I know that can happen. but if the weather needs to match those changes in the sim it also needs to update every 5-6 minutes. 5 minutes ago the metar said overcast 8/8 coveraged sky. Now it says clear skies 0/8 coverage. The sky suddenly switched to blue sky. But the METAR didn’t say where those clouds moved only that the cloudcoverage changed instantly. Is that really accurate? It’s missing alot of information how weather behave and looks to be accurate. I know of interpolation but it can’t interpolate between missing information and it doesn’t know what it will need to update to because METAR only has history data compared to forecast models that both has data now in between and of the future at the same time. But that data may be completely different from those observations but it both behaves and looks more realistic in my opinion. But completely change that inbetween data of forecast models maybe makes it a bit more accurate to how weather has been at that location but it makes it much more unrealistic how weather actually behaves.
Either we like it accurate to how weather has been to feel realistic or we like it to behave realistic but accept it to be inaccurate. Can’t have both at the same time. But both opinions is valid. Because both opinions makes the flight experience feel more realistic.
Metar weather is influenced by new reported observations and will be more accurate to those.
Simulated weather models is influenced by older observations that creates the initial condition of those simulations and the weather can behave more like weather but the final state will be different than the real weather that had the initial condition changed maybe becaue of a butterfly flapped with it’s wings somewhere in the world (butterfly effect).
Two completely different things. Either we like new reported METAR weather or the simulated model. I preffer simulated.
Neither of those sources will give us an accurate weather with full detail in real time. Especially not by blending those completely different sources of weather. For us that preffer to fly in a more simulated fluid atmosphere like we had at release of this sim it will only makes it worse.
I respectfully submit that this line of thinking is counter productive to simulated weather of any kind.
It is absolutely NOT ESSENTIAL that the sim weather and the actual weather ‘…reliably have the same weather.…’ as you stated. The sim weather and the actual weather need only be acceptably close in order to work.
My opinion is that this ‘must be the same’ concept is precisely what got us into the dilemma to begin with.
I give you a thumbs up but, in my way of thinking, it really doesn’t have to match current conditions to any degree. The weather in the sim simply has to consist of realistic conditions.
As @Perrry says, neither system is capable of matching current real world conditions in real time so its best to go with the system that provides more realistic weather which to me was the simulated system that will never suffer from missing or erroneous data.
You cannot match data that isn’t there and the ironic part is that the METAR based observations are most likely to be wrong or missing during severe weather.
Well both systems has issues. We should be able to choose what we find the most realistic. They can’t please us all with only one option here.
Thats the biggest issue. We had a thing at release that they completely changed into something else without the option to switch back.
It’s not our fault.
I bet even those that like planning using real world tool would maybe use the simulated weather only sometimes. As i did with METAR when i bought rex and thought that would be better because i were used to the thinking that weather needs to match those METAR. But instantly noticed that make a local weather report global and fixed is not a thing for me. I only used it one time. waste of money i can say.
I keep trying to think of the name of my favorite weather addon – it wasnt hifi and it wasan’t rex. it created the best cloudscapes though. it was payware – had a longish name.
I have to admit that really great cloudscapes are what I want most. I dont care if the winds at an airport match reality.
I’ve tested many addons pre MSFS nothing in my opinion has been equally good as MSFS fluid weather we had at release. The only thing i like with those addons is that i could tune settings to how i wanted it to feel most realistic for me. Maybe MSFS is most far from METAR and stuff like that. Thats why i tried REX and stuff but instantly switched back when i realised how bad it is to set weather to be fixed. Maybe it fit those simple textures as clouds we had back in the days. But now we have volumetric clouds. Can’t see the point having those if the weather needs to be fixed as textures.
I agree. but I was talking about FSX and P3D days (i think i used it in P3D…not sure). I remembered its name – OPUSFSX. Im pretty sure thats it. The others always gave me islands of clouds similar to what MSFS does now sometimes but Opus always gave me multiple layers of believable clouds just out in the middle of nowhere.
I remember that addon I agree it were good. I think it also used forecasted data for the higher clouds.
I’m not sure. But this sim actually made the weather flow and form over time. Never experienced that thing before.
