Haze thicker than METAR value

[PablodNinja]

SU7 Steam build
Are you using Developer Mode or made changes in it?
no

Brief description of the issue:
At an airport reporting visibility 8sm, actual depicted weather in sim was about 3 miles visibility based on known distance to obects in the area (Tested an an airport I have real world experience with).

This means that what should be good VFR weather is actually appearing as MVFR.

My graphics settings are mostly ‘high’, including volumetric clouds .

Build Version # when you first started experiencing this issue:
SU7

[Senchay6131]

Im still figuring this out too. Did you try to wait a bit? There seems to be a bug for some others and myself too, where the fog layer is changing suddenly.

You can see it here, this is the (nearly same) spot, maybe 2 nm difference. And it went from one second to the next one from what you see on 1 pic to what you see on the other.

If i fly around a while (~ 5 to 10 mins) it eventually gets back to the lesser amount, what seems to fit the metar better.

unknown.png (2560×1440) (little fog)

unknown.png (2560×1440) (lots of fog)

[PablodNinja]

I wonder if you’re passing in and out of the radius of a specific airport METAR, so when you move into its area its fogging up, and when you move away it clears?

If so, this would be a good illustration of why METAR shouldn’t be used as a primary source for weather as they are only representative of a single observation at a specific location.

[Senchay6131]

I mean, it can be that i was right at a border to another weather. But the 2 pics are really made right after each other. It wasnt more than 2 nm. But sure, it can be.

Seems noone yet knows whats really going on. I just hope this isnt what were supposed to end up with.

[SkipTalbot]

Both problems appear to be present: the haze is overdone relative to what’s reported, and there are harsh transitions between reporting areas.

One thing I’ve noticed is the inbound radius for the transition is different than the outbound one. Meaning that you can see the transition much later into your approach to an airport, but it doesn’t switch back early when you depart. It persists further out from the airport on your departure. It’s probably a set radius like 4 or 5 miles, and then it keeps that until you’re 4 or 5 miles from the next METAR.

[irfanahmed1979]

Yes it did seem abnormally hazy today. Had trouble doing a circuit pattern and spotting the runway that I just took off from.

[StatesideSiren4]

Remember that a METAR reports ground visibility.

[SkipTalbot]

It’s my understanding that I should be able to clearly see an object that is as distant as the reported visibility.

KMDW with the visibility defaulting to 10sm, Willis Tower is 9.5sm distant:

KONT with visibility reported at 0.25sm. The KONT tower is 0.25sm distant:

It seems like they’ve set this so that pretty much all visibility is gone at the reported distance, and that’s excessive. Expected VFR flights based on METAR reports can become IFR as a result. For example, an approach into KONT the other day with METAR reporting 8sm, and I couldn’t make out the runway at 2sm, which is below the legal minimums for VFR flight at that location.

[Senchay6131]

Man… if all works it can look unbelievable nearly. THis shot i just made in Miami, realweather (but no real time obviously).

Looks nearly frightening good imo. From a fog/lighting view.

[wcoesel]

exactly…thats the problem with metars…

[wcoesel]

maybe it looks good yes, but is it realistic, are the cloudbases not too low???

[Senchay6131]

@Senchay6131

From a fog/lighting view

“From a fog/lighting view” i said ^^

[CaptainRude91]

Also relevant here, I don’t think we are talking about haze, rather mist:

Hot Fix to get rid of haze

I’m not even talking about the transition, when I’m at an airport and look at the real world METAR I would expect: The ATIS to exactly match that METAR. Clouds not to be on the ground. Visibility to more or less match. Correct QNH, temperature and dewpoint. No mist or haze if the real world visibility is great. I want to clear up one thing though, I don’t believe we are talking about haze in this thread, you can rarely see haze from ground level, usually it can be seen obscuring the horizon w…

[AndyXPO]

When we were told we were getting “haze” I assumed and hoped it would be this kind of effect, where it gets hazy in the distance:

Instead we have been given blankets of fog!

[CaptainRude91]

Here a comparison I did today:

@anon50268670

Real world METAR:

EETN 211020Z 34005KT 310V010 9999 OVC020 03/M02 Q0996 NOSIG

• The wind is exactly as in the METAR, good you would think, problem is that there is 10 degrees magnetic variation here and the METAR wind direction is TRUE, not MAGnetic.
• Visibility nothing to comment on, no haze, mist, fog this time.
• Not overcast, not a 2000 ft (above ground) either, rather at 1000 ft MSL.
• Temperature at ground level is correct.
• QNH (converted from hPa to inHg) is correct.

