Yeah maybe but i would like some more variation in windspeed even if the wind is reported at lets say 15kts on ground level. The wind is not constant even if the METAR reports a constant rate especially not on groundlevel with objects around.
And if they mange to get a rookie misstake like that in the sim i do not have high hopes they manage to get METAR blended with meteoblue weather correct.
I think they need to think of how to make a METAR or any other report dynamic first or what they can add from it that not interfare with the dynamic parts from meteoblue. I think meteoblue always need to be prioritized. They canât add overcast if meteoblue says clear sky for an example.
I think they always needs to match to be perfect blended togeather and how often is that happening to 100% with prediction/forecasted weather.
Itâs nothing that reports the current live weather in real time everywhere in a dynamic way what i know of. Itâs always like a picture with static numbers. Itâs real tricky to nail perfect and accurate everywhere.
I think maybe they could use a preset of low visibility when that is reported in METAR from custom weather togeather with live-weather. And then if moving outside that METAR zone it could move down that fog/haze layer slowly until itâs clear or something like that.
Iâm not sure what you mean with âdynamicâ, of course the METAR doesnât update every second, neither is Meteoblue live. If there are significant changes in weather however, a special METAR is issued, called a SPECI. If the METAR is good enough for real world use, it certainly is accurate enough to be used in a simulator. Of course if there are rain showers for example, the METAR would likely indicate TEMPO SHRA, that is were Meteoblue data would be a useful addition.
That is the point I am making. Folks are too hung up on the weather being exactly what is called out in METARs, ATIS, Etc.
Take wind direction and speed for example. Some people will cry foul if the METAR shows 220@11 but the sim injects 222@12. Same with clouds, precip. and everything else. They will then go around saying Live Weather is broken and such.
Now in their defense the current Live Weather is crap as it is usually nowhere near what the METAR is showing. Throw in the cloud base reporting error and you have a problem that needs to be worked out. But to think that a snapshot METAR of your airport is somehow what every airport in the general area is showing will only lead to the transition problems we now have. You cannot smoothly transition the weather over such a short period of time on a computer without it âpopping inâ or bogging down your PC. Rex Weather is an example of that, Unreal Weather has the same issue (though not nearly as bad as Payware Rex oddly enough).
As you (and I said) simply use live data, METARs and such to fine tune the model from Metblue and load it up. But please load up something that resembles weather (clouds in particular), not the âstuffâ that is currently showing up in the sim.
What i know the live weather does update all the time with meteoblue predictions made between a time they update the forecast. Thats why we can see a cloud front come closer and closer depending on the prediction made.
Please correct me if iâm totally wrong here. Thatâs why i liked the weather system so much because of that.
This is also one of those things I meant. Besides, they should not try to represent the whole weather system by some âpuffy cumulusâ and cumulus clouds, they should be able to represent the cloud coverage (e.g. BRKxxxx) correctly as well as a smooth transition to the high level clouds from the meteoblue data or stations that have no data âonrouteâ and do not represent them by these âeternal distributedâ cumulus clouds etc. etc. etc. âŠ
This may look good in certain situations, also for screenshots (but what you should also consider, even smaller clouds cast cloud shadows btw.) but after the few test flights and posted screenshots everything looks the same. Besides, I had haze where it should not be and where it should be just notâŠ
Itâs not about complaining on a high level, it just doesnât work !
That certain values with Meteoblue or forecast are not âcorrectlyâ displayed (e.g. visibility layer, fog) is a problem no question - but what is here I see neither plausible nor really correct (except for a few situations) !
Anyone is an IRL a pilot on these topics/threads then please look at my test flight of the LEIB-EDDS - and tell me if that is ârealisticâ or whatever you can say about it !
This is neither realistic, nor accurate, nor usable for VATSIM, nor for leisurely evening flights! Above all, I had windshits and other anomalies all the time!
I know Stratus and Cirrus etc. was not the thing of the MSFS before SU7 but the weather was simply presented as something âI knowâ more ârealisticâ!
If you make it even more accurate by METAR, TAF, or satellite imagery (visibilitylayer, fog, etc) well then we are all happy anyway - but this was just shot out too early - itâs kind of like if DX12 had not been made optional but as what we have now!
