When people refer to “gusts”, I assume they mean on the ground? That, of course, would be a realistic and welcomed feature. High altitude turbulence, some updrafts and downdrafts would be great. I have flown a lot in my life and I am always trying to compare my experiences with the current simulation, and it seems to come up short. Man, I wish I could have experienced pre-SU7, as it sounds like it would have been great and have made for an enjoyable experience, from both flight dynamics and visual perspectives.
Pre-SU5 is what you really should have experienced, in fact, the original release was, pretty much been downhill since it came out.
4 Likes
I wrote this in some other thread. I think it fits here aswell.
Who said they can’t predict fog accurate? Where i live it’s fog right now and it’s also predicted. Was long time ago it was foggy weather here. But now it is. No METAR evailable on my local airport.
Too sad it’s not in the sim.
I think they need to look up their servers/data to send correct data for us. Because neither Meteoblue or METAR matches the weather we have in the sim 
Here we can totally see the weather that is predicted is not injected propperly in the sim.
Then my question is. Why not fix that first and maybe then implement METAR if it’s needed? I think that would fix many problems with weather such as Winds, preassure, temp, clouds and many more things.
I can’t blame prediction/Meteoblue now actually. I can’t blame METAR either. But i found it useless if Asobo could get correct data from Meteoblue injected instead.
Here i show how to use that cross-section tool on the weather map on Meteoblue for those who want to use that. (Sorry for the sound of my plane in the background 
)
Also exists for icing/clear air turbulence prediction. Just switch tab to CAT/Icing
Would be so much more improvement in weather if they actually got all of that data corectly injected into the sim instead of working on those simple METARS.
We can plan using Meteoblue homepage. Easy to do. I only wish they could get all of those planning tools integrated into the sim it self. They have Meteoblue as a partner why not get help from them implementing those things instead of implementing METAR that only will interfare with the predictions/forecasts?
Well, too sad they will now stick with this METAR thing.
Edit: Still fog around here, and is now also injected into the sim.
If you want to see smooth/dynamic weather you need to be were there is no METAR interfare with the weather. We need to wait for them to fix the weather to match the prediction though. That is important for them to fix because that they advertising they use in the sim since release. That they need to focus on instead of fixing METAR in my opinion. METAR will fix it self in most places by using the Meteoblue data correctly.
3 Likes
Hi, in my case, even when flying out a METAR zone, cloud depictions are really bad, almost same types everywhere or volcano CBs, or flat clouds, missing variety, looks like generic clouds we are seeing in other games. Nothing to compare with what we had previous SU7. If at least by avoiding those METAR zone I was able to have quality as we had previous SU7, I would be happy meantime they fix the transitions with the METAR zones.
5 Likes
Agree, it’s nothing like pre su7. But that they said we can’t have anymore 
It’s like they change the weather to be generic everywhere because they need that weather to fit the METAR when they are available. What is your thoughts about it? My thoughts is that they only wasting time making METAR fit Prediction. 1,5 years since release they focused implementing METAR and i can’t see much of improvements. To me it’s none actually.
2 Likes
I don’t think they said we can’t have it anymore. They are just saying they will improve the weather but without recognizing the regression after SU7. So we don’t know if they are targeting to reach the same level of realism we had previous SU7 (I am referring to clouds depictions, layers), or maybe just improving wind, gust, down/up winds. For me, when the developers/testers are playing that simulator for their day to day activities and additionally if some are private pilots, those actual clouds should shock them for the lack of realism. I don’t understand why only popcorn clouds are reported as an issue in the known issue list.
Planes dynamic, weather, earth modelisation should be the core for a simulation like this and related issues or improvements a priority.
4 Likes
Me neither. I don’t know how to report the issues we see/feel in a more detailed way. We really tried. Maybe they not see any issues with it. Maybe it’s intended to work like this now? Some will like it some will not. I’m one of those that not liking the change they done especially Su4 (removal of gusts) and SU7 (METAR blending).
2 Likes
I agree, the Meteoblue data is most possibly accurate enough, and we had synthesized data (wind and QNH) from METAR even before SU7. Only visibilty was a bit of a problem imho, but that’s not improved either.
No convective cloud coverage in the EDDH area:
Instead, there’s high clouds:
Here’s what that looks like irl:
And here is MSFS with SU7’s most famous feature called SOME WEATHER:
Exactly!
Considering how often Jorg Neumann emphasized how important the weather is for the simulator (and rightfully so, because it is an essential part of real wolrd flying) I am appalled that the best they seem to be able to accomplish is small improvements with several sim updates over an unknown period of time with an unknown outcome.
If there’s any credibility to his statements, this has to become the most prioritised task on their development schedule with a definitive timeline and the objective of matching the promises of their feature (promo) video.
8 Likes
Agree, if they implemented the visibility data from this it would be much easier to plan IFR or VFR and it would look much more realistic than a circle of fog around the airports. They need to have those kind of tools in the sim too on the world map.
