Are you sure?
MUHA 091150Z 06003KT 7000 R06/0750V2100D R24/P2000U MIFG FEW030 18/17 Q1016
MIFG = shallow fog 
1 Like
Yeah but thats now though. I’m talking about on clear days. Even though it’s a clear day outside, the sims live weather would still add fog.
Ok, this is crazy. For the past months, the metar for MUHA would always show visibility 0f 9000 for clear blue sky days. But now all of the sudden it is FINALLY showing as 9999. Perfect timing to make me look like I’m crazy LOL!
3 Likes
METAR shows 9000, not 9999. Both in allmetsat.com and metar-taf.com.
METAR MUHA 101150Z 06004KT 9000 FEW040 22/21 Q1016
Go ahead, load up into MUHA right now, tomorrow, and the next day. You’ll see it showing 9000 and you will get that misty/foggy over the airport. Then, you can say I’m right!!
Like I said, when TenPatrol showed that screenshot, it was 9999. But prove me wrong, load into MUHA and you’ll see it all fogged up.
Why would I want to prove you wrong if I agree with you it’s always fogged? Just checked Jardines del Rey and it’s the same. There must be some issue with cuban metars that they are showing 9000 instead of 9999 and that makes it always fogged.
2 Likes
Meteoblue METAR, shows 9000m of visibility the past hours
13hrs ago there was 1 report with 8000m
The sim is rendering accordingly
So if MUHA METAR is always (or most of the times) reporting restricted visibility, the sim will render accordingly.
Ok, so why is it when the METAR is stating 9000 and I’m currently sitting outside of the airport(live) and the day is clear blue skies.
So clearly, the sim is not rendering correctly the 9000 or am I missing something here?
As commented by TranquilitySea: There must be some issue with cuban metars that they are showing 9000 instead of 9999 and that makes it always fogged.
MSFS is using real METARs, so if the airport is issuing an incorrect METAR, rendering in the sim will also be incorrect. It is not an issue with the sim but with the official organism issuing incorrect information.
Ahh I see. Thanks for clearing that up. I wonder then, don’t real pilots get the same metar that is public to us from multiple sites that show 9000 or do they actually get the right 9999 from their sources? Or do they also get 9000 in which case, won’t that be wrong information? Well, that’s crazy as a pilot to know then LOL.
Real pilots are also getting those official METARs so by deduction I will say that they get the 9000m visibility information. But that’s a good point you are raising and I’d love to hear an IRL cuban pilot his feedback about flying to MUHA, for sure he’ll clarify how they manage METAR information at that airport.
And maybe as you are saying, they have another source (not public, who knows) with correct information.
It sounds like in Cuba they just set visibility to 9000 m or greater, and pilots act accordingly.
Flight Simulator needs to add a rule exception for this and make 9000 meters unlimited visibility when In Cuba.
Yes that could be the solution, but the devs should rely on an official document that explains that or those exceptions with CUBA METARS before implementing rules based on just suppositions. What would happen if in some situations 9000 really means 9000m and not unlimited visibility ?.
In that case, the sim could do no better than to render unlimited visibility, even though this is not true to life. This is a known limitation of using METARs for Live Weather, and one of the many reasons why a lot of us are advocating that Flight Simulator just stop using them, or come up with a much more robust way to integrate them.
We had the exact same problem in the United States. The METARs report 10 sm visibility, which means 10 sm OR GREATER, but Flight Simulator just set the visibility to 10 miles everywhere across the US and similar regions that format METARs this way. Not only did this make it all the way through their QA process, but it took waaaaaay too long fix after it was live.
I doubt they’re going to hunt all over for official sources trying to find every local idiosyncrasy like this, and instead will just have to fix stuff on a case by case basis using trial an error. Such sources might not even be available for a lot of backward places like Cuba.
1 Like
I am with you on that, I am not in favor of using METARs or maybe just for wind @ pressure to assign correct runway for the ones flying on IVAO/VATSIM. But since they have included the visibility coming in the METAR string, it has created unrealistic visual fog bubbles around the airports when a value is defined there. I would have preferred to stay with 100% Meteoblue data to have more consistent weather, smooth transitions over the different conditions forecasted and at the end a more realistic Live weather.
1 Like
Right now at MUHA, METAR says 9999, so no fog. METAR is not always reporting 9000m at this airport then.
Just coming in to say i hate the Metar bubbles and wish it went back to the older style. Im sure there would have been a way to make it Vatsim friendly with pressure and wind still?