That may very well be the case. (Not always loading the METAR visibility).
Ok, my mistake, that’s actually KGSO pictured above. I slewed from there over to KRDU and indeed the mist disappeared. There’s a hard transition between KGSO and KBUY, then the mist slowly fades out as you approach KRDU. And it stays gone all the way to the Atlantic. There’s something about some regions, mainly coastal ones that I’ve found, where it doesn’t load in this default 10sm haze. Every inland airport I’ve tried though, it’s consistent.
Interesting. Most of my recent tests have been out here in the east. I plan some flights out west tomorrow. I am expecting I will probably encounter the thick haze. I plan to do KSLC to KLAX in the CRJ, overflying KLAS on the way. Based on the latest forecast discussions, the whole area should be under the influence of high pressure with not much in the way of clouds.
Can we get the old weather system back please! This is a real mess! The low meteoblue clouds dissapears around every airport, or is it around the aircraft this happens? Or what is this mess? I speed up the video showing the mess.
It is smooth tansission. But they remove the clouds smoothly 
This is an airport without METAR data. OI99
3 Likes
Disgusting 
2 Likes
It’s realy sad! What have they done with the amazing weather thay had? I realy hope they can revert back.
4 Likes
This is one of the problems I have documented with some screenshots.(metar stations that are not always “online”)! thanks for the video - is much better of course.
Yes is the interpolation of the METAR OVER Meteoblue data. and apparently that goes from one - to a certain altitude - or anyway around the METAR stations the Meteoblue data is “cleared” - just wondering how they do that with clouds above 5000 ft ?
Clouds above is fine what i know. I test it with meteoblue website. I find only low clouds predicted there without medium and high level clouds. I tried MEDIUM only and they are real nice.
This is meteoblue medium height clouds and they are not dissapearing. Don’t know the exact height of them.
another one with medium clouds. They look real good to me. And the important thing they not dissapears.
2 Likes
I know this video is accelerated, but the clouds change way too fast even in the sim itself. Especially now when they grow up from the ground, a horizontal flight feels like sinking. But the issue was present even before SU7.
1 Like
Yes, I can upload the same in no accelaration too to compare. I could see the clouds dissapear. Especially that big one in the end of the video.
Edit: here is no time compression. Only the end with the big cloud dissapearing. More noticable. (oops forgot the sound, sorry)
This is a perfect example how the clouds change probably 10 times too fast.
This kind of disappearing is not very common, it’s in fact against the physics. When a cloudy parcel is lifting it undergoes cooling and thus condensation of the water vapor. By traveling upwards a cloud will never just disappear.
Convective clouds always dissipate along the edges due to entrainment of the surrounding drier air.
3 Likes
Then why are they using a system like that to transission to clear sky or what they try to do. I don’t realy know. It’s never happened before this SU7 update. This is with 95% low cloud cover predicted in meteoblue. Why change that to clear sky? Can’t understand the point in that. It’s not realistic and it’s not accurate because there it’s no METAR injected. Before this update i should not be able to see anything at all in that predicted weather.
See in the distance there they stay almost intact but as soon as they come closer to the aircraft they dissapear.
well it’s a local tiny high pressure you have there 
1 Like
Maybe the engine overheating or something LOL.
1 Like
I see no indication that clouds are disappearing in your video, other than by normal dynamic processes that the Live Weather engine has always tried to emulate. The rate of change may a bit too fast, but Live Weather has always done this effect since the beginning. It did not start just with SU7. Several clouds pass right over your parked aircraft And, if that sim airport has no METAR, any clouds you see should be coming from the existing weather model in any case.
Our local TV news station web site provides time lapse videos of clouds taken from several “Skycams” they operate in the local area. Especially in summer, when scattered cumulus clouds are moving with the wind, you will see an almost identical effect to what is shown in your video, as individual cells develop, grow briefly as they move, then gradually diminish and evaporate.
2 Likes
I think it looks unrealistic. It would make low visibility when inside those clouds. And why all of the coulds all around the aircraft in the distance. It’s like a wall against the clouds. Maybe you are right. Meybe those clouds are set to low then and would have been higher up in the sky to look realistic. I never seen that low clouds if it’s not fog though. Something is wrong with it. When i use the custom weather i can see the lowest point to set clouds is now below ground level at -1640. Before SU7 the lowest point was 0 maybe that is bugged in live-weather. Have seen they talked about msl agl in another thread. They maybe set the clouds starting from -1640. It thinks that is 0 maybe. In that case my clouds in the video should have been at 1640ft instead of around 0ft. Do you think that can be the problem?
