no no no… metar data is the best what Asobo done, using live weather I want to have excatly weather condition on airports, during take off and landings… Forecast models could be beetwen ( on the road) metars… we had that forecast models everywhere from start MSFS and it was very weak on airports… METAR data must stay as it is !
1 Like
So because you need this, none of us can have the original much better looking weather?
No, what we need is an OPTION - This kind of thing has different appeals for different folks.
There’s no way we can accept a compromise where one group must sacrifice their enjoyment for things that are relevant only to another.
As long as Asobo remains unable/unwilling/uncommitted to deliver a system that is absolutely perfect in every way for everyone, the only reasonable solution is to leave all points of compromise open to the users preference.
That means, we need Live Weather Options, allowing us to use undegraded blending-free weather.
Or alternatively, we need Full SDK Write Access for wx so that other developers can create specialized solutions to this game-breaking* problem.
*there are many out there who are not playing until this is fixed, and check here regularly for any news on when/if the sim will be made enjoyable again. This is why this thread exists: https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/can-we-have-a-weather-atmosphere-and-environment-update-only-please/
17 Likes
You continue to ignore the fact that this isn’t the case.
Rain circles around airports, fog circles around airports, Wind circles around airports, temp circles around airports, pressure circles around airports. Isn’t that weather that is fixed in place? I don’t care if the METAR and Meteoblue is unsynced. The fact is that we have METAR disturbing the weather we had at release of this sim. I can’t see the realism in that. But i understand those who does. But i can’t understand why we shouldn’t be able to choose the weather we had at release that we actually bought. If you bought the sim 2020 you knew the limitations of forecasted weather but you bought this sim that advertised they had that source only. I wouldn’t care at all if we wouldn’t notice the integration of METAR but the fact is that some do notice it and i’m one of those who notice it.
Feels like there is only one opinion that is valid around here. And i checked your “aviation weather pdf”. And that pdf shows how complex the weather is. But instead we want the sim weather less complex by setting cartoonish fixed circles around airports.
I’m a bit tired of defending my opinion and i regret i were not here defending the visuals of weather pre su7. Back then i were defending the gusts to get back into the sim. Now we have turbulence as an optional feature and i can’t see much complains that we have options for that? But after su7 i can’t enjoy the sim because the visuals got worse.
11 Likes
this could only be achieved with wind and visibility - in order to be able to assign the runways correctly - which was already partially implemented.
Besides, there were free or paid tools that did it this way and not badly at all.
And to set a “forecast” in between is almost impossible in Europe with this density of METAR stations - that’s why there are these “Quirks” that don’t (really) work (apart from sporadic exceptions).
Using the so-called METAR for clouds is the same as if I wanted to visualise a water/lake but have no data on its extent or depth, or want to visualise mountain ranges knowing where they start but not knowing how high they are or how far apart they are. Yes, there is something out of it but certainly not what you can call “realistic” - and that is METAR - I am repeating myself endlessly but PURE METAR is not usable for the (realistic) visualisation of the conditions (because it only uses fixed values and is very limited in the amount of data - visibility can be e.g. 11000 SM or clouds over 20000 feet are very well existent etc. etc.), you have to play the same METAR animations over and over again - hence the “feeling” of the same appearance - and the conditions are not always right with METAR (and won’t be in a game), regardless of whether it’s storms, rain, etc. - had another case today - EHAM - LOWW (in Vienna almost all day rain and bad visibility - when approaching again only broken clouds and visibility over 10 SM, which of course wasn’t true…) could name many more reasons, now I’m slowly too lazy to keep citing this one! And it’s not just about the Meteoblue METAR addition, but that it is displayed incorrectly in combination with the FORCAST method…and that’s a fact that some of you are thankfully pointing out here SO THAT it will be improved for everyone !!
5 Likes
With the exception of visibility, is this continuing to happen in a noticeable, unrealistic extent? I haven’t seen rain circles in several updates. Wind is blended pretty well, and continues to improve. Isn’t that what we want?
This is the root cause, while this…
… is an unfortunate effect.
Two things here:
-
you can choose the weather, maybe just not to your liking, and
-
I’m not opposed to more choice, so that’s a straw argument. This seems to happen a lot. Who is arguing for less choice?
