But I actively want none of this to happen. I want to create a weather scenario where I never am not in clouds and low vis, until I break out at the minimums I specify. I don’t want variability in this scenario.
There’s no reason fog can’t be both volumetric and 100% coverage, right?
Not at all. It’s entirely dependent on WHAT the training goal is. There are times when, yes, the goal is to simulate a flight in its entirety, with all the pop-up threats and variability of a dynamic environment. MSFS is good at this.
But there are many times when the training goal is to accomplish a specific task to specific parameters. As an example, at work on maneuvers val day of recurrent sim training in the level D boxes, we will fly three cat III approaches. One will be an autoland in the minimum 400ft RVR. One will be a handflown Aiii approach using the HUD, to exactly a 50ft DA in 600ft RVR. One will be a missed because the weather is below mins.
There will never be any variability in this. These are the scenarios the FAA has approved, because they expect pilots to demonstrate their ability to fly these approaches all the way to legal mins.
Whether I’m wanting to use the sim to maintain proficiency at a 6 pack scan since I don’t often fly non-airline IFR, or I want to use the PMDG 73 to maintain my Aiii HUD scan… I want to fly these approaches exactly to mins. Breaking out early, or flying in and out of a fog bank just so I can see it come and go… these things break the training goal of flying a particular approach full IMC to mins.
This is really a simple standard in the entire simulator industry, and an area that needs a large amount of improvement in MSFS. That would not be a step backwards. 