I have seen timelapses that someone here at the forum recorded during a whole day at release and the weather had 0 hard transitions. That made the weather feel organic even if we didn’t do any timelapses. The cloud we had in there were actually formed. Now the whole atmosphere feels fixed in place. I bet they did that to make the global weather fit those local reports. I want my raw simulated weather model back
Thanks, I see your point as well but, while not required, it would be a good idea to have both the sim and real weather be as close as possible. I say that with the disclaimer that, as Perry, myself and others say, it is not worth giving up what we had (or could have) to get the real and sim weather close let alone perfect. In my sim world I much prefer pretty (and smooth) over ‘right’.
With that said and to your point, within reason, to me even if they are relatively far apart I don’t mind so much as long as what I’m seeing in the sim matches what I read in the sim. I personality don’t mind if it does not look like or read like the real world. If I want that I’ll dust off my PPL (Private Pilots License) and go spend a ridiculous amount of $ per hour to do some real flying
Just my opinion and preference, obviously others will disagree and that is perfectly ok. Neither side is completely right or wrong.
Can someone explain to me if a METAR changes to the opposite direction of winds when on final. Do those that needs the runway match the METAR land or make a go around instantly. Because the weather didn’t match the runway in use while on final. And sometimes METAR says VRB. Then what, no runway in use because there is VRB winds? And how to inject VRB accurate?
Or does the ATC controller instantly change runway in use? To me the pilot should listen to the controller or make an own decission if it’s safe to land right? The runway in use is the static part in the real world not the weather.
Same with VFR or IFR condition. Those that are on final with VFR planned and the METAR suddenly changes to IFR right at final approach. Too bad the planning is ruined. Can’t land anymore. Thats also a thing controller decide. But if the pilot finds the weather too dangerous to land in then avoid it. Or listen to the controller if you should land IFR do that and if the weather is VFR plan using that but expect weather that can be different than you expected. If it’s VFR and you see IFR tell controller that then and land IFR instead. I bet most of the users plan for IFR on VATSIM anyway.
Can’t see the essential part of it. Maybe the essential part is to have the visuals of the METAR but can’t see the detail in a METAR visually appealing.
In terms of windspeed, VRB means 6 knots or less, and there aren’t many aircraft that can’t land with a light tailwind. As long as the approach is stabilized and the performance penalty has been taken into account when calculating the runway distance required, you should be fine.
Yes, i know VFR should be avoided during those IFR conditions. IF it’s IFR i set Minimums and check if i can see the runway above that. If i can’t i abort the landing.
A lot of this is dependent on traffic flow, type of ops (121, 135, or 91), and the intensity/magnitude of the wind.
A runway change at a busy airport requires a lot of coordination with other ATC facilities, so it isn’t undertaken lightly. At a small airport, doing part 91 ops, they probably won’t make you go around inside the FAF, but they might let you know and you can decide whether to continue.
Either way, a pilot under VFR is responsible for his or her own adherence to cloud/visibility clearance and minimums. If either precludes continued VFR, then you have to remain VFR (which may include aborting the approach) and either find an alternate or pick up an IFR clearance, if possible.
That said, for a pilot undertaking Part 91 operations, legally, it’s all about flight visibility, not surface visibility.
Yes, but i can’t see the essential part of METAR matching the weather 100% around airports. If those controllers check the weather inside the MSFS they would see and know what weather that is happening. I know they controlling more sims than MSFS. But this sim advertised a different typ of weather system. We knew what we were buying right?
Again, it’s because a 6-hour old forecast model used to generate weather isn’t going to be accurate. It’s going to jump when reloaded. If it was accurate, we wouldn’t have these issues.
And all the real-world tools use METAR as a part of planning, amongst dozens of other things. It’s essential because it’s part and parcel of the bigger picture, and it’s the most updated observation available. If the sim wants to run a weather generation model exclusively, then they had better be prepared to run their own forecast product line in entirety to replace all the heavy lifting currently done by the NWS and others.
Since you edited this, what’s a “different type of weather system?”
I mean, if we’re not going to bother with accurate weather, then we don’t need accurate airports/runway configurations, instrument approaches, flight models, etc.
I agree it were good. I think it also used forecasted data for the higher clouds.