Who is “we?” I want radar to be the primary method for depicting precip. Unassociated clouds and visibility are tougher - it’s going to take a lot of computing power to get it down to the granular details.
I’m simply adding larger context to what ends up, in EVERY weather thread to be a massive amount of groupthink that heads down a certain path, sometimes making false claims, and doesn’t take other, broader factors into consideration. This happens so often that I know what a post is going to say before I read it and the same handful of likes. But those responses focus on the trees rather than the forest.
Where we seem to disagree is accuracy vs style. And I don’t think the arguments are mutually exclusive. Accuracy can be improved as can style - both are important to the experience. What I hear is accuracy is not important, or worse, a lack of understanding as to how weather works (beyond the visual rendering) and why geospatial accuracy and realism (versus depiction and realism) as they pertain to aviation are as inseparable as breathing and life.
I’ll ask again: is METAR still affecting cloud rendering or they are independent? If they were affected, they should not exist outside of METAR range. If they were not, they should be altered as they do enter METAR range, and they do not seem to be any more.
This is missing context. You’re basically making your own observation. What did the METAR at LOWW say during that time? Was the METAR different than the depicted weather, if so, why? Was it wrong? Was it different in the real world than the sim? Or was the sim depicting something that didn’t exist on the METAR, regardless? We can’t, as the peanut gallery, troubleshoot, if we don’t have all the input data.
@arniex78 From what I can see from the last 12 hours of METARs from LOWW were reports of low clouds and on and off rain/drizzle all day.
Was this what the in-sim METAR said as well?
If so, and if they weren’t depicted as low ceilings in the sim, then it seems METAR is not the problem with clouds, and instead there’s an issue with the input from MB, which would pretty much make my case. If there’s something different that I’m missing, please fill me in.
Was the depiction outside the METAR range any different? If so, did it change as it approached? Those are the things we need to know to make a case.
Definitely since SU7 and definitely in the METAR area/airports - whatever is to blame, whether Meteoblue METAR / Forecast (wrong) implementation - doesn’t matter - it’s just “wrong”, sometimes the same everywhere and “unrealistic” and/or or not sufficiently interpreted! (missing cloud types, wrong heights or no continuous expansion or cloud fronts etc) - that just looked “better” and more believable before and for many it’s actually about that - which of course doesn’t mean that it was “perfect” before (we all know about the missing features - even before SU7) !
no really deep clouds or rain - visibility at least more than 10 SM - towering cumulus clouds (as always) with interrupted clouds and visible clear ring directly above the airport (sun shines through). I haven’t seen METAR in SIM at all - Use EFB with Simbrief integration - set everything up according to that - outside “METAR” there was a kind of “continuous” cloud cover - accumulation of cumulus clouds that visibly accumulate and dissolve around the METAR stations! on the whole flight and these well-known “high” wisps of cloud - i.e. what I always see when there are clouds! (in the meantime approx. 500 flight hours since SU7, but “improvement” since SU12) !
metar string during landing (approximately) :
METAR LOWW 121620Z 10010KT 070V130 6000 -RA FEW006 SCT009 BKN014 10/09 Q1019 TEMPO 2800 DZRA BKN009 - I definitely didn’t see that !
As I said, I understand the counter-arguments - I would like it to look “realistic” and be exactly - but it’s just good if you point out the “errors” or faults, although it may not bother some others or they simply don’t know it differently (f.e entered later ) !
Okay, that description helps a lot. I am not observing the same behaviors with clouds dissolving here in the US. But as you said, the sim weather was not depicted anywhere close to the SimBrief METAR observation, correct? In this case, I wonder what the in-sim METAR was reading. Again, it goes to my theory that the issue is not the METAR.
My observation: there is a general lack of accurate high clouds depicted anywhere in the sim, which definitely needs improvement (I think there’s another thread about that). When combined with lower cloud structures, they should tend to aggregate and take away some of the rough edges and vertical structure of what end up being TCU everywhere in the sim. They also diffuse some of the single-points of light, making things less “volcano” like (as should any other source of diffuse light, like the clear blue sky, other vertical clouds, atmospheric haze, snow on the ground, etc).
