Yes and they have a single topic with 1100 votes that not specify the issue. Only that the wind is 225@3kts all the time that was created right after release of the sim that already was fixed long time ago with voters that maybe not using this sim anymore. And all of those 1100 votes is suddenly voting for METARS because the weather doesn’t match something What should it match? Not METARS because that was not included in the sim at release. It should have matched meteoblue data nothing else.
Now i don’t know what it should match really. It doesn’t match meteoblue, it doesn’t match METAR and it doesn’t match real current weather and it’s not dynamic anymore it’s a generic picture of weather to match those METARS that wasn’t the problem at release.
The problem was that it didn’t match meteoblue weather 100% that it should have the second problem was that ATIS reported incorrect weather information and assigned incorrect runway. Thats not meteoblue weather data fault.
It’s a coding issue in the ATIS feature that always needs to match the weather in the sim. It can’t say it’s VFR when it’s zero visibility and it can’t say IFR when the visibility is perfect.
Now after su7 it’s to many issues, i can’t say them all but here is some of them, generic clouds, ugly fog circle around airports, cb clouds and comulus clouds, much to less overcast layers, METAR bubble that block clouds from going over the airport, sudden transitions, static winds, clouds to low still in some cases and clouds displayed as fog near ground.
Still getting some nasty transitions. I was cruising at 1500 agl in a Texan in the San Antonio, TX area this morning when the plane lurched to the left at exactly 1800z. The in-sim AWOS said the last update was at 1700z, and sure enough, it updated right at 1800z too. I’m assuming it just updated the METAR winds on the hour with no transitionary period.
Why didn’t they add an option similar to unreal engine based on metar and leave the live weather as it was? It was much easier to do that and everyone was happy.
Tried it, didn’t like it I switched back instantly. Agree that would have been the fix for those complaining METAR is needed. But they want to have both at the same time LOL. Why not use METAR at airports and then just switch on live-weather when airborn? And then switch it back on METAR before landing? That would be my suggestion for an optional METAR thing. That automatically changes the weather when near airports to match METAR. Then those who only use meteoblue has no automatically switching to METAR near airports. Then they not need to focus on making it smooth only have a slow transition when closing in to the planned destination.
Then they can improve both systems without us complaining here.
I wouldn’t use it though I would use meteoblue all the time
I would like to have the 100% meteoblue weather back as it was intended to work at release. With the 225@3kts and 12 hour data bug solved and with gusts functioning again. Have not been able to test that Because METAR was needed so badly in VATSIM a 3rd party tool they completely changed the system for all of us to meet their needs. I understand not all of the VATSIM users wants this change either though.
Not only because of Vatsim. Don’t forget about the fogs and CATIII and below weather completely missing at certain places with Meteoblue.
There are simply things weather models will never be able to forecast.
Agree, but with all of those issues it came with it was not worth it in my opinion.
That thing should not interfare with the complete picture of weather at all. If it does it’s not worth it. I could predict if i would get low visibility by looking at forecasts that had clouds predicted low. If it did i planned for IFR. Simple as that.
yes, that’s true - but we already had (if it was true) something like fog - simulated by these 3D clouds above ground (it was already partly). They should leave it like that, because adding a 2D visibility layer to a 3D system is the worst thing you can do. Because you would have to be able to smoothen this layer horziontal and VERTICAL, well, you know the result from FSX (maybe someone can remember the setting - “visibility smoothing”, never really worked). In contrast, with these 3D fog layers you can also display high fog and, depending on the reported visibility, this cloud layer can be denser or less dense. The other advantage is that you can integrate all this into the clouds without transitions - and you can also let this fog “walk” over the ground (as an example)… And the rest, bad visibility, or also the Haze layer with the aerosol (humidity) feature - which is still there. As I have already noted, clean up this blending with the sun. The advantage of the aerosol feature is that it is “3D” and can be set without transitions. And with it you can even simulate air pollution (as a FIX VALUE for cities like Bangkok).
yes, those fog layers i could predict on meteoblue website. Those are thin layers on the meteogram right over ground. They are removed now to make visibility correct in the sim. Tried to find them. Either it’s no clouds at all or they are transformed into towering clouds instead.
ENGM has fog stated and it shows up on meteoblue as well. This was viewed in the sim before as low dynamic fog cloud that was interacting with the terrain. Can’t test it now but i’m sure we only get that static layer there or those really low comulus clouds. Could also be CB/towering clouds.
You are 100% right of course. I adore flight sims always have, it has been my main hobby for almost 20 years, and I love to take it seriously and really get into the details. I was originally sceptical of MSFS 2020, but got it a month or two in and saw the potential and absolutely loved it. Sadly ever since then it has been downhill, I was just amazed when it first tried it, every flight was just incredible, but since then, sadly, pretty much everything has been downgraded, it is an absolute travesty. I know that it is just a game, but especially with the world we live in at the moment, and starting MSFS during lockdown, it was a real big part of my life, it allowed me to travel and see the world and meet new people all whilst staying safe at home. I am so saddened to see the way it has gone. Everything has been downgraded, the LOD, the lighting, the clouds. yes it is still great fun, but it is horrible having that feeling always when you are flying that it used to be so much better.
