28 minutes ago, GCBraun said:

As for weather, what we currently have is much, much better than FSX/P3D have ever provided

I hear that a lot, and I won't argue against it. But does that change any of the shortcomings or is sufficient reason not to ask for the exploitation of the full potential of a probably much more capable engine?

Thanks for the heads up! I missed this! I really hope someone will be able to add historic weather to MSFS. It's sorely missed.

10 minutes ago, Tom_L said:

I hear that a lot, and I won't argue against it. But does that change any of the shortcomings or is sufficient reason not to ask for the exploitation of the full potential of a probably much more capable engine?

There will always be shortcomings when we are talking about simulation software. I have always used 3rd. party weather solutions on other sims, and would happily use them in MSFS if  there is indeed "a much more capable engine" available in the future. What I can report currently is that I have never experienced a more believable and enjoyable weather solution as I currently have in MSFS, regardless of the obvious limitations.

24 minutes ago, GCBraun said:

There will always be shortcomings when we are talking about simulation software. I have always used 3rd. party weather solutions on other sims, and would happily use them in MSFS if  there is indeed "a much more capable engine" available in the future. What I can report currently is that I have never experienced a more believable and enjoyable weather solution as I currently have in MSFS, regardless of the obvious limitations.

I agree after two decades of AS I hope we won't return to that part of simulation. The WX is far better as we ever had, it need still adjustments. 

Edited May 16, 20233 yr by virtualstuff

No doubt giving complete read/write/mod 3rd party access to *all* parts of the sim would be the ideal situation.  But in the real world of software dev, where priorities have to be weighed for what the core sim development team focuses on, the need to open up the weather system was/is not that great... and that's entirely due to their core/default weather system being so good for a vast majority of MSFS users, simple as that. Of course it could be better, but it's not a need-ASAP better.

That's the one thing that MSFS has completely upended in the flight sim scene (and I think for the better), in that what it provides in the default sim, and continues to add/provide to the default sim, is increasingly raising the bar (be it scenery, aircraft fidelity, avionics/systems fidelity, weather, etc)... so much so that it either negates the need for the traditional 3rd party content, or ensures only compelling high quality 3rd party content stand out.

Now that we're into 2+ years since the sim came out, what used to be lower priority items are starting to be considered, such as opening up weather for 3rd party modification/writing. And that definitely is goodness.
 

Edited May 16, 20233 yr by lwt1971

3 hours ago, Iadbound said:

Chaseplane. Camera system still leaves much to be desired. 

Are you saying Chaseplane needs improvement, or you want Chaseplane, as the basic camera system is lacking?

For what its worth, I  actually think the default global weather model implementation is pretty good.  There have been some quirks for sure, but I've gradually moved away from the obsession of wanting a METAR based system, specifically

Finally. Can we please get chaseplane to expedite this through?

5 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Having read through that topic it’s curious how little it was discussed. If it does get the green light and Hi-Fi have enough info it will be interesting to see how they can change the weather. They are the experts in the other two major sims.

They have no experience with volumetric/voxel-based cloud depictions but from reading Damian's comments they're willing to try.  Very very different environments.

Perhaps Ray can comment on this:  you mentioned not long ago you did not use the volumetric-based clouds in P3D.   Did HiFi do anything w/ P3D's version of that?

Edited May 16, 20233 yr by Noel

5 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

They might even be able to create cirrus clouds. 😉

👍I am hopeful that opening it up will also lead to better textures at all levels. Like I believe you mentioned earlier, I previously relied on HiFi for accurate weather depiction. At the same time I relied on REX for cloud textures and themes.  Much of the time the bad weather MSFS clouds look more to me like the blown-in attic insulation in this image than any form of reasonable clouds.  ATIS/AWOS also needs to have the dew points fixed, or even dropped from the broadcasts.  Totally embarassing to have some dew points higher than the temps.  And MSFS DPs seem to always be either 10° or 12°.

 

Edited May 16, 20233 yr by fppilot

17 minutes ago, Noel said:

Perhaps Ray can comment on this:  you mentioned not long ago you did not use the volumetric-based clouds in P3D.   Did HiFi do anything w/ P3D's version of that?

Can’t recall as having them enabled was too much for my 1080Ti. I’ve stuck with the non-EA option and VC=off which gives me the best performance and looks.

5 hours ago, Tom_L said:

Although having gained sufficient accuracy (over the course of 18 months since SU7) in terms of where clouds and weather phenomena in general (rain, snow, visibilty) are simulated, Live Weather often lacks a plausible and convincing depiction, as cloud rendering is cumulus centric and neglects atmospheric conditions.
As an example, multilayered stratiform cloudscapes associated with warm fronts are inaccurately rendered with high reaching convective clouds in the sim. High overcast layers seem to be missing, higher level clouds generally seem to be generic.
Cirrus clouds are missing entirely, although attempts with thin layers of convective clouds are honorable. Reduced visibilty is simulated primarily when associated with precipitation, aerosol density doesn't seem to be implemented.

Thank you for being a voice of the short-comings of the weather engine! 

Whenever I complain here, I get shot down with 'oh they can't make it perfect for the few people with the weather pet-peeve'.

Yes, weather depiction is much better than all previous flight simulators, but still far from real world and as you said: cumulus centric. There are 16 cloud types defined in the real world, at least 13 are missing in MSFS. 

They promised to make a sim for simmers, so far, in the weather department, it is very much 'gamefied', simplified and in a sense very basic.

Opening up for 3rd parties can only help to improve things as flight sim history has shown many times. 

Edited May 16, 20233 yr by Silicus

3 hours ago, virtualstuff said:

I agree after two decades of AS I hope we won't return to that part of simulation.

...  Popular opinion these days, and probably why we don't have API access yet.  The campaign against weather add-ons (or I guess just HiFi?) is significant.  Glad to see that other opinions are being considered though, more API access will benefit everyone.

Edited May 16, 20233 yr by Damian Clark

There is no downside to opening up the weather api.  If a better mousetrap comes along, then we the consumer wins.  I have no doubt MS will continue to work on and refine what they’ve created, but as Jorg himself stated, there’s only so much they can do.  This is how we ended up with Working Title.

As discussed a few months ago without improving on voxel density or cloud resolution depiction of the various types of cloud morphology is difficult to impossible.  Currently what we have in MSFS IMO is about as good as it's going to get w/o improving resolution--it's like trying to make sharp-edged, distinct shapes w/ cotton.  I think there is room now, hardware-wise, to address this, but I wonder how much any 3rd party can address this element.  Maybe Damian can speak to that.