Moments later, updated METAR:

EETN 211050Z 35007KT 330V030 8000 -SHRASN SCT017CB BKN026 02/M01 Q0997 NOSIG

• The wind again exactly matches the METAR, magnetic variation not taken into account.
• As can be seen in the screenshot the visibility as far less than the reported 8000 m.
• -SHRASN is present in the sim.
• The first cloud base is around 1600 ft which is 1500 ft above ground, there is not second BKN layer at 2600 ft above ground.
• Temperature and QNH are correct.

At 2600 ft above ground, right where the broken layer is supposed to start there is nothing. Instead its where the clouds tops are. I saw some “CBs” which top a little higher but not more than a few thousand feet. I think everybody can agree, this is not what SCT017CB and BKN026 looks like:

The ATIS meanwhile:

Wind 341 / 12, visibility 5, broken at 1300 ft, temperature 2, dewpoint 10, QNH 29.44.

• Wind direction is correct and takes into account magnetic variation of 9E! Unfortunately the actual wind in the sim does not. Although it should be rounded to the nearest 10 degrees.
• Wind speed is wrong, no idea where 12 kts comes from.
• Visibility 5, 5 what? I assume statute miles which would correspond to 8 km.
• Broken altitude 1300 ft does not match the METAR, nor the weather in the sim.
• Temperature and QNH correct.
• Dewpoint cannot be higher than the temperature.

I really don’t understand the ATIS issue, it could literally just read the real world METAR to you when in live weather with one little change being magnetic variation applied to wind direction. Otherwise the METAR and ATIS are usually refreshed at the exact same time and contain the same info. I wouldn’t even matter that the ATIS doesn’t exactly match the weather in the sim 100%, neither do the real world METAR and ATIS match actual weather conditions in the real world.

Next I just selected a random airport up North somewhere (Resolute Bay - CYRB) which should have a magnetic variation of 25W, yet the wind exactly mimics the METAR. So I’m afraid Asobo is directly copying the wind from the METAR without taking magnetic variation into account.

Manual weather menu uses km/h instead of kts, why? First of all I have hybrid system selected, and when using metric system m/s would be used, not km/h… When using manual weather the ATIS is broken? It keeps reporting the live weather…

Maybe we can do a couple more comparisons like this to find out where it is going wrong.

[M0rphobius]

I also hoped for a legit and variable visibility system, but the newly added haze is just lower altitude pools of humidity/air masses, AKA inversion layers.

The sim right now hasn’t got a proper visibility effect to simulate for example: 30 km , 60 km visibility. (Like the photo you shared) The haze layer they added with SU7, if it eventually works the right way without the serious METAR injection problems, is still going to be a specific solution to interpret inversion layers and not large scale/regional visibility layers.

One way to fix this, would be to add 3 distinct visibility layers with variable altitudes-thickness (the same way cloud layers work) and variable visibility values for each visibility layer.

For example , If you are flying during a clear winter day with a distinct inversion haze layer near the ground, the visibility parameters should look something like this :

Layer 1 : Altitude (0-400 meters), Thickness (14%) **where 100% density should be translated as thick fog, minimal visibility conditions.
Layer 2 : Altitude (400-1500 m), Thickness (1%)
Layer 3 : Altitude (1500-20000 m), Thickness (0%)

If we wanted to recreate something like the photo you uploaded (a humid yet fair summer day ), it could be translated like this :
Layer 1: Altitude (0-1500 m), Thickness 9%
Layer 2: Altitude (1500 - 4500 m ), Thickness 6%
Layer 3: Altitude (4500 - 9500 m ), Thickness 3%

Thickness percentage should also be translated as Meteoblue visibility data. They have a global map with visibility values (even as a forecast) that could be used in MSFS2020 live weather simulation at least for lower altitude visibility. The 2 upper layers could be configured by layer humidity(they also have the data) or dust/particles/aerosol in the atmosphere. Air quality in general could play a role in configuring the visibility parameters.
0 % could be unlimited visibility ~100-150 km , and all various percentages could be equated with a specific distance value, such as : 5% = 30km , 10% = 15 km , 20 % = 7,5 km etc.
Meteoblue Visibility map
Meteoblue Dust Map
They even have a Surface Inversion Map

[CaptainRude91]

@M0rphobius

I also hoped for a legit and variable visibility system, but the newly added haze is just lower altitude pools of humidity/air masses, AKA inversion layers.

Haze is not caused by moisture. By definition haze is caused by solid particles in the air obscuring visibility. If we are talking about moisture then mist is the correct term.

[M0rphobius]

Totally agree, I oversimplified it a bit there !

[IFloydrixI]

Definitely looking a bit odd here.

[KimJongUn23]

I dont think I’ve landed at an airport yet with this update that doesn’t have some sort of low clouds or fog. It’s cool looking but something’s off