Yes, I know. But it sometimes worked and sometimes it didn’t. Especially at certain airports. There would be fogs, or very low ceilings (OVC003 and below) yet the airport would be completely sunny for days on straight.
Sadly our opinions differ here. You’d like a more realistic weather by stripping away the METARs.
Well I consider low IFR weather a significant part of that realism. And with Meteoblue only, it hardly ever worked where I fly.
Like I said many times before - lots of you guys complaining about weather realism put your trust blindly into a numerical model with an abysmally low accuracy.. due to it’s grid spacing.
It works great when flying through a 200 km long squall line.
A local fog brought on by specific microclimate conditions? Not so much.. or at all at certain airports.
For example at LKMT I have NEVER experienced low ceilings or low visibility with the Meteoblue approach only. The airport was probably somewhere in that 24 (or 30?) km grid and the model could hardly see it.
Unless Asobo comes with a model of like 1 km accuracy (doubt it), let them work at this hybrid thing for a while.
Don’t forget we’re basically soon after launch. This could take years.
Looks like a mess in the sim though because it can’t have those clouds at ground anymore. They turns into CB clouds instead as soon as the clouds are predicted near ground.
Until 2 months ago, METAR based visibility was completely missing in live weather so that was a much needed improvement. The real issue is related to extrapolation of that METAR weather outside the vicinity of weather station and need for inclusion of other elements such as humidity and aerosols in live weather so that transitions are visually realistic and smooth.
No I never claimed that the weather at certain airports was entirely accurate - I don’t think you understood me correctly, as I have said so many times, we don’t need to talk about missing features, you are right! - you could have taken the essential values from METAR and most of them were about wind (direction) or as you say about lack of fog (visibility). It was not a question of disregarding these values altogether but of taking these values from METAR but not as a 2D layer but continuing to use them as before. This means that the transitions would only affect the visibility and the wind - and since these would already be 3D cloud layers, it would be much easier to “interpolate” them in the event of a deviation (sorry if I am not expressing myself clearly enough)!
At least for the time being - as long as we don’t get to grips with this.
It’s actually much simpler than THIS total construct of METAR, FORECAST, INTERPOLATION or whatever mess - you can see the result! And quite honestly, apart from the sporadic inaccuracy (not always affecting all airports), has anyone ever seen (apart from the pixelated clouds) a message about the “bad-looking weather” anywhere in the forum? So about the appearance except the mentioned pixelated clouds - so I don’t !
That’s why I asked Perrry if he’s sure about the meteograms he’s sharing, because they’re constructed with NEMS 4 CEU.
Asobo should really disclose what numerical model they’re using. Not even NEMS Global compares to what’s in the sim.
By the way:
METAR LKMT 030800Z 21003KT 9999 FEW033 01/M01 Q1021 NOSIG RMK REG QNH 1018=
So yeah, something is definitely wrong with the weather. But we all know that. Asobo knows that, that’s why Martial said that the data tend to be wrong, and they’re working on it.
By the way, all that REX Weather does is injects the latest METAR and creates a weather preset based on that.
yes I know that, unfortunately, know the functionality - was only as a comparison - I think since Asobo holds back the weather SDK it is probably not possible otherwise !
But even that looks more accurate and better at some points ! (at the moment) !
BR
It’s questionable in my opinion what could be achieved by opening the weather system because the application would only have access to the client computer and it’s processing power which isn’t sufficient to create a global consistent dynamic weather. What would be the alternative? Perhaps if HiFi or similar creates a parallel Earth on a cloud and stream that weather into MSFS somehow…
I’m reasonably certain this is the case, based on the response whenever this subject is brought up. The contract probably has an end date though, so there may come a time where they don’t renew the contract, and then it could be up for discussion once more.
What should it match? Not METARS because that was not included in the sim at release. It should have matched meteoblue data nothing else.
I switched back instantly. Agree that would have been the fix for those complaining METAR is needed. But they want to have both at the same time LOL. Why not use METAR at airports and then just switch on live-weather when airborn? And then switch it back on METAR before landing? That would be my suggestion for an optional METAR thing. That automatically changes the weather when near airports to match METAR. Then those who only use meteoblue has no automatically switching to METAR near airports. Then they not need to focus on making it smooth only have a slow transition when closing in to the planned destination.
Because METAR was needed so badly in VATSIM a 3rd party tool they completely changed the system for all of us to meet their needs. I understand not all of the VATSIM users wants this change either though.
