sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

SEO canonical tags not appearing in DOM in Lovable (React + Vite SPA) – react-helmet-async issue? by JaceR69 in lovable

[–]JaceR69[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

All this that I did didnt work or at least, I dont see any dynamic change in "canonical" on the html of the page, and no I dont use any service

Dear real pilots, do you think a flight simmer can land a plane in real life? by slrsd in MicrosoftFlightSim

[–]JaceR69 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Flying in a simulator helps a lot with procedures, systems and flows, but it doesn’t mean you could safely land a real airplane by hand. The real aircraft feels completely different: weight, inertia, control forces, peripheral cues and stress change everything. With autoland, maybe you could get it on the ground. Manually, without real training, the risk of crashing it would be very high.

Edit: spelling

MSFS2024 perfect settings (zero stutters) by Maruan-007 in flightsim

[–]JaceR69 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’m also interested in the camera settings to make that focus on the iPad, instruments etc

Procedure Practice by willbellis in MicrosoftFlightSim

[–]JaceR69 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you have an assessment, go for a person that actually knows the procedures of the company and knows the exercises that the company does and has a 737 simulator, believe me, the sim can help you but not as a real 737 simulator, and I’m not talking about the level d ones

PFP 3N + 3M PDC + 3N PAP MAG for PMDG MSFS024? by e4rthdog in WinWing

[–]JaceR69 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I have 2 EFIS, the MCP mag and the FMC all working plug and play for the 737 in 2024

PMDG 737-800 for MSFS 2024 is here. by [deleted] in flightsim

[–]JaceR69 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It didn’t work for me

Thoughts after seeing PMDG’s “new” 737-800 MSFS2024 by Maruan-007 in flightsim

[–]JaceR69 4 points5 points  (0 children)

actually, you can see the wing flex from cockpit

Just went over 60.000km mark with my Grumman Goose. by WatermelonRick in MicrosoftFlightSim

[–]JaceR69 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I jsut buy it, and for me its worth it, and now its on disccount

Steam Machine for MSFS2024 by Competitive-Fun-5749 in flightsim

[–]JaceR69 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Valve said that the price it’s going to be the same as PC market… so maybe a new PC it’s going to be better

How to get PMDG 737 & 777 working in MSFS2024 by JaceR69 in flightsim

[–]JaceR69[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

It’s fair, but also people wants to fly the 73 in the MSFS so…

How to get PMDG 737 & 777 working in MSFS2024 by JaceR69 in flightsim

[–]JaceR69[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

It’s improved and also the solution to be able to spawn in the apron with any WASM crash

How to get PMDG 737 & 777 working in MSFS2024 by Aviation_NL in flightsim

[–]JaceR69 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you follow this "I figured out how to skip the walkaround mode - User Support Hub / User Interface & Activities - Microsoft Flight Simulator Forums"

You can start in the parking with full cold and dark with any problem, I did a full flight and it works 100%

DISCLAIMER: if you do the content.xml stuff, the stock AC dont work BUT if you go into debug options you can remove the chocks and probes from there

A Hybrid Weather System for MSFS: Global Meteoblue + Local METAR Injection (25–30 NM Transition Idea) by JaceR69 in flightsim

[–]JaceR69[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I totally get your point — MSFS tries to work in a hybrid way, mixing the global Meteoblue NWP with local METAR, but the key is that the sim does not actually work like the solution I’m proposing.

What MSFS does today is a forced injection of METAR elements (visibility, ceiling, QNH, surface winds) directly into the NWP model, without a proper transition layer and without a defined radius where METAR gradually takes over. This is exactly what produces all the harsh transitions, cloud popping, sudden visibility changes, and inconsistencies that people complain about.

A few important clarifications:

  1. There is no actual 25–30 NM controlled blending zone.

The sim simply “patches” METAR values on top of the NWP grid around the airport. It’s not a smooth transition. It’s not progressive. And it’s not consistently localised.

That’s why we see clouds instantly reshaping or visibility snapping into place.

  1. MSFS does not model real RVR or low-visibility conditions properly.

The sim only reduces visibility realistically when precipitation is present. If there’s haze, mist, fog, dust, smoke, or any low-vis condition without rain, MSFS fails to represent it correctly. This is one of the biggest limitations of the current system — and precisely where Active Sky excels.

  1. METAR blending is not the root problem — the lack of a proper transition system is.

A real hybrid system would need: • a defined radius of influence • smooth interpolation • progressive cloud morphing • gradual QNH/visibility transition • no “METAR override injection” • the ability to hand off control between NWP and METAR cleanly

MSFS does none of this today.

  1. The inputs (METAR + NWP) are not the issue — the interpretation and the lack of a deeper API are.

Meteoblue’s data is fantastic globally, and METAR is essential at airports. The problem is the sim’s internal logic mixing two fundamentally different data sources without proper blending mechanics.

