Weather degradation

We knew it didn’t match observations, and I’ve explained why that’s important to users, independent to a detailed explanation as to why that’s important to realism.

That it didn’t match the MB source goes back my long explanation that they were injecting the sim weather too far in advance of actual observed conditions, of which the specific outcomes could not be forecast at such a long range. This also explains why the weather would suddenly jump when it was updated - because it didn’t do exactly what the forecast predicted, or the forecast narrowed down in the ensuing time and a new forecast was issued based on that outcome. Either way, not a realistic weather experience.

I can see how that is the case. I agree it was kludgy and came back to highlight deeper, systemic issues. But it was also most likely the easiest temporary fix. Since that original fix it has gotten demonstrably better. The lag is much closer and the rendering is somewhat better. Continued incremental updates focusing on the areas we’ve discussed to death (summarized in my last post) could eliminate the need to inject METAR entirely.

I agree entirely. It is hard to explain all the things that go into weather and figure out how to resolve what was taking place in the sim (which we had little hard evidence, just observation) to how weather should and does behave in the world. So we got the kludgy METAR thing, which again, highlighted the fact they were using a larger forecast to generate specific weather. It wasn’t wrong to ask for better resolution, but my guess is like you said, people didn’t know what they didn’t know and how to ask for it.

Thankfully, it’s getting better. Let’s push for even better than that!

Consider a couple of points:

  • Is the sim capable of rendering complex layered weather? Yes. You can see that by creating custom weather.

  • Are the various platforms that use MSFS capable of rendering that complex weather? Yes. We do not see reports of users unable to run with complex weather (beyond the normal degredation).

  • Does the sim ingest the full range of weather data available? No. We know that MB only provide a segment of the available data.

  • Did weather match IRL souces well? No, in parts of the world with dynamic weather there were often significant discrepancies that could impact flight planning.

  • Did the sim provide native weather forecast or planning tools of comparable accessibility and design as basic IRL aviation weather products? No. And although these would be available via MB, this was not something obvious or readily accessible to users.

  • Was METAR well implemented? No - and this has been formally recognised, with attempts to fix the METAR bubble rendering.

  • Was it the implementation of METAR data sources that lead to the use of less complex cloud rendering? Perhaps. But I’ve seen no direct evidence to support that.

The continued availability of the rendering code for non-live weather and the absence of off-line weather performance issues suggest that the design limits to live weather were at root due to other factors than rendering or local platform performance. The game has been a phenomenal success and many of the SU5 and SU7 changes (not just weather, but eg TLOD also) suggest that server demand was far higher as a result requiring reductions in the calls on those servers to meet the vastly increased demand. This to me remains the most plausible explanation of the reduced fidelity of live weather. That, and some less than optimal implementation.

If it is server load management, then that is going to continue to have implications for the base performance of live weather and what may be achievable. But it also suggests that there could be other solutions - perhaps allowing the user to tailor their ‘live’ experience.

To me this is the real issue of design philosophy that should be questioned (as opposed to MB vs METAR). Why is it necessary for there to be a single ‘live’ experience with the consequent demand that creates for a single ‘live weather’ experience and the server demand that goes with it?

Some users will care more about fluid live weather based on a forecast model. Others will need ‘live’ weather that more closely matches IRL sources. Yet others will care more about other live players. Why is it necessary to make them all experience the same weather? Let them choose what kind of live experience they get through options, but at least recognize there is simply no need for a single, one-size fits all, lowest-common-denominator ‘live weather’.

10 Likes

I think you did a good summary of Live weather actual state, thank you. If the issue is a too high servers load and they decided to lower the data flow and sub-consequently the Live weather rendering then it would have been nice from Asobo to communicate us those reasons. The fact we have not received any explanation is just generating assumptions, speculations that lead at the end of doubting if they are planning to bring back the Live Weather to the level of realism, dynamism it was. I am not saying it was perfect, many points to improve but it was going toward the right direction in the 1st Sim Updates.

2 Likes

As you say, there is much speculation. I just personally found it doubtful that METAR implementation was the only cause of the changes we have seen. It may have aligned with other requirments though.