General note: when discussing the inaccuracies of the sim, etc, it helps to know the sim conditions, sim METAR, and real world METAR. Even better if the latter are associated with real-world pictures or accurate observations. It also helps to make the same observations nearby, but outside the “bubble” and watch them change as they enter the bubble and/or progress outside of it.
Here is a report of that rain bubble after su12.
But even if they are in sync the METAR has too low details to be able to match the more detailed forecasted model. (I know you want other sources of weather like radar) The cloudbase are messured from ground at that specific location. But 1NM away it can be 200FT lower cloudbase that the weather station never observe.
Well, Asobo said that “we” as community voted for this METAR thing. Thats why i said “we” even that i didn’t vote for that. I reported an issue of MB to zendesk not injecting the winds propperly at release (225@3KTS) that i were sure was an issue with the data from Meteoblue. Because i were sure MB didn’t predict those winds globally at the same time. But instead they added the winds from METAR soon after release 2020 (november i think it was). After that we’ve seen more and more added instead of making sure MB were injected propperly to start with.
I don’t know actually. Thats why i can’t understand why the devs said they couldn’t see a point adding the old weather system as an optional feature when we as community voted for that question to be asked in a q&a.
I have always used planning tools while flying in flight simulators. For me it’s really important to use. I also often check simvar values that shows the actually winds that happening in the sim. I would never say anything else. I also want the weather to be 100% accurate to what i can see outside my windows while flying. But most of the time i can’t confirm if it’s accurate anyway because i mostly fly far from where i have my window. But i’m completely sure that will not happen even if they add all of those sources that are available. Thats why i accepted the less accuracy i got in the sim as long as i could check MB weather page to plan my flights because thats the source i knew they used and didn’t compare the MB source with those METARS. Then when i actually got used to the change and actually liked that system they suddenly changed it to an in my opinion much worse system.
Edit: I agree, we will never be able to help them troubleshoot this engine.
This is a bubble in the radar depiction. Was it also depicted visually? I’ve seen that before, but the rain existed visually despite not being shown on the radar. I agree that they need to match, either way. That entire thread is full of assumptions and lacking complete observational data. One person said they had a front coming in, but it wasn’t depicted. Okay then, go find it and report back! It’s gotta be in the sim somewhere, and based on my observations, it’s about 30-120 minutes behind where it should be.
And again, either way the root problem is the lag. The METAR is usually well ahead of the depicted weather. And that’s problematic to both the mismatch in rendering and the operational use of weather products.
But as you say, and I again agree - METAR is not granular or widespread enough to depict precipitation alone, especially along the margins of storms and/or when storms are scattered, clustered, etc. Either way, I’ve never argued that it should be the source data, only that its use as an operational observational tool is important enough that the sim needs to be a within a reasonable margin of error. 30 minutes is too far. So I look at it as a canary in the coal mine, indicative of a larger problem.
Have people argued that it should be the source data, or did they argue that the generated weather should match the product (as I do)? The misunderstanding could simply be a problem of semantics. Or it could have been a simplistic argument, which I’d also counter with larger context (basically, I think both extremes are wrong, but for different reasons).
Either way, I’m not seeing these bubbles with regard to clouds and precip - only non-precip visibility. It definitely was that way at one point, but is it still? In a little bit here, I’ll go pick a place that’s got some active weather, get in the sim, and observe what’s happening there while simultaneously watching real-world radar, METAR, and satellite products.
Outside of the visual rendering and animation, it was pretty bad. Inaccurate in many ways. Nearly entirely unusable with operational real-world weather products (and not providing any internal products). That’s why they got raked over the coals. The fix, well, it’s been interesting. But it seems to have progressed.
I think we can, we just need to use the same language and come from the same root of understanding about all these interconnected aspects. And use strong data/evidence to support our claims. I want what you want, as far as visual depiction. I’m just not willing to go back to what we had previously in order to get to it. We can move forward.
Thats why this whole voting lark is broken. Maybe if they added a “Vote Against” to go with the “Vote for” some of us could have spoken against such a concept. For all they know, more people were against it than for it. The whole system as it stands does NOT allow for that and is broken if you ask me.
Who knows, maybe the majority do in fact only care about engaging the autopilot at the earliest opportunity and landing simulation with the actual flight being that inconvenient thing you have to do in the middle.