Think prediction as the observation of the weather in the sim. Much more detailed observation than METAR. After su7 we have 2 completely different observations smashed together. That’s how i see it.
19:00 CET
22:00 CET
How can we plan a flight using this? The only thing i can plan is using IFR planning and use runway 10 there.
EKAH 161850Z AUTO 11005KT 0300 R10R/0900N R28L/1400U FG VV001 02/02 Q1030
It’s useless in 30 minutes from now anyway?
With predictions i can look what will happen in the future.
Using this on Meteoblue i could plan using VFR because it says visibility 12300m there with runway 10 to land on because the wind direction is SE (123.75 - 146.25 degrees). The preassure is 1029hPa. Will not see any rain or snow. The wind will be at 6,1kts and gusts could reach 13.6kts, temp would be 5,4 degrees. Will not be as IRL but i could plan my flight to the weather i get in the sim right? The pressure. wind, clouds enroute we are using predictions anyway.
Use the predictions as a really detailed observation instead of a forecast and you will like it. I’m sure.
1 Like
Anchorage right now. Doesn’t match the in sim metar which says overcast, or real life which is overcast. It’s just the usual mess. This is in no way overcast!!
This makes me so annoyed, we used to have beautiful weather, now we have this rubbish. Spectacular: yes. Realistic: no.
5 Likes
Actually i don’t see it as spectacular either. Spectacular it is when you see a rare weather IRL that you know you never seen before. That type of weather isn’t rare in the sim. It’s happening all the time.
Maybe it’s spectacular if it’s happeing IRL because it’s rare IRL here in Sweden. Especially this time of the year.
I mean it’s spectacular like something you’d see in a movie! The sky in Anchorage right now is so boring… flat grey overcast that the sim used to be perfectly capable of rendering. It’s so frustrating.
Why are people just sitting back and accepting this? I just can’t understand it!
Real:
Sim:
3 Likes
Because the most important for many is that the weather matches METAR right? Now we get generic type of weather that tries get the METAR accurate but we see nothing matches instead.
Or maybe there is problem with rendering. How could we possibly know whats going on. Good you showing the problem 
But we can’t showing them the cause because we can’t see the data they inject.
I know it was hard to show them problems pre su7 but now with 2 types of weather sources it’s even harder.
1 Like
No matter where you are in the world there is always a massive bank of cloud on the horizon. It’s just ridiculous. They have ruined the sim for me since SU7. Maybe that sounds over dramatic but, for me the varied and seamless weather was the best part of the sim. I think it’s time for a break until SU9.
7 Likes
Well, maybe it’s better to see how they progressing after some years. This will take many sim updates to get fixed. They have focused implementing METAR a long time and we got this In su7. Maybe SU 14 or something. I would not expect it be fixed in SU9 though. They said it’s complex and requires many updates.
I think they should start looking into the data that it’s rendered correctly. They need to start somewhere and that is a good starting point. Really make sure it’s rendering propperly all the time and correct data is used at the right time. Then they need to be sure we recieves the data correct that the servers sending out. Easy to test.
Just let us know when planning the test and everyone posting photos of the same place at the same time and then look and see if it differs from the users rendering.
It’s no point fixing METAR blending if the raw data from Meteoblue isn’t rendered propperly.
It must be hard for them to know what causing what now with 2 types of weather in use.
Yes, one of the things that used to be a constant excitement of MSFS (what will the sky look like today), is now usually a process of nervous anticipation as the flight loads, followed by disappointment that ‘oh ■■■■, it’s giving me this unrealistic nonsense again’.
Then I have to make the decision of can I put up with it or should I just give up and do something else. Increasingly I’m doing the latter.
This is beginning to make me quite angry. They’ve really messed up something which was really quite good.
11 Likes
I could have written your post myself. I completely agree with everything you’ve said.
More often then not I am loading up, gambling that I might get a reasonable sky, seeing the mess that it produces and then switching off again.
I’ve been off work with ill health for a while and where as before I used to find this sim relaxing and enjoyable, all it does now is add to my stress levels!
7 Likes
Also agree, but to me i almost know the result before i even try.
1 Like
Tried a short flight last night; KJFK - CYYZ. The New York area weather looked pretty good at first. As I was passing through FL200, I get whacked with an extreme wind change and my plane nearly stalls. Then, the popcorn sky pops in. As I approach CYYZ, it is blanketed in a thick fog, more or less in a circle around the airport. Practically clear skies all around it. The Weather Network shows no cloud cover. I was down to minimums, ready for a go around, but did manage to land. I picked that flight because it was supposed to be clear and the flightpath takes me close to the Toronto water front which I was looking forward to seeing as well as the beautiful FlyTampa CYYZ scenery. I had to use my VFR map to taxi to the terminal, as I could barely see the edge of the taxiways. It was an exciting landing and I’m amazed I made it, but the overall experience was very far from accurate weather and an immersion-killing experience.
9 Likes