Active Sky just did it (but only from P3D) and partly Weather Force, because they used additional cloud types, many sources and other tricks and tweaks, but we all know how long that took.
And can anyone show me screenshots that show something like this with the ânewâ method"(and I have 100,000 of them and they are not the best, date and version are included in the picture name)
I think you see it way too complicated or expect a highly complex weather simulation that would need a research-team from a university. It would be more complex than the simulator itself. Thatâs not gonna work.
Active Sky does a very good job. Since years. For flying on Vatsim the most important thing is that every one has the same upper winds (because of the traffic separation). And everyobdy should have the same weather in vicinity of the departure and destination airport matching the newest metar, at least when talking about the datas having a strong impact on the flight performance. I donât know what kind of trouble you have with metars. They are reporting the actual weather condictions and are being refresehd twice an hour.
With a small delay of 30 minutes, it would be possible to make the weather transition beetween 2 metars smoothly. And if many airports are close together and report different metars it should be possible to make an interpolation beetween them. More or less. We will NEVER have the exact same weather simulated as the reality but the important variables (pressure, winds, visibility) should at least match the reported metars around airports because itâs what counts when taking off or landing.
And above letâs say 5000ft or more above airports, they should make a transition to the high altitude weather based on predictions. At the end the upper winds should match the newest predictions (since we simply donât have a source that reports actual high altitude weather like we have for metars, so that is the best we have).
Dynamic weather simply means that the weather wonât change abruptly but will be calculated with smooth transitions. It doesnât mean that every cloud has to be where it is in reality, what would be impossible with the actual available sources.
Same Problem for me, I think now the cloud Layers start on MSL, not AGL. My Homeairport EDFH is now in the middle of the Clouds. Looks like Mad Max Sandstorm
I have the same problem. Today I wanted to show a colleague that the live weather is not working, it was, but now it is not. Iâve been waiting for the las 20 minutes and live METAR can not be received from any station. Currently QNH is 1013, no winds, no clouds⊠what happened to this sim?
No, of course I donât expect too much from a weather simulation for a consumer flight simulator. I just tend to gauge it by its behaviour and characteristics. Visually and functionally. And up until now, apart from needing a lot of fine tuning here and there itâs (currently âwasâ) pretty much ahead of anything P3D (including active sky) had to offer. And still has a lot of potential to improve even further.
I consider METAR and all other weather related data very important.
If however METAR and weather donât match, just like in the real world, I prefer that they correct the METAR data and not âcorrectâ the weather itself, that most probably isnât even behaving unrealistically. Unless you get snow in the jungle or a heat wave in the antarctic.
And since I am an online flyer as well and donât want to ignore the entire community I am offering ideas how to make it possible for MSFS to inject weather as realistic as possible and still make online flying possible without the need to seperate pilots.
Right now I do feel compromises are being made to the weather engineâs full potential just for the sake of being chronically in-tune with real world METAR data. For me that would be a real shame honestly.
This is the problem when meteoblue reports clear sky and METAR does not. We can actually see on the clouds where those METAR is reported from on the picture. Itâs not realistic itâs just circles of clouds and fog. I want the meteoblue weather back. I would be more happy if those locations where clear sky in that picture even if itâs not IRL. If you could do the transissions of those clouds and fog how should you manage it? I would make the METAR global because itâs easy but thatâs not realistic either and that would make meteoblue useless. I donât know realy.
This is what i mean by a dynamic weather. Metar will have the weather static/fixed at the same local location until next METAR update and then the weather changes instant or with a timed transission. Metar does not know where the weather came from. All the time itâs static. Meteoblue makes the weather move dynamically because it knows where the weather came from and where itâs going.
I think this is a good example of how hard it is to manage both at the same time.
I would be realy happy if they could predict fog or low visibilty in that model too. Maybe in the future. But donât think itâs a fix to include METAR.
Nothing has to be fixed or static, neither do you have to solely use METAR data. All it needs to do is tweak the cloud base / ceiling, coverage, wind and visibility locally. And again a METAR might be an observation and updated every 30 minutes, but it is still updated before in case of significant changes. Its accurate enough for real world flying so it must certainly be accurate enough for use in a simulator.
yes probably, I kind of hope that a somehow is a bug and not the âsolutionâ ! (of course it is clear that this is not the solution) !