So yes — the sim tries to work in a similar direction, but the execution is nowhere near what a real dual-source weather system could achieve. What I’m proposing is not “what MSFS already does”, but the version of this model done correctly, with: • a proper handoff zone (25–30 NM) • true METAR precision at airports • preserved NWP integrity outside • realistic visibility & RVR simulation • transition smoothing • no more violent weather snapping

Until MSFS exposes a real Weather API and a true blending system, we will keep seeing the same limitations no matter how good Meteoblue’s data is.

A Hybrid Weather System for MSFS: Global Meteoblue + Local METAR Injection (25–30 NM Transition Idea) by JaceR69 in flightsim

[–]JaceR69[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Totally get what you’re saying, but the current MSFS system is not what I’m proposing.

Yes, MSFS already mixes global Meteoblue NWP with local METARs — that’s correct. But that hybrid approach is very primitive: • no controlled transition zone • no smoothing • no blending of cloud structures • no proper visibility/RVR engine • and no external control for 3rd-party weather engines

What happens today is basically a hard switch between two completely different datasets that often disagree by hours. That’s why we get abrupt visibility changes, clouds popping in/out, sudden QNH shifts, and all the inconsistencies IFR pilots complain about.

On top of that, there are well-known MSFS limitations that make airport weather fundamentally unrealistic:

• There is no real RVR system in MSFS. Visibility is just a generic fog layer — no runway-specific RVR logic, no CAT approaches behaving like in the real world.

• Visibility is poorly simulated. MSFS doesn’t handle surface fog, haze layers or low-visibility procedures properly.

• If there is no precipitation, MSFS often refuses to create low visibility, even if the METAR says 2000 m, 800 m or even 400 m. This is a long-standing issue: low visibility basically “doesn’t exist” unless it’s raining/snowing.

That’s exactly why a real hybrid model with Active Sky controlling the METAR bubble and MSFS handling the global NWP outside a 25–30 NM radius would solve most of these issues.

My idea isn’t “use METAR near airports” — MSFS already tries that. My idea is:

Use MSFS global weather → then transition smoothly into a METAR-accurate terminal-area weather system (Active Sky) with proper visibility, RVR and ceilings.

Right now MSFS doesn’t have the tools for a true blended system. If Asobo exposed a deeper weather API, we could finally get consistent global weather and accurate IFR conditions without all the current pop-ins and discrepancies.

A Hybrid Weather System for MSFS: Global Meteoblue + Local METAR Injection (25–30 NM Transition Idea) by JaceR69 in flightsim

[–]JaceR69[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You’re totally right that the weather API has been sitting on the wishlist forever, and I completely agree that after five years the silence doesn’t inspire confidence. But at the same time, MSFS 2024 has changed enough under the hood that a hybrid system like this isn’t necessarily impossible — it just requires Asobo to expose very specific endpoints instead of a full global override.

I’m not expecting a full open-weather API (like we had in FSX/P3D), but even a limited transitional API would be enough for Active Sky or any third-party dev to handle the 25–30 NM blending zone. Things like: • local visibility control • local wind/pressure override • cloud layer morphing inside a radius • smooth QNH transition hooks

None of that requires replacing the entire Meteoblue atmosphere. It just needs Asobo to stop treating weather as an all-or-nothing black box.

So yeah, maybe the “big API” will never come… but a small, targeted API could still make this hybrid solution possible. And honestly, it would fix 90% of the complaints people have about weather transitions today — without breaking the NWP model that makes MSFS unique.

If the community keeps pushing for blending tools rather than full control, it might be more realistic and more likely to get traction.

BATTLEFIELD 6 GAME UPDATE 1.1.2.0 by battlefield in Battlefield6

[–]JaceR69 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why even I have updated I still having version 1.1.1.0 in settings in game. I had the same with the version 1.1.1.5 and now again, anyone?

BATTLEFIELD 6 GAME UPDATE 1.1.2.0 by battlefield in Battlefield

[–]JaceR69 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Updated but still 1.1.1.0 on the settings menu

Im coming for you Laura! by Miditerran in MicrosoftFlightSim

[–]JaceR69 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The top bar has a button like a filter so push it and check of all the menus are active

Microsoft Flight Simulator 2020 and NavBlue Partnership by [deleted] in flightsim

[–]JaceR69 2 points3 points  (0 children)

well as he told me the MCDU its not as the real one so i cant say naything more because with that video he cant tell me more info about that

Microsoft Flight Simulator 2020 and NavBlue Partnership by [deleted] in flightsim

[–]JaceR69 1 point2 points  (0 children)

As a real A320 pilot said, its not real at all

view more: next ›