Well, if that particular airport in your video does not report METAR, there should no “METAR bubble” at that particular location in any case. I spend a lot of time watching the sky in r/w, and I have seen individual cumulus cells behave exactly as you show in your video as they move along.
There are definite issues in SU7 in the heights of cloud bases (at least where METAR is the source) as well as METAR visibility - though Skip Talbot and I have both found that excessive haze is not universal - there are at least some airports in the US eastern region that do not always show exactly 10 miles visibility when the METAR calls for 10.
I am reserving judgement on the usefulness and efficacy of the new METAR system until Asobo has had a chance to fix some of the bugs in this first implementation.
7 Likes
I’ve put together some images to illustrate the limitations of the GFS global model data that I was talking about yesterday. Today at 12:00 UTC, the weather across the United States looked like this:
This is a nighttime microphysics satellite image. If the colors are unfamiliar to you, here’s a basic rule of thumb: dark red colors are ice clouds (cirrus, etc), and light blue is liquid water clouds (usually low-level stratus, etc). Yellow is somewhere in the middle – perhaps a mixture of liquid and ice – generally a low or mid level cloud during this time of year. I’m going to focus on three areas, which I’ve circled here:
In each of these areas, the satellite image depicts low-level clouds. The clouds near the California coast are not as contiguous as in the other two areas, but they are still worth comparing to model data.
Here is a plot of METAR observations from about 12:00 UTC today:
Notice the relatively low ceilings and areas of reduced visibility in the Great Lakes region (KGRR, KDTW, KCLE, etc) and near eastern Texas and western Louisiana (KIAH, KSHV, etc). Also notice the areas of mist and haze in the California central valley (KSMF, KBFL, and 7SM visibility at KFAT). The only station on the entire map that is reporting fog is Eugene, Oregon (KEUG), with a visibility of 1/2SM. Multiple stations are reporting mist, but extremely low visibility is not widespread this morning.
Now, take a look at the GFS model visibility forecast valid at 12:00 UTC this morning:
Bright magenta represents fog with a visibility between 0 and 1/2 SM. Red is unrestricted visibility, and other colors represent values in between. Notice the widespread areas of fog over the Great Lakes region, western New York, and northern Pennsylvania. For ease of reference, I created another map showing only the areas that are between 0 and 1/2SM visibility:
Now, here is a similar map showing areas that are between 3/4SM and 6SM visibility. This would qualify as mist in a METAR report:
Notice that mist-like visibilities are relatively rare in the model forecast, and they mostly show up in narrow transition zones between unrestricted visibility and dense fog. Some of the mist-like visibilities are probably related to precipitation rather than actual mist occurring in the model. This is a common pattern in the GFS. It produces a lot of widespread fog instead of low ceilings with mist. Also notice that the model shows no mist in eastern Texas or California’s central valley.
Now, here is a visibility forecast from the US National Blend of Models – a state-of-the-art blended model product that merges data from global models, high-resolution regional models, and point-based MOS forecasts:
The color scale here is the same as the GFS image. The Great Lakes region and eastern Texas are covered with mist-like visibilities. The bright magenta dense fog is nearly absent in those areas. Also notice the localized mist and patchy fog in the central valley of California and the dense marine fog off the California coast (which was almost completely missing from the GFS model). This image shows some of the problems with blending multiple data sources, though. The splotchy visibility patterns in Texas and California’s central valley are probably based on station-based MOS forecasts in those regions. Just like METARs, the station-based forecasts can result in “data circles.”
Overall, I hope this illustrates the difficulties that MeteoBlue is facing. All of these datasets have significant problems. Which one is more realistic or plausible? I submit that the National Blend of Models is more plausible overall, despite the splotchy data circles. The widespread fog and lack of mist in the GFS is not plausible, and it misses localized effects like marine fog and central valley mist entirely.
4 Likes
It seems the clouds are set around 1640 feet to low in live weather because they had the fix to have clouds above the dead sea in the su7 update. You helped me realise that when you commented on my video. Would like to thank you!
4 Likes
Good catch!