Most of the community doesn’t know how weather behaves, is reported, is used by pilots, and how it integrates into the game. A proper solution requires all of those aspects. It would be great were that not the case, but we’re talking a lot of education and experience that goes into that in the real world, plus insight into under the hood of the game engine, which we don’t have. Simplifying it down to a soundbyte while overlooking the reality is just begging the question.
I want the weather to behave and look realistic. There are obviously a lot of logistical obstacles to that, otherwise we’d be there. However, if it doesn’t come reasonably close to matching what’s happening in the real world, then it’s not behaving realistically. The difference is what two people consider “reasonably close.” For me, for aviation (sim included), it’s a pretty tight (but not perfect) definition that I’ve explained many times. To be considered realistic and useable, it has to be. However, your premise of “fluidity” seeks one conclusion while overlooking a lot of other issues that are crucial to reality and aviation in general, while handwaving major structural issues that existed when it did look fluid.
So, again, instead of presuming what the community wants based on a flawed initial premise, let’s teach the community how it really works, why it’s important, gather strong evidence on how it’s actually implemented in the sim, and see how that impacts the response.