We need to move the debate beyond METAR vs MB, which has become sterile. I have no doubt that there were important reasons for the changes that were made and we continue to see incremental improvements. For a more fundamental change though, I think that calls for a re-think of what the ‘live’ environment should be. Which is more than just live weather. I made this thread to consider one possibility…

2 Likes

If i could suggest something that would increase the enjoyment for all of the users. Those that preffer the weather to stay as METAR says, Those who do not care, and those like me that preffer the fluidness of weather we had at release.

Option number 1:

12 hour weather model we had at release only that feels like a fluid. Would make it easier to report issues from MB source.

Option number 2:

METAR perfectly set around airports and should match the METAR 100% then a MB source around that no blending at all just pure METAR at airports and pure MB outside airports. Would make it easier to report issues from both types of sources.

Option number 3:

The hybrid we have now. Would stay equally hard to report issues as it is now.

2 Likes

I wonder if we have an issue with how this issue of degredation has been presented?

I cannot find an overarching ‘wishlist’ item for proposing changes to live weather. There are some very specific ones for tornadoes, improved colours etc. But nothing on the kinds of choices /options for live weather proposed at various points in this thread. But this thread is just a general discussion one - not a wishlist item.

There is the big bug report on METAR here

But is it really a bug?

There are other wishlist items for a weather API - but that has been clearly rejected.

There is also a dead-end wishlist item for a weather only update. I say dead-end as the mods have made it clear that the request makes no sense in terms of product development. Also it focuses on process and not what different features we actually want to see.

So I suggest there needs to be a new wishlist item opened, which is well framed and reflects the consensus view that the live weather should be:

  1. predictable in line with IRL weather sources/forecast
  2. Dynamic with smooth and organic development without bubbles or rapid transitions.
  3. Make full use of the cloud rendering tools available in custom weather.
6 Likes

This is exactly what I’ve been trying to say. We’re focusing on the trees and missing the forest, getting stuck in minutia and placing blame on nonsensical or tangentially-related items, positing black or white options as if they are the only ones out there.

On the whole we’re missing two big-picture things: insight as to how the Asobo system really works under the hood (through no fault of our own), and insight into how weather (and its impact on aviation) really works, and folks are filling in the blanks to the limit of their personal ability. We should strive to have a better understanding of both and come up with a clear pathway instead of guesses and dead-end “fixes,” which is what got us to this point in the first place.

2 Likes

I was going to add that if all 3 are not achievable in one ‘live weather’ then users should be given options (as per @Perrry 's and my own posts above), for example: ‘high accuracy’ with a primacy on IRL sources or ‘dynamic’ with a focus on more seamless rendering, although really there should be no need for such a compromise: the real issue is the lack of cloud-type variety and layering at all altitudes.

[FWIW I personally find the live weather actually remarkablely accurate when compared with AWS forecasts for the PNW for ground wind speed & direction, temp, pressure, precip and vis and the winds aloft too. It’s the lack of cloud variety and layering that stands out. And proper TS /CB. The clouds just lack the dynamism and beauty of what was there pre-SU7]

Wishlist votes count - they make it to the top of the stack and get senior leadership focus which translates into actionn and development resource. But only if the request makes sense.

This is particularly important for weather, which is going to remain a core part of the SIM and with limits on any 3rd party alternative.

4 Likes

Perfect summary of what i missing since su7 :wink:

Well, there is only 2 types of weather data. Observed weather or forecasted weather. Before this sim we had either Observed only or observed together with forecasted weather. In this sim we had only forecasted weather to begin with. Right or wrong decission, i’m not sure but thats what we had. And i liked that approach because it doesn’t need to set the weather in an observed fixed state. Now thats gone and replaced with observed together with forecasted data and we have no option to set it back to forecasted only.

I know there is different methods to render the data they recieve and i agree that could be improved too, For example the low density of clouds. But increasing density of clouds will not make the data they render more varied.

Disagree completely . Did a flight last night over Philippines and flew through some amazing thunderstorms. The lightning bolts, the sound of thunder, the clouds lit up, the driving rain…all there.