1 Like
I’m not certain everybody was speaking the same language or had a clear understanding of what the problem was or what they were asking for.
I feel same. Because of the no “down vote” we need to stay here defending features we like instead of be in the sim enjoying it because a “vote for” means that everyone wants that change it seems even if it’s a bad decission.
I also think that many, including me didn’t knew that the whole weather system should be completely different after METAR were implemented. But they made the global more detailed weather pre su7 less detailed to fit those METAR. Thats how i observed the change from su6 to su7,
I must agree the weather has been improved since su7. But they have much work to do to get this new system in the state we had pre su7 visually. I want to see an update with equally massive change in a positive way as the downgrade were after su7 to be happy. But i’ve only seen like hotfixes since su7 that i can barely notice. The biggest issue for me is the generic/fixed feel globally. Maybe they included the satellite data that makes it feel generic. I’m not sure what they did. I think you are correct though. They made too much changes that they may not know them selves actually what caused what. And also maybe too much changes that they didn’t log. Because the release notes of weather were really thin in su7 but the change were massive.
1 Like
Forecast weather with 12 hours between the updates does not mean that the weather just before the update (say 1100 UTC) is 11 hours old. It means that the weather just before the update is what it has been forecast 12 hours ago, at 0000 UTC for the 11th hour.
Weather forecasts nowadays, especially from formidable providers as MB, are actual very accurate.
We as sim pilots must be able to accept some inaccuracy. If the airplane is simulated, if the world is simulated, why should of all things only the weather be real and true and all of the above?
5 Likes
Agree, and i’ve seen comments that the 12 hours of forecasts is just random weather. Thats far from true. It’s a simulation of the global atmosphere for 12 hours using inititial conditions from those METARs and other sources of observations and messurements to be able to create that simulation. Some want that simulation destroyed with injected observations inbetween those simulation runs and some just want that 12 hour period of time flow natural until the next 12 hour run are available and injected. Can’t have both at the same time. Options is needed.
2 Likes
Sorry, it’s not going to cut it. A 12 hour forecast isn’t going to get the initiation of a line of thunderstorms right, for instance. Sure, it’ll be in the ballpark, maybe the correct state, maybe the correct part of the state, within several hours, but that is nowhere near accurate enough and certainly isn’t congruent with the products that we use to make operational aeronautical decisions (this is key - too many arguments miss this point entirely).
From the perspective of a real world pilot that’s focused on aviation safety, I cannot overstress how wrong this idea is and how dangerous it would be to real-life aviation. So why would we emulate this?
Watch my stream from last night to understand. We talk about weather and I address this kind of thing specifically from about minute 20 to minute 55.
Anyway, I’ve been there, done that; if you want to do your own research on this, go look at the 12 hour prog, TAFs, etc, take a pic, then roll it forward 12 hours and see how “on” it was. If it’s more than 30 mins off, heck, I’ll give you 60, or more than 15-30 miles off from prediction, it’s a no-go. Weather isn’t always some amorphous blob - it is specific, tied to specific conditions.
Pilots often have to operate near bad stuff, and we have tools (I’ve described countless times) to mitigate the risk. Using a 12-hour forecast, and that alone, will not cut it. We wouldn’t fly in the real-world based on a 12-hour forecast, we’d get another briefing, or at least an update. Don’t expect us to be okay doing that in the sim and slapping any sort of idea that this “inaccuracy” is passable, useable, or realistic within some fantasy margin of error.
1 Like
mate we are not flying in the real world here. we dont even have dangerous weather in the game. also the game weather will or should match the forecast because that is the data it gets. if the 12 hour forecast says it will be raining 6 hours from now you can bet it will be raining in the game too at that time unless the data is misinterpreted
2 Likes
Mate, this is a simulator, which is used by all sorts of people to emulate real-world type flying. Gross ignorance of a HUGE chunk of accessible flying just to make something pretty is irresponsible. 
I’ll re-iterate: 6 and 12 hour forecasts are too broad in both time and space to make specific, accurate predictions, especially with summertime, convective weather. Full stop.
Like I said before, go look at some weather products, do some analysis, and get back to me.
please elaborate. if the 6 or 12 hour forecast predicted it should rain at this hour why would the game not do the same? is the game getting the data from somewhere else? is it making it up?