I think a lot of these cloud appearnce issues (including the disappearance of high, thin overcast layers) has to do with the density setting that was introduced I guess in SU7. There is a bug with the density sliders in custom weather where the top layer’s slider has no affect but the bottom layers slider controls both bottom and top layer. I wonder if the intended density for top and bottom layers wasn’t either inverted – meaning the top layers layers density is being applied to the bottom and the bottom to the top; or maybe both layers intended densities are being applied only to the bottom layer…which might explain why the low altitude cumulus are so dark and heavy all the time.
heres a couple shots of how things used to look with live weather:
I tried to fly from Aberdeen Scotland less than an hour ago, the METAR bubble was a disaster, with very dark and humongous cumulonimbus surrounding the airport. The whole cloud depiction was far from any reality for that area today and even in summer time. The clouds not only papered appeared artificial, with repeated patterns, but only the shape of those CB… not to mention that after leaving the METAR area, the airport was visibly isolated weather wise with a “stadium” of clouds around it as opposed to the more natural looking weather away from it.
I agree, they were there since the begining but not has often as they are now. Where you have a storm it may make sense to have this type of clouds, but since SU7 I am seeing them almost everywhere, it does not make sense.
It does mention that they “have” this, not “will have”. Perhaps its possible, but they are disabled for some reason? I’m reminded of the ability to enable a hurricane or thunderstorm at a given location by manually editing a weather file, but you cannot do it in the GUI.
This is a container element that is used to hold other elements that define a zone of thunderstorms within the weather preset. It has no attributes and has the following sub-elements: <Cell>, <SuperCell>.
This defines the main “cell” of a thunderstorm, which is the position and area that the storm should cover. It has no attributes, and requires the following sub-elements to set the position and radius of the storm cell: <Latitude>, <Longitude>, and <Radius>.
This defines a super-cell within the main thunderstorm cell, essentially the center of the storm where the storm will be at it’s fiercest. It has no attributes, and requires the following sub-elements to set the position and radius of the storm super cell: <Latitude>, <Longitude>, and <Radius>.
This element can be used to place a hurricane event within the world. The element has no attributes, and requires the following sub-elements to define the position and size of the event: <Latitude>, <Longitude>, and <Radius>.
Pictures would be nice. There’s nothing devs can do without evidence. Your weather is your weather alone at any given moment based on a variety of factors. So taking pictures would really help them understand what you’re saying.
you seem to be missing the point that what most of us want (if I read it correctly) is what the sim WAS ONCE ABLE to do. as far as overcast depiction and layers and such. now its mostly dark heavy ugly cumulus.
Fog is just a name for a weather phenomenon. It depends if you search for a definition in “classic” meteorology, aviation etc.
But usually the definition is that fog is when the visibility drops below 1000 meters. If it’s above 1000, it’s called mist.
If the humidity is low (in Czechia we have a set value of <70 %) and visibility below 10 km, it’s called haze. If it’s below 1000 meters, it’s called heavy/strong haze.
So fog is just a name for a meteorology phenomenon. It happens when ambient temperature reaches dew point temperature and you reach near 100 % saturation.
It’s basically a low level cloud - be it stratus (at an airport near sea level for example, or stratocumulus/cumulus/whatever if you’re at a mountain and in the cloud itself). Then it depends on how thick and dense the cloud is, which in turn “controls” the visibility.
I also believe that it’d be enough to create a fog around and at the airport and let it behave more naturally. They are very elusive as it is.
Well, in this case, then we’d need sensors that report where fog exists over the surface of the whole planet. METARS do this, but, there is no way to generally detect where fog is other than at airports. So, when the sim gets better at creating mist based on atmospheric conditions (which, in the general sense is what a cloud and all such phenomena are), we’re going to be stuck with this issue. They are working on it, and have discussed their plans. Don’t expect it to be addressed until next year. It’s not an easy problem to solve. We’re talking “Live” weather here.
Based on what Seb said, I think the way they are thinking right now is they have decided to create mist based on atmospheric conditions rather than developing some kind of algorithm that everyone will complain about how wrong it works.
I’m getting a little confused by the thread as we seem to be mixing weather presets with “Live” weather now.
Really, Seb went into quite a bit of detail on this whole subject recently, and discussed the timeline to the best of his ability.
Personally, and I’ve been using the sim since pretty much day one, and I’m a low altitude GA flyer, I have not seen the cloud situation get either better or worse. Lightning got worse, and now it’s gone and I’m happy with that. I can see perhaps airline drivers have possibly seen a change? I don’t know. Yes, there are some things I saw get worse, something about flying in the clouds and visibility of the plane or something like that. But, I don’t fly in clouds often enough to remember.
But, really, the whole point of everything I’ve been saying is, go listen to Seb. He’s said what they’re going to do and what they think the issues are.
This would be the best but we still going to have forecasted atmospheric conditions. Thought that was what we had at release already and going to improve since release. Instead they added really limited atmospheric data from METAR.
I don’t think it’s a bug. It was meant to work like this after su7. To me it was the wrong approach.
The idea of the METAR is to merge an accurate representation of the weather locally at airports with the forecast data from MeteoBlue (Seb describes how this works in some detail). They recently added better smoothing of METAR data with the forecast data that’s supposed to make the transition smoother. They know there is more work to do. Specific examples from people who can send data would really help them improve this system.
But, yes, for the foreseeable future, the main weather will always be forecast data, which, in my experience, can be really close to reality. Even METAR data can be an hour old, and, depending on where, even older.
And we need to see the real weather with our own eyes to decide if it matches those METAR. Even if we see the weather with our own eyes it’s not sure everybody would report the same weather condition. I think many of the users of this sim doesn’t see how the weather looks like IRL anyway. Thats why i preffer a 100% believable behaving weather than 100% match to METAR.
They could add a feature that we as users creates our own METAR reoprts from the weather we as users see in the sim.
Some could use this sim as training tool to observe weather.
Then we get accurate weather reports from the weather happening in the sim instead of from weather occuring IRL.
And also include simulation of AUTO generated METARS if user made reports not exists.
As Weather stations work IRL.
Not create weather with METAR only use them in the sim as they are meant to be working as a tool to plan our takeoffs and landings.
Yeah, that’s not happening, “Live” weather is not real. It’s based on forecast, and METAR’s tend to be updated every hour. The MeteoBlue data is created, sent to Microsoft, who then has to massage it to make it usable by MSFS, and then it has to be uploaded. All that takes time, on the order of hours.
Getting real world real weather updated up to the minute is not possible.
The point of the simulator is to give you realistic weather that’s close to the current weather, not to duplicate it.
Agree. But the thing i don’t like now is the use of many different sources of weather. At release we only had one source and that is much more believable than the current system that needs to switch between all of those different sources. I knew before release forecasts will not match reality 100% because they are forecasts. I didn’t complain either. As the terrain res they said those will improve when data is available. Same they would needed to tell us about the weather. At release they had 30km global res for weather in the future they may have 20km global res and that is improvement over the released 30km. 20km would be more accurate than 30km but it will not be 100% either.