redesign for something to amaze everyone…
When the developer stream is running, it’s usually the middle of the night for me. I’ve posted questions about the weather in the past. Unfortunately, they weren’t addressed. Maybe someone else will try that, so that a new overall report or future planning can come from the Three Kings ;-).
Sadly I believe your first statement is the accurate one. The blatantly now ignore everything and anything to do with weather since they destroyed it in FS2020 SU5.
Not sure if it’s allowed to post screenshots from another simulator, but we shall not avoid talking about the achievable representation of weather on a consumer PC. This is from tropical Pacific, between Samoa and Tahiti, as seen from FL350 looking towards NE. The satellite image from Windy attached for reference.
I wouldn’t put it so harshly. Unfortunately, we can’t look behind the curtain. You could certainly call it ignorance. Even if you don’t want to say anything about a topic that is important from our point of view, you can at least emphasise that you have noticed a question or concern.
Perhaps we can speak of ignorance, but we have to consider the overall complexity of the FS.
My need as a glider pilot seems to be very simple:
I want a well-functioning glider, a few grass runways and very functional and easily recognisable weather.
That can be expressed in one sentence.
However, I realise that the word ‘weather’ has a much more complex meaning than, for example, the word ‘ILS approach’. Since so few people here are clamouring for realistic weather and thus clouds (for me, weather and clouds always belong together), most of the needs, which are excessive in quantity, are all pushed to the front because it is more satisfying and more successful. I think Mr Neumann has often enough expressed his enthusiasm for many areas of the FS that he feels are not going well. But HE is on the side of those responsible.
It may be difficult to understand that you then have to act against your will because the statistics dictate it.
I’ve often remarked here, somewhat provocatively, that he said in an interview, ‘We will create the best gliding simulator’ (not a quote).
But the thousand wishes here go in a different direction.
There is only one solution that will advance the physical weather and thus the realistic cloud representation:
About 3000 votes in the wish list. Whereby the number 3000 is the number that exceeds the current maximum number in the ranking list.
From this point onwards, nothing can be ignored or commented on without losing credibility in public relations.
Make an effort to push the issue as hard as you can.
We need people to vote for it, (not) to talk about it.
It’s more important than pretty much anything else.
It’s the first endeavour towards a real Flight-SIMULATION !
