There is in the wish list a post asking for a weather only update, only 21 vites so far. I agree with you and this is why we strongly need a weather update only.
5 Likes
Agreed. From 36000ft, way too much is visible on the ground. that too crystal clear. IRL it’s so different!
And the blobs of METAR weather are ridiculus. Only one solution. Collectively ask Asobo to either fix the mess, or collectively ask for refund. 
Live weather is absolutely worth 0 bucks!
5 Likes
How ugly does this look! A circle of clouds on METAR, rest all clear. And this is not fixed since a year! How hard is it, to revert back to the old working weather, until this mess is fixed!
1 Like
Yesterday heavy TS in northwestern Croatia, Slovenia, southern Austria, no representation in the sim whatsoever. Lame. P3D with AS has an upper hand here.
2 Likes
Even FSX has an upper hand here LOL.
3 Likes
Many METAR reports are AUTO, so they cannot distinguish between the cloud types, therefore no CB. Same for RATS (rain with thunderstorm); an automatic weather station doesn’t know if it rains from a thunderstorm or just a normal Ns cloud. As long as METAR has higher priority than Meteoblue in MSFS weather there is no solution for this.
Besides, even if there is a CB reported, how did MS plan to treat the storm’s life cycle? Now you see it and then puff you don’t see it any more because it’s not in the next METAR?
So sad they destroyed the weather at SU7.
5 Likes
I have quite good representation yesterday,
but I did only t/g and app on LZIB. I had rain, poor visibility and did check with Metar, was ok, can say with 10min time difference what is perfect. Then did flight to LKPR and all transitions and during flight weather was +/- ok.
1 Like
This is the problem with METAR. Same thing with winds from METAR. Weather doesn’t work like that. It doesn’t suddenly appear. Weather forms smoothly over time. METAR weather doesn’t fit with the environment in MSFS. To make the scenery realistic it needs a dynamic/realistic weather too. I hope they can add options for that thing in the future.
1 Like
I understand the reasons for criticism of METAR injection but before it came in SU7, it used to be much more frustrating to see clear visibility of the runway when the METAR reported visibility used to be much lower. What they effectively need to do is either some advanced interpolation between weather stations (e.g xEnviro for XP11) or the weather model provider should itself seamlessly integrate METAR with live weather.
2 Likes
To me it’s more frustrating to see those things METAR injects with transitions. That painted like fog layer you mention they could just have added as an optional feature. Nothing they needed to completely change the whole weather system to implement.
Clear skies and high visibility can occure but sudden transitions like we see in the sim now never happening in real weather.
2 Likes
At the end of the day, IFR visibility conditions (if present) at the airport should match the METAR and that’s unnegotiable for me. However, I also agree that current implementation is nothing less than garbage and there are methods of overcoming it which third party addons have been able to achieve in other simulators. Guess what, we’re not even talking about other elements of weather until now and are just discussing the bare basics. So much for the meteoblue hype that was created before launch of this sim!
1 Like
In what kind of fantasy world do you live in?
3 Likes
What do you do when flying to an airport that doesn’t have METAR? Should it be clear skies all the time there because METAR doesn’t tell anything about the weather there? I also check METAR but if METAR doesn’t match it’s not a big of a deal because it’s not matching all the time to the real world either. If the METAR says IFR condition set the aircraft up for a cat2 or cat 3 even if you will have good visibility then accept it didn’t match the METAR. As we need to do IRL too. We can’t make the weather match METAR IRL either. If the real world used METAR to create weather it would only require one report of weather because it would be static.
If we get rid of METAR implementation then where’s the anchor to the conditions around the airport? Honestly, the environment during departure and approach used to look unrealistic and cartoonish earlier and such clear visibility conditions usually don’t exist, atleast in the part of the world where I live in especially around large metropolitans. Again, I agree it’s not the best implementation that we have but getting rid of METAR conditions altogether is not a solution for me (maybe some would disagree).
1 Like
I think an option to get rid of METAR would be good and we that want a weather system that behaves realistic without transitions and such things related to METAR that makes the weather feel forced in place can also enjoy it. Well maybe thats not possible anymore. It was possible pre su7. I had option to use 3rd party addons for METAR weather. Works exactly the same but i only used it one time.
But a thing i don’t understand is the complete change of weather system to implement that fog layer? Can someone explain that? We didn’t need anything else right?
Why would you want conditions to be anchored to an airport? This isn’t how weather works. Weather in real life doesn’t just stay the same as the METAR until the weather switches again to a new METAR. It’s dynamic and very often the weather in real does not match the METAR, especially in regards to cloud cover.
7 Likes
That was in context of visibility conditions
1 Like
I still don’t understand why you would want visibility anchored to one spot, again that’s just not how this works in real weather. I see it so often in real life where fog is reported in the METAR and it has actually cleared, or the RVR has gotten much worse. I do understand though we are limited to a sim environment and it’s got to get this data for RVR from somewhere, and I think the METAR is the only way to get those values? I think Meteoblue does provide data for visibility though so it would be good if they could merge RVR into that to give a more dynamic approach to visibility instead of just anchoring a static RVR number to a certain radius around the airport.
1 Like
Does that come from METAR reports that are then implemented to Meteoblue, or does the visibility data in Meteoblue come from numerical forecasts?
Because, again, forecasting visibility is an unrealistic idea.
It’d be better if they took the data from METARs and give them some… I don’t know… life? Because like you say, fogs are very unpredictable IRL. They can be restricted to the airport only, they could hug the airport from all around yet the runway can be perfectly visible.
Maybe Asobo could make this work depending on the individual weather reported.
You can report fog as MIFG, BCFG, PRFG, FG, FZFG etc. Some of those are just a shallow fog close to the surface, some are fogs covering only the half of the airport etc. etc.
All of this however depends on who is actually reporting the weather. You can have automated METAR that ommits all of those nuances, or you can have a lazy and burnt-out observer sitting at the airport reporting nonsense.
Also, fog can be reported with or without clouds, which makes it even more convoluted. Fog itself is a cloud already, since it means the air reached its saturation point. You can have METAR that has 100 metres of visibility with NSC reported. Or you can have 900 metres visibility with OVC001.
Just another thing that makes the weather engine confused and it doesn’t know what to do with this info.
I don’t think we’ll have a better way of simulating fog, at least not for the foreseeable future.
There are some local numerical models with very high resolution. Those can predict fogs, marine layers etc. kind of reliably, but those are not worldwide and I don’t think they’ll ever be.
2 Likes
Yeah that would be interesting to know, I’m not sure how Meteoblue gets that data actually!
Yeah, if they could find a way to take the METAR RVR and maybe add some buffer within that so that it’s not restricted to the static value, that would be cool.
I do think Meteoblue has some data for visibility which they derive form pollutants, sand, smog etc. I thiink if we could get an overall atmospheric simulation with these figures included for visibility then blend that into the RVR from METAR at the airports, that would be very cool.
3 Likes