Clouds are too small

[hmar 0]

Hi, Can someone tell me why the clouds on my simulator are always so small?Thanks,hm

[JET 1 0]

Are you using FS Sky World? I got the same exact problem after installing it..Haven't found out a way to fix it yet..

[hmar 0]

hi,With FS Sky World Se. It should be the other way around: Blue sky have to be clouds, clouds have to be blue sky. I use it together with Active Sky (I am connected via the cable :-) )hm

[JET 1 0]

>hi, >>With FS Sky World Se. It should be the other way around: >Blue sky have to be clouds, clouds have to be blue sky. I >use it together with Active Sky (I am connected via the >cable :-) ) >Well, thank god I'm not the only one with this problem. :-ukliam I also use it with Active Sky and the problem seems to be exactly the same.This screenshot should be 7/8 broken cumulus at 1500 ft but does it look like it? NO.

[Chris Willis 8]

Hi, Your problem have nothing to do with my utility or clouds, go to your fsuipc and set your clouds thicknees at least 10 000 feet, or go to your Fs2002 weather option advanced.See this posthttp://ftp.avsim.com/dcforum/DCForumID8/12383.htmlThanksChris Willis[link:fsw.simflight.com/FSWMenuFsSim.html]Clouds And Addons For MsFshttp://fsw.simflight.com/fsw.jpg

[hmar 0]

Sorry Chris, it was not my intention to accuse FSW nor Active Sky of shortcomings, in contrary these addons are "must have's" and I am very glad to have them installed. It was my fault. I had given the clouds thickness to FSUIPC but I forgot the checkboxes! Stupid me! All seems alright now.Thank you for your reaction and thank you and the FSW group for Fs Sky World.hm

[JET 1 0]

Hi Chris,The same goes for me, I didn't mean to offend of anything, it's just that your screenshots look so good that I'm frustrated cause I can't get mine to work ;) Unfortunately my problem was not solved by tinkering with the FSUIPC. I have the newest version, have the values referred to set correctly to 11000 and 15000 for thunderstorms AND the boxes checked. Also I have cloud thickness set to 65% from the display menu.Still no change, all I see is 1-5 dark thick small clouds, clear skies and sun when there should be a 7/8 broken layer.Any other ideas what might cause this?Thanks

[Chris Willis 8]

Hi, Clear your weather. Go to your weather option and add clouds layers stratus cumulus scattered 3/8 or 4/8 , or few 1/8, 2/8 and set your cloud height Those problem are not related to FSW clouds or fs sky world.If you want more clouds, set your cloud density to 75 or 100, but .frame rate will decrease.I will not reply to those type of question anymore, It's been since fs2000 thats works like this.

[Damian Clark 1,203]

Hi,I have investigated this problem.Here's what I've found:First of all, having cloud thicknesses set to minimum 10,000ft is NOT realistic at all. Sorry.Unfortunately, the BROKEN cloud layers in the cloud add-on you mentioned are not properly displaying broken density. This is new to the SE version - prior versions didn't do this that bad. Now, if you do set the cloud thicknesses over 10K feet they will look decent and more like a broken layer. But unfortunately in my 10+ years of real world flying I've never (hmmm, maybe once) seen a 10K ft thick broken layer (or any kind of layer for that matter - except thunderstorms). Setting layers this thick will also cause problems with the other layers (you cannot overlap).So, unfortunately, this cloud add-on is not compatible with realistically-thick BROKEN cloud layers. Too bad because broken cloud layers are the most common experienced in the real world.There are some modifications I can make to cloud selection/thickness logic in ActiveSky, but this will bring down the level of REALISM and I am not willing to do that.Hopefully FSW will be updated to address this problem. There are also incompatibility issues with the V-Sky cirrus layers as they interfere with any externally set cloud layers (ActiveSky, FSMETEO, etc.) Again with VSKY, building in support will reduce realism.I am not sure where to go with this. There is so much user support for FSW clouds (and they sure look neat!) but unfortunately compatibility with weather generation add-ons and a realistic approach to cloud representation was not high on the priority list (that is not a dig, it is a factual observation - I appreciate Chris's effort and contribution to the community!). Suggestions on how to handle these incompatibilities are requested! -Damian Clark

[Chris Willis 8]

