Ability to change Meteorological Visibility / RVR

The current weather system does not allow a visibility below approximately 3000 m (aerosol density 100%) and no low visibility take-offs and or landings are therefore possible. It is possible to put the cloud ceiling on ground level, but precise control of visibility / RVR is unavailable currently.

Also “aerosol” sounds fancy but its not very practical it would be better to change it to visibility / RVR with absolute values in meters / km or miles rather than %.

The custom weather setting possiblities are highly flexible, almost every parameter for any weather conditions can be set. The visible results are stunning, simply unique.

I’m using these custom weather setups to perform ILS approaches in IFR weather conditions.

ILS landing procedures are classified by 5 categories of precision approaches.
CAT I, CAT II and CAT III A, B and C
Each category is defined according to the applicable decision altitude (DH) and the runway visual range (RVR). For non precision approaches ground visibility is given, e.g. in METAR reports.

Unfortunately none of both, RVR and / or visibility, can be choosen as preset in the custom weather setup. MSFS could be an ideal – semiprofessional – tool for PC IFR traing if one could easily setup different weather conditions which represent the 5 categories of (CAT X) precision approaches.

The biggest problem is that you can’t set the visibility below the cloud layer. So you can adjust the cloud base, but the vis is always greater than CAT I…

Yes, pre-setting any of the CAT X conditions is not possible within the MSFS weather system as it is given now. As soon as you are below any cloud layer you’ll have unlimited vis. What is missing is a “FOG” preset with visibilty setting, which limits the RVR and especially ground visibilty.
As always, even if something is great, people are griping at high level.

You CAN set precipitation and that will reduce your vis to the required levels. So as long as it’s raining you can have the required conditions…

Again, yes, you surely can deteriorate the vis by rain on ground level. But how then is vis maesured exactly by the airport weather station and reported to METAR for ILS approaches? METAR reports RVR as e.g. R24L/P1500 or R24L/M0050 and vis e.g. 0400 or 8000 or 0000.
I know that might be difficult to implement this kind of METAR data in the s/w but as I’m spoiled by the fantastic features which MSFS offers, I started my request here.
As I’m using the sim as a (non official) IFR training tool (real pilot) I’d like to get a step further to what the sim offers right now. “The better is the enemy of the good”
And, yes, I know that my request is by far not as important as many other requests for getting a stable and crash free system. Maybe MSFS 2022 will get FOG and METAR data presets.

1 Like

We need simply give yourself question, when visibility can be low :slight_smile: then check what option you have available at weather panel.

Any votes for a Pro Edition? I would be happy to pay for a version that would ( spittle speckled expletive chain withheld ) give me RVR or visibility adjustments befitting something claiming to be a sim. Obviously there are other glaring omissions or incompletes in other areas of IFR functionality that this could address. Not to mention Force Feedback and or motion platform stuff for the real go getters.
Thoughts?

Maybe just include those features in the default versions? Why create a new tier?

6 Likes

Because it has not happened yet despite custom visibility and RVR being a feature we were told to expect pre-release for example.

Further splitting up features into new tiers, effectively pay-walling them, probably won’t make them come any faster.

6 Likes

You wanna pay more for extra features that also will not work and be full of bugs? I look at the roadmap and see things I thought I already paid for that maybe will be delivered in SU6! Hope I live to see em.

1 Like

A point well made. But right now? Yes, I would pay another 60 bucks for a product more in keeping with aviation simulation.
There are folks here that have dropped over 4 or 5 grand into MSFS custom PC rigs…
What’s another 60 bucks if it improves things?
If I see things like: boat wakes, trains, tornadoes or why can’t I fly under bridges requests totally outvote other more pertinent requests then things we all expected will never be fixed.
Of course it’s objectionable to have to pay more but in the grand scheme it’s no different than paying for a study level adware aircraft.
I’m simply proposing a study level simulator that splits the gamers from the obviously much smaller ’ serious simmer ’ segment.
Being in the minority this segment would need to monetize code changes with the same priority as the larger gamer segment and it would not be unreasonable and nor would I object if this were so.
The requirement to set something as simple as: specific RVR or low visibility for the purposes of IFR procedural training or practice has been beaten to death since day one yet I think the total votes are under 400???
So if it, and things like, it won’t even make it into the roadmap via the existing vote system maybe a little cash just might.
Otherwise it’s prepare3D or X plane for the serious or instrument crowd which would be a real shame given the potential of this software.
Just my 2c.

I’m not sure why so many people expected MSFS to be feature-complete six months after release. Remember that FS2004, FSX, and X-Plane all lacked important features when they were released, and they’ve all ended up being very mature sims with continued development. It would be awesome if we could get all the big features and fixes people want in the next two months, but that’s just not possible with something as complex as a flight sim. If you want to enjoy the advancements MSFS has thus far made over the last generation of flight sims you can fly happily now. If you want to fly a mature sim, you’ll need to look elsewhere for, realistically, at least another year or two.

Good things come to those who wait.

Also a good point if somewhat inaccurate. All
Aviation is literally limited by visibility, be it IFR or VFR. As a consequence, every sim prior to this one had the ability to adjust visibility values right out of the box for the purposes of simulation.
It’s omission here is frankly incredible…
For all the excellence and potential I do see in the software I am quite happy to wait and have done, for a Year.
I would actually like to use the sim as an IFR procedural/recurrent training tool, both as a hobbyist and professional.
As mentioned, that places me in a minority, which is fine but I would like some simple ’ is this a sim ? ’ stuff addressed.
This has not happened in a Year, is not happening now and I do not foresee happening in the future. The software continues to …‘adjust’. ( my way of saying: degrade with complexity or bloat ) and the addition of XBox users to the group will further bury those item requests that actually make this a simulator.
It is spectacular, I appreciate that others enjoy it and my purpose here is to get some feedback on how many others would want some greater depth, specifically IFR, and how to go about doing so.

While I agree that being able to set precise viz and ceiling is essential for this sim I don’t know why you can’t do IFR training with this limitation.

IRL you can e.g. train CAT I approaches in CAVOK weather as well an nobody forces you to ‘cheat’ by looking out of the window above the minimum.
Just remain on instruments until minimum. Also a good idea IRL to avoid the infamous duck under.

1 Like

I was thinking more of in the ’ Instructor ’ capacity.
Networked computers Instructor station etc with accurate ATIS and winds as directed from the station.

Not having the ability to set visibility makes MSFS extremely weak as an IFR training tool. It’s currently impossible to truly simulate an approach down to minimums since there’s no way to set runway visual range as you can on FSX, P3D, or X-Plane. I’m no coder - But simply put, this would be a very simple yet significant change that would give MSFS much greater ability as an IFR simulator.

1 Like

Clouds are way too transparent. If you fly through dense cumulus clouds when sitting near the wing in a large airliner, try to see the wingtip. Not possible. The visibility inside real cumulus (and some other) clouds is very, very low.

This is important for IMC training. It should be possible to set an overcast cloud layer and become visible just at the minima. However, currently you can see the ground already 2000 ft (!) above the cloud base. This is unacceptable bad modeling of clouds. They might look pretty from the outside but for practical purposes, they are not realistic at all.

1 Like

I can agree the clouds need alot of work. Also when flying through clouds it’s way to bright it wasn’t like that before SU5.