Simviation Forums

All I got to say is BULL$#%T!!
I've been using FSX Real-world weather (updates) and have never been dissappointed. I've stationed my self in Cape Hatteras, NC. This was what the weather was at around 13:00 local just as Irene was hitting the North Carolina coast:



The view on the tarmac:



At 50,000' you can see the rotation in the clouds:



The original radarshot:



Notice the rotation in the FSX weather map:



And for the finale, a shot from outerspace:



I know it's the Beech58 just make believe it's the space shuttle (I just might have to download one now) [smiley=laugh.gif]
Sure, it ain't perfect, but jeez, for a simulation it works for me. Anyway, I'm overall pretty satisfied with FSX. "Yeah", It took a bit to get it running, but just like any other hobby, you get out of it what you put into it. So happy flight simming everyone, now I'm going to dry out my flight gear [smiley=vrolijk_1.gif], oh! and have a beer or two or 3 oh well ,Looks like were grounded for the rest of the day [smiley=beer.gif]

Still trying to figure out if you like or dont like the weather? Cause you say its never dissapointed you..? :-?

Still trying to figure out if you like or dont like the weather? Cause you say its never dissapointed you..? :-?

Yeah I'm confused as well. The title is "FSX default weather engine SUCKS!!"

I'm really confused :-/


[center]Ren

I think some clarification is needed :-?

Zaphod.

Maybe FSX should also brought a huge fan a watter pump (A Hydro jet) and debris thrower?

Confusing subject line is confusing. Are you unsatisfied of FSX's weather engine or is it yours a roundabout way to say "shut up" to those who complain about it? :-?

FS, as a rule, has a weather engine that is accurate, on a great scale. It's the micro-management that SUCKS all right. Try and fly on a mountain range on your C172 in FS(allnumbers), you'll find it no more no less as challenging as flying on a flat land, and whoever may have even a remote awareness of how those things work knows how WRONG that is. You actually need outside add-ons to give you ridge turbulence simulations, or even the simulation of microbursts and windshears.

Some other simulators are more advanced under this point of view; X-plane, for an example gives mountain ridge turbulence (experienced them myself), and some say the other two phenomena as well (never happened to me to date) and by default... was it so hard to M$ to implement this to make their empty boast "as real as it gets" a little more meaningful, seen others managed them, even under FS, with external add-ons?

Then again... FS has always been a GAME for M$, nothing more, especially hearing about further developments...

He's saying the default weather sux, that's why he uses, and enjoys, real-world weather. 

The weather engine itself is not what sucks or is faulty, it is the default cloud textures.  go try Real Environment Pro, Extreme, or Extreme+Overdrive... or heck even ActiveSky... or even HDEClouds (freeware).   THEN come back with some pictures of your clouds.

I have tried to no ends to get FS to show a hurricane, but it never would for me. +1 to you. congrats.  but as for the Textures themselves, go get at least HDE Clouds, and see what it looks like.  you will NEVER go back to Default Cloud Textures.

[quote]He's saying the default weather sux, that's why he uses, and enjoys, real-world weather.

in these last 2 shots, your clouds in the 1st one look VERY bland and 2d to my eye, but in the latter, the storm that is about to throw you around the skies looks very good, and menacing.  love the detail in the 2nd shot A LOT more than the 1st shot.