I see that rarely with MSFS default live weather. You know it happens as the plane gives a sudden lurch as the wind changes. I guess with Rex you can get that to occur on demand in that case?
This right here are the 2 reasons I wonât use 3rd party weather injection. I like being able to see a storm cell developing 50 miles out from me. I donât want to be seeing the same weather off in the distance then having it just switch as I move into the next METAR zone.
That and the stuttering and performance hit as it injects weather when crossing into a new zone.
Built-in weather has issues with real world accuracy, but it still looks and acts far more realistically with no performance issues as youâre flying. Iâll take that any day over anything the 3rd parties can currently offer.
That said, if youâre happy flying low level within a single METAR zone, like if youâre doing circuits, then REX and Unreal are great, really. If youâre actually going to be flying âsomewhereâ outside of that initial METAR zone and at altitudes, they leave a lot to be desired, even if they do match real world conditions.
Yeah same here, totally agree.
Ideally, the weather in sim should match the weather in the real world. Thatâs how the weather system was advertised as working. And it doesnât work as advertised. But for a large number of people flying in the sim, does that really matter?
Personally, I prefer a more realistic weather experience than something that matches real world - as long as itâs consistent within the sim. Right now, what you see on the world map and whatâs in sim are 2 completely different things. Thatâs terribly broken and needs to be fixed. But otherwise, when the weather is working, the default weather engine is incredible.
Accuracy to real world conditions is where itâs failing atm. This is a particularly bad problem for people using Vatsim and the other live ATC networks that rely on real world weather and METAR. And I understand why people are upset and looking for other options.
Very well said!
I wouldnât do it. I had it (havenât used for several months) and transitions are jarring. It also injects same weather EVERYWHERE so you canât see subtle variations while you are flying. The default weather is WAY better, IMO.
I like it, maybe Iâll give the built-in weather another shot one day but it was always hours off (or just completely wrong for my area). Also depends on what your are doing, if you are doing really detailed flight planning/live atc/etc you would want the latest metars. Otherwise the built in general weather might be fine.
REX WF works fine. I havenât run into problems with stuttering during weather updates, but am not surprised that this can happen. Iâm not so sure that Live Weather doesnât cause similar effects for some people when it magically updates the weather during long flights, but I havenât seen that either.
There seems to be some confusion in this discussion, as well as elsewhere on the forums, about what constitutes the âweatherâ. Both WF and Live Weather are pretty good about correctly reporting the physical parameters of wind, barometric pressure, and temperature, and MSFS correctly depicts them on the various flight instruments, etc. Where differences typically arise is the depiction of sky conditions like cloud layers, visibility, and precipitation. WF infers these as best it can from the METARS, although it claims to pull them from the GFS global model in areas far from airports Live Weather pulls its sky conditions from the METEOBLUE depiction which also derives from the GFS model output.
Both systems have their strengths and weaknesses, some of which are discussed above. WF has recently migrated its servers, which took a week or so, but it seems to be operating fine now. Because it can provide the sim with the weather at a single site only, the sky conditions are uniform, whereas Live Weather can provide more varied sky conditions that approximate synoptic features over a wider area. On the negative side, Live Weather appears to pull its sky conditions from METEOBLUE at relatively long intervals, so sky conditions can be âstaleâ and out of date, or actually âearlyâ anticipating weather that might occur in several hours.
It looks like WF costs around $22, while Unreal Weather, a freeware METAR-based injection add-on is also available. Why not just try the latter to see whether youâre OK with how it looks and then make a decision about WF? I use both WF and Live Weather depending on what Iâm flying and why, and lots of times I use the presets if, for example, I want to practice instrument approaches to minimums.
Choice really is good.
With previous versions of FS I was a big fan of Active Sky just for the improved clouds and more realistic look. With MSFS I have never felt the need to âenhanceâ the default weather engine.
While there are instances, as @Crunchmeister71 stated, when the accuracy of the terminal weather is a must, if you are not participating on live ATC sites, the MSFS weather is far more satisfying.
The MSFS system is forecast based and as such will never be 100% accurate in all locations all the time. I just watched our local forecast on the morning news. They told me that the region I live in would be experiencing mostly sunny skies improving to clear and sunny in the late afternoon. I looked out the window and saw overcast with showers. That was two hours ago and the weather has deteriorated. A friend of mine called me from his home 75kms away and asked if I wanted to go golfing this morning. I told him what it was doing outside. He laughed and said it was sunny and clear at his place, not a cloud to be seen.
Until forecasters hit 100% instead of 55%-65% average, we will not have accurate weather in MSFS as long as they continue with forecasts and not reports. If they go to reports, the weather will have changed by the time it gets updated in the sim and it was only accurate at the reporting station.
Flight planning for weather is a crapshoot at best in the real world. Winds aloft are forecast and reports from stations along our route are historical. Forecasts are only that, educated guesses. You can always get a general idea of what to expect but had better be ready to make adjustments. Kind of like in MSFS.
If you are a âlow and slowâ pilot, then REX is fine because you are basically experiencing lower level weather and other than the stutters when new weather is injected, you wonât notice the glaring deficiencies.
If you fly tubeliners or corporate jets, I would suggest giving this product a pass for the reasons already mentioned. For me the biggest issues at upper altitudes is the obvious propagation of the local weather into the distance and the lack of any gradient in the upper wind levels. There are some harsh wind and temperature transitions when climbing and descending.
Rex and in game weather is a hit and miss. I use both. If there is alot dynamic weather in my flight path I use Rex. If the skys are mostly clear in game produces better cloud formations. I would get it and use which ever gives the best weather on your flight. I start with in game and if it is not to my liking I hit clear skies and Alt to load up Rex and go with it. Works for me. I choose which ever suits me.
I donât recommend buying REX. If you want to buy something weather related buy the Weather Preset Pro pack from SoFly instead. These are really nice presets if you want to fly under specific conditions.
Donât buy, I agree with the opinions already present about why it is better not to.
I just want to thank all of you for your input in this matter. You all have been very informative about the product that I was thinking about purchasing.. Thanks again..
You can always try Unreal Weather. Itâs very similar to REX in what it does and how it does it in the sim. As in, the results will be pretty similar. And itâs free.
If you find it suits you better than default weather but isnât âquite thereâ yet, you can think about buying REX. IMHO, thatâs a better option than spending money on something you end up not liking.
And in the end, Asobo will get the weather working. There are weather improvements slated for SU4 in 2 weeks, and again for SU6 in late summer. If they manage to get weather squared away to work as intended with these 2 updates, youâll likely never need an external weather injector again, so REX would be a waste of money.
Why? whatâs wrong with the default weather? Getting more apps with the sim you are running the risk of degrading the performance and possibly more CTD. My advice stay with the MSFS weather. Its a game you know not a flight or weather simulator.
Waste of money.
Default weather engine is better than payware #%&#$% REX.
I bought it yesterday and agree with most of the criticism above, but there is one key benefit - as opposed to the built-in weather, I can find out with some certainty what the weather at my destination will be, while enroute.
it killed my frame rates⌠even followed suggestions from Rex and did not help.
The weather in not diplaying in the sim, and REX customer service and support don´t work eaither.
Lost my money.