X-Plane 10.50 Weather vs. Joan's NOAA Plug-in

[puffy]

Between the Skymaxx developers and the beta testers here I wonder if my question would be answered.  My question is, how does the weather system in X-Plane 10.50 compare to that of the NOAA plug-in by Joan?  I have read that XP 10.50 was to have an improved weather system and that it seems to incorporate what the NOAA plug-in has provided.

Would it be recommended to not use the NOAA plug-in with XP 10.50? 

(As full disclosure I cannot make the comparison myself at this time as my CPU, or possibly the PSU, has failed in the computer that I use for X-Plane.  I am curious about the weather system differences nonetheless.)

Thank you.

[Cameron]

Joan created the code for the new X-Plane 10.5 features. It would be rather redundant and pointless to also have NOAA installed.

[Jose Almeida]

I believe that NOAA plugin gets hi altitude clouds from GFS, while x-plane 10.50 gets both low and high altitude clouds from metars. NOAA plugin gets ground level winds from metar, if there is one close by, otherwise it uses winds from GFS; I'm not sure how the transition is done in x-plane. Using NOAA plugin the weather is set to uniform and gradually changed as the flight progresses but one can't see distant cloud formations, as opposed to x-plane. I guess thsi summarizes it.

José

[Nkmsw8]

4 hours ago, Jose Almeida said:

"Using NOAA plugin the weather is set to uniform and gradually changed as the flight progresses"

This is the main important difference for me right now with X-plane's weather system. It desperately needs this feature built in.

Edited September 7, 2016 by Nkmsw8

[puffy]

@Jose Almeida Are you saying that the new weather system in XP 10.50 although written by Joan is not handled the same way that his plugin works?

[Jose Almeida]

Joan said in another forum that what he did for Laminar was porting his download code to C++; all the rest is Austin's, AFAIK.

José