METAR data is extremely simple. Where else are you pulling weather data from in METAR zones?

Ever since METAR integration, weather is less dynamic and much simpler. It used to feel like ‘you never know what you’ll get’. Now it basically feels very uniform. METAR doesn’t provide cloud tops, or rain intensity, or 100s of other variables reported from meteoblue. Is meteoblue and METAR integrated?
It would be awesome to chat about how the weather is injected and drawn and from what sources its fed.

Perhaps they could produce a new feature discovery video on weather - because most of the information given in the current one is obsolete and misleading. Feature Discovery Series Episode 2: Weather - YouTube


Or make the sim as advertised? Or at least have options to only use Meteoblue. METAR makes the weather worse at the place we should land or start our flights. Makes a bad first impression of the weather,

1 Like

Perrry, I follow everything that you write about the weather and I 100% agree. And if we could go back to the days pre-SU7 and ditch this METAR system and return to the meteoblue one, I would in a heartbeat. But I think we have to be realistic and come to terms with the fact they will not make it an option - they are clearly set on “simplifying” the weather. I think they do this by injecting one of the presets, based on the metar. I think if the metar says broken they inject the broken clouds preset into that area. That’s how it appears to me. That’s why it struggles with multiple cloud layers - the presets clash somehow. We can only hope that they refine the clouds and layers so that it represents the metar in a more visually realistic way. i.e. represent overcast and stratus correctly…


I want the weather to behave realistic :wink: To me it were more realistic before. But i know, we will never have that back. Hope they get back to the roots of the weather with or without METAR.

This sim needs a fluid weather system to fit the environment.

METAR-addons were bad compared to live-weather at release because we had a fluid weather system. I know because i bought an addon and used it 1 time and then switched back to live-weather. Now even those 3rd party METAR-addons can produce better weather. We had the option to have METAR-weather at release, now we are all forced to use it.


I want to show how simple METAR is.

Here two METAR reports exactly same things. Does that mean the weather looks exactly the same on both those airports? No it does not. How to know where to place those scattered clouds? I don’t know. Why do we want METAR to change the details Meteoblue has? I don’t know.

KFKN 051235Z AUTO 20004KT 10SM SCT007 25/25 A3019 RMK AO2 T02500246

KIIY 051215Z AUTO 20003KT 10SM SCT007 24/23 A3020 RMK AO2 T02400229

Meteoblue details at those locations.



1 Like

I’ve posted the results of multiple tests that have convinced me that only meteoblue is used for clouds in SU10. Can someone link me to better tests that disproves that?

Here is a test i did right after su 10 beta were released. I’m not 100% sure it’s METAR clouds but to me it looks like 3 circles around airports.

Also had this hard transition that changed the weather to METAR rain. Look at the radar. This was meant to test the gusts in su 10 beta.

The system they use is still the same. Only improvement in rendering layers in su10. Maybe fixed the haze showing up suddenly in latest su10 beta.

I do think there is some truth to the statement around meta areas being generated like bubbles of custom weather.

I think there is a lot more blending going on though, the cloud layering never matched up with the Metar exactly, regardless how close to time of issue it was.

The meteoblue weather data is still not being fully utilised though which is sad. There is so much data available, visibility data, humidity, snow depth (with freezing level for realistic coverage), lightning probability etc. My guess is the data available is limited by their commercial agreements.

Hopefully there is a plan to unlock some more of this data in future.

I totally agree, but the issue is we as users that has complained about accuracy since release. Everybody knows forecasts not always 100% accurate. We all knew that before MSFS was released but we complained anyway. We all could observe the weather didn’t matched reality but we didn’t use that observation while flying. We used that observation to complain. IRL we use the observation of the weather that is happening IRL and estimate/predict our flight but we need to stay aware that the METAR may not match 100%. We can’t complain IRL that the weather doesn’t match the METAR. Only fire the observer of the weather and get someone that make a better job observing the weather.

All of this has made them only focusing on make the weather in the sim match those METARs instead of adding new things from Meteoblue. We now have a weather that fits METAR not the way around.

I disagree what I’m seeing is a very realistic progression from metars as they age. I think they’re on the right track here but needs more tuning.

Don’t forget how inaccurate the meteoblue data sometimes was depending on how old the forecast data was. Frequently you’d see completely different weather from reality and this was important to the online atc community.
The implementation of METAR observation was absolutely required as that is a platform independent source of truth, despite how simplistic it is.

What I want to see is more use of the data in meteoblue and better blending with the METAR data. They’re getting there with clouds but haze and fog has a long way to go.

Eaxactly that is the issue to get a realistic weather system in flight simulators. It’s not realistic.

I asked the dev of the application of VATSIM that said the weather doesn’t need to be as METAR says. The only issue that dev had with MSFS weather was to have the altitude match and it didn’t because MSFS inject much more realistic pressure that varies depending on temp. Old sims doesn’t have that realistic weather feature. METAR is used to decide what runway to use or if we need to use VFR or IFR planning and pressure nothing else. The altitude issue still exists but the dev of VATSIM tool has find a workaround for that.

If you planned against VFR and you realise it’s not you can ask ATC to plan using IFR. If not possible then use an alternate airport. If you planned using IFR there is no issue rather than you may not see the fog. Feels like a big misstake to completely change the weather system for us to be able to see the fog that may be gone after some minutes IRL anyway.

Selection of runway in use:

How are runways selected?Collapse

Air traffic controllers consider a number of things when deciding which runway to use. These can include:

  • number and type of aircraft operating at the airport
  • length of runway(s)
  • weather conditions (both present and forecast) - including wind velocity and gradient, wind shear, wake turbulence effects and position of the sun
  • availability of approach aids in poor visibility conditions
  • location of other aircraft
  • taxiing distances, including availability of taxiways
  • braking conditions.

Some airports also have ‘preferred runway’ systems. This means that if wind conditions, workload and traffic conditions allow, a particular runway will be used to move traffic as efficiently as possible while reducing the noise impact over residential areas.

This is for australia, may be different in different countries.

Source: Request Rejected

I’m sure the biggest issue were that we couldn’t see the weather we had outside our windows. But that issue still exists because not all of us lives near a weather station. Even if we did we would see that the METAR didn’t always match what we see anyway because at the weather station it could be low visibility but 100m away it could be perfect visibility.