I have never, in 3.000 hours of flight, seen a sky like that.
Are you using or have you used in the past a weather mod?

As far as I have read there is no evidence of the claimed weather degradation, and in my experience the weather is better than ever right now, with no other sim even coming close to it, so I guess I cannot share the point of view of the OP.

1 Like

Not sure what sim you are using but I would like to see pictures of that. The only lightning I have seen either shows up with small cumulus clouds or is seen in clear air. Take a flight across the midwestern part of the USA during a severe weather outbreak or down in Florida this time of year. No thunderstorms. Just some blobs of clouds with tops around 10-15K feet maybe. The thunderstorm rendering is terrible. Some of these thunderstorms will reach 60,000ft with most tops in the mid 40’s. I have never seen that represented in the sim.

In the real world, sometimes you have to deviate 250-300 miles plus to get around a large complex of thunderstorms. I have never seen that represented in the sim. Nor have I ever seen isolated super cell thunderstorms in the sim either. A few small or broken puffy cumulus clouds with some lightning isn’t very amazing based on how good this sim is visually already.

They have the potential and the ability to blow peoples minds with the visual emersion. Look around the sim at the visual rendering of the world already…it’s incredible. No excuse to have generic looking weather with half baked thunderstorm representation. Not in this day and age of computing and graphical generation technology. I know they can do it, and they definitely have the talent in place. The question is, do they want to do it, and does the populus really want it, or is everybody happy with generic.

8 Likes

There’s no denying this is a very pretty sim. However, i do still miss the wispy light clouds we had early on that looked much better & more realistic. For whatever reason, that was a very clear change.

I’m certainly not disappointed with the sim, it has no equal. I just feel like it’s missing so many cloud layer variations, the sky colour is fairly limited especially at sunrise/sunset & almost always far too strong reds/oranges & the way light works with the clouds could be much better. I know they are worlds apart but FSX still does some things better like sunrise/sunset colouring & (obviously a completely different & worse system) more cloud variations.

3 Likes

All,

I have opened a new wishlist item for improved cloud depiction in live weather. I hope it reflects the consensus view of those most closely involved in this debate.

You can vote for it here. I’ve taken care to frame it in on the actual issue and at what I hope is the right level.

And if you think there is no room for improvement then don’t!

2 Likes

There was a similar topic in the wishlist that has been closed: More cloud formations!
The reason was to have only 1 specific request per whishlist topic. For me it also makes sense to have a whishlist request to cover a general ask from users to have missing cloud types added and the existing ones (mostly cumulus we have so far) improved in Live weather. If weather presets can achieved that, Live Weather should be able too.

Oh I remember that one now. Those pictures! Didn’t find it when doing search the other day. It had 153 votes when closed and the others that replaced it? Mere handfuls. (Edit: actually cirrus, stratus and CB all have highish numbers of votes ranging from c60-160)

The ‘one item per wishlist’ rule was very much on my mind when creating my post (which is why I kept it to clouds). But what is an item? I mean having to vote on each individual cloud type seems a rather too strict reading of the rule. It just fragments the votes as the individual items are niche/obscure and keeps the wider point from ever going up the ‘stack’ in terms of votes.

I have no doubt Asobo are fully aware already of the issues with clouds, but it still seems right that there is a place we can formally record and vote for our wishes on the architecture of Live Weather.

5 Likes

Yes, I bet there are a lot of people who can cope with the inaccuracy of the weather model as a whole, but would really just like to see the look, i.e graphical quality of the clouds improved.

1 Like

Could you elaborate ? As mainly a GA pilot in the US I use the Aviation Weather Centre as my main source and I find that temps, pressures, wind direction and speeds are usually spot on. Same also when I monitor winds aloft when flying airliners - it usually matches what simbrief gave me pretty closely.

What I find lacking is the cloud layers, tops, types and associated precip and convective turb. Icing and lightening are broken, but that’s a different story again.

I mean that there are people who simply don’t want to see things like this anymore.

or this

11 Likes