Because everything else is perfectly simulated? Braking action? Rudder efficiency? Engine reverse thrust spool-up? Come on now.
They mentioned the change were for those using VATSIM specifically. Not the EFB in fenix. or other planes. Well the real weather would not fit the VATSIM. Because real weather changes all the time and is 100% dynamic without hard transitions and stuff. The real wind is also dynamic and not fixed to match a static METAR-report.
I think VATSIM controllers should have adapted to MSFS weather instead. Or have two types of clients. One for older sims and then one for MSFS weather. And we as users âsim pilotsâ should have adapted to the weather that is happening in the sim instead of ask to have the weather fixed as METAR says.
Or the best option, to have both types of weather models to choose from. Would have made every single user happy.
1 Like
I would say yes actually. Unless youâre specifically flying out of the box aircraft within the sim these would be arguable points. Fenix/PMDG/other developers, nah. Plenty of real pilots on YouTube giving their testaments to their accuracy.
Well, we expect complex aircraft to behave and look like the real aircraft in a flight simulator right? But weather it seems like many are fine as long as itâs fixed to a METAR and then they call it more simulated. Fix a weather to fit a simple METAR is really simple. That has been around really long time. And those of us that preffered release 2020 weather that felt much more simulated and complex but not accurate to METAR all the time is not called simulated weather in a flight simulator and more fits a game or something. And we that want that type of weather back only wants âeyecandyâ. Why?
2 Likes
Maybe they wouldâve done that, but global 3D weather data is huge and I clould imagine that this tiny extra option would cost a lot for them, as they might have to provide weather data twice (but those, of course, are just assumptions).
The best option, and this has been pointed out a hundred times before already, would be an own set of model based METAR data. This would always be consistent within the sim and add a lot to the overall flying experience. Maybe weâll get there some day, but for now I think itâs improving again. So much, that I actually donât want the pre SU7 weather back. Hereâs why:
- they added visibility, which was completely missing before unless there was precipitation around. This adds a lot to the flying experience, as it is a meteorogical condition with huge impact on aviation, esp. when you go VFR
- they added towering cumulus, still not pretty but at least itâs there, which also was missing in earlier versions. I was able to catch a few CB that had built up east of Vancouver island, a completely new thing for me to see in the FS. Iâm sure they are still harmless, as dynamic turbulence (not only formed by orography but by windshear and convective updrafts) seems to be missing. Also I havenât seen any lightnings for ages in the sim.
But the two points show, that theyâre aware of the weaknesses in the FS-Weather system. They have done a lot worsening lately, but in my eyes it is already shifting towards the better again. To finalize this post, a picture from my trip to Tofino, BC yesterday:
Broken stratocumulus moving in drom the Ocean, towering Cumulus far away in the mountains and a smooth layer of Alto- or Cirrostratus inbetween. On final, the airport was covered in mist and hard to make out. Absolutely fantastic experience. I hope this will soon be the new standard.
2 Likes
Yes I still think this is one of the biggest contributing factors why only the opinion of those that want METAR based weather matters.
The full global weather data often looked and behaved more real than anything the current system can conjure up.
1 Like
Are you sure it were missing? Maybe it was not always accurate to METAR but i often had fog where i live in the sim.
Here is a video showing low visibility 2 years ago. Also looked so much more natural and organic. Now it looks like a marker. When i see the fog i know for sure there is an airport in the center of that fog.
3 Likes
Visibility = METAR bubbles.
Outside these bubbles, visibility is unlimited.
Since not every metre of the Earth is covered by METARs, the vast majority of flights still have unlimited visibility.
For me, these bubbles did not add much to the experience.
To display correct visibility we need to take Meteoblue data into the simulator.
4 Likes
It wasnât missing per se, but like I said before, the fog wasnât ever so thick to go for low IFR (<CATII) approaches.
Meteoblueâs visibility data are hardly ever accurate. Right now it shows
8000 - 10000 metres at LKMT, in reality itâs around 4000. At Innsbruck it shows > 20 km, in reality itâs around 8000. Those are just a few examples.
2 Likes
I get what youâre saying. Use MB and the base and then reported METAR coverages can enhance.
1 Like
I said it were not accurate to METAR. But i donât care about that. I want a realistic behaving weather. Adding things from METAR makes the weather behave strange and unrealistic.
Well, i understand we never will get the realistic behaving weather back again. Because they have changed approach. They now focus on accuracy to METAR instead of realism.
4 Likes
Agreed. Donât care if the weather doesnât match up to what the METAR says (itâs outdated shortly after being published anyways), having weather behave like weather in a dynamic way and not being restricted to definite values is much more appealing. Tower will give you the winds and altimeter readings anyways.
8 Likes
Yeah I get that. I want a realistic behaving weather as well, Iâm just saying their Meteoblue approach only was far from perfect. Even the METAR bubbles suck, the fog looks weird, the truth is we are now able to make those low IFR approaches I talked about.
I still think they need to get rid of the METARs, go back to Meteoblue and leave the METAR weather as an option for anyone who likes to fly that way.
7 Likes
Or if they decide to keep METARS just have them as reference stations to report conditions based from MB. Best of both worlds. MB controls the weather and METARS are dummy report stations.
4 Likes
Exactly. Lots of people already proposed this - create an âinternal,â in the sim METAR reporting system that would create METAR reports based on the actual weather INSIDE the sim.
We could still use TAFs, theyâre just forecasts made by meteorologists based on the current numerical forecasts, they arenât always precise, thatâs just how weather works.
7 Likes
I bet itâs too late to ask for that now though 
Itâs really easy to create a METAR using Meteoblue values. The sim has reported that since release 2020 through simvar. If they only messured winds from that and then reported the average over a 10 minute period of time we would have the observation reported. Same with visibility, same with temp, same with pressure.
But now the weather is completely changed to fit real METAR instead, and that makes me see no potential anymore.
4 Likes
This would look very realistic, if only the clouds werenât cumuliform all the time :(.
Also, Innsbruck is, like always, again covered in snow.
4 Likes
But the METAR says Few clouds 
How to know how that looks like? No information about cloudtypes or how thick those should be. How would you report the weather at that airport looking at that picture? And then someone else that not have seen that picture should be able to recreate that type of weather exactly as it looks like on that picture.
Impossible to create realistic weather using a simple line of METAR text
1 Like
Even with reported METARS, standard SOP is typically to grab the WX info around 50NM from TOD, so even then, by the time they get into the terminal area, things could have changed. Even after grabbing the the WX and departing, new weather comes out and at most they need to update the altimeters and do a re calc of takeoff performance, which is marginally 1-2KTS if not the same as before anyways. The true affect that METARS really offer when it comes to the overall flight planning is very marginal. I donât look up METARS for my flights to be gospel, just to give me a general idea of what I am flying into or out of. TAFs provide that as well.
If they would work on and improve the cloud opacity/density, your in sim photo would look a lot similar to the real one. I think thatâs the biggest issue for immersion right now is the density/opacity. After getting that sorted then they can move onto tweaks on types/levels.
1 Like