Damian, "the BROKEN cloud layers in the cloud add-on you mentioned are not properly displaying broken density""minimum 10,000ft "Minimum?When Clouds displayed too much higher, they appears strecthed and bad in Msfs, Millions question appears before, there is no new thing here, This is why Peter make my wich for FSUIPC.-The clouds displayed here are the old clouds pack released not the new, -The new are all the same created, I did not change anything, the broken clouds formation in Msfs are wrong specialy the 6/8 and 7/8 same with the default or cloud released before..The cloud density can help the lack of cloud displayed in broken.Vs-sky is only an alternative for the sky color, to help the sky color.Fs sky world Se have nothing to do with the weather engine, they only change the cloud visual.Weather in Msfs is limited, I hope they will do like AI traffic in fs2004 for the weather engine out of the box.ThanksChris Willis[link:fsw.simflight.com/FSWMenuFsSim.html]Clouds And Addons For MsFshttp://fsw.simflight.com/fsw.jpg

[Guest jase439]

Me thinks instead of pointing fingers, you should invest 30 minutes reading the FSUIPC manual since your 10+ years of real world flying don't seem to be helping you much here.

[Damian Clark 1,203]

Ok,Nice flame, Thanks.Chris said cloud thicknesses must be set to at least 10K feet to see broken layers.FWIW, FSUIPC has a MAXIMUM not a minimum cloud thickness setting but I assumed Chris was talking about manual cloud settings or some feature of his add-on.He also showed as an example to set the cloud heights approx 9K feet to get the desired effect.I was simply pointing out that these cloud thicknesses are not realistic, and that ActiveSky does not support them in that fashion, neither will any METAR add-on. Apparently, prior to the new cloud package this was not a problem. Broken 7/8 layers showed up pretty darn good with normal thicknesses. Since the release of the new cloud add-on many users have written me that their broken layers are no longer showing properly. Does this mean that ActiveSky is the problem? Or that FSWSE is? No, there is no reason to point fingers. The fact is that they aren't working right together, and I explained in my first post what I found as to why.So, if the problem is with ActiveSky, and sure, it might be, then I need to find out what exactly it is and fix it. So far in my tests, installing the default MS clouds fixes the problem every time. I am beginning to think I have a bad installation of FSWSE and this may be part of the problem.I am not trying to point fingers. I am saying this: There is a compatibility issue. The recommended fix of 10K ft layers in not appropriate. Something can be done on one or both ends to solve the problem, and that's exaclty what I am trying to do.Forgive me for trying... Not.-Damian Clark

[Chris Willis 8]

Damian, I did not said, set the clouds at 10 000 but to stop maximum at 10 000 feet in FSUIPC (CB clouds in Msfs read as cumulus), you can set this 6000 feet if you want etc. to prevent the stretched clouds.And the Question was about the picture showed above about 7/8 broken cumulus at 1500 ft (1500 feet is too small). this is Problem in Msfs engine not fs sky world se or anything about the cloud or any weather addons.See broken problem formation fs 2002 default clouds and 3000 feet (not 1500 feet with the old fsw clouds version not the new)http://ftp.avsim.com/dcforum/User_files/3dbb57a2446396cf.jpgThanksChris Willis[link:fsw.simflight.com/FSWMenuFsSim.html]Clouds And Addons For MsFshttp://fsw.simflight.com/fsw.jpg

[Guest]

I have to agreed with Chris, I have the same problem with the default fs2002 clouds for broken. The Problem is fs2002 weather engine.Martin

[Damian Clark 1,203]

Chris,Thanks for your responses.Sorry for the initial misunderstanding. I did some more tests. I found this:- Broken clouds with thicknesses of less than 2000 feet have a problem- Thicknesses 2000feet or more work fineInterestingly, when I tested the new clouds vs old the thicknesses changed (according to METAR report/conditions) and every time I had the old clouds it was setting >2000ft.So apparently the problem is NOT associated with the new FSWSE or any add-on, and as you said, is related to the MSFS broken layer display routines for broken layers.So, here's what I'm doing in the next version of ActiveSky:- Checking for BROKEN Layer - if BROKEN, check thickness - If < 2000ft and (2000ft - processed cloud heights <= 500) then change the thickness to 2000ft. If < 2000ft and (2000ft - processed cloud heights > 500) then change coverage to 4/8 for better visual.Simply, when a problematic broken layer is found, it will fix it by either making it thicker (if not UNREALISTICALLY thick) or by changing the coverage to 4/8 SCT (for more visual coverage).Chris, thanks for your help with this! Now when I get the new version of AS released it will work even better for cloud display, and your beautiful broken stratus and cumulus clouds will show up instead of being messed up by FS!Now, as to the V-Sky problem: This is hard because in order to use VSKY you must reserve 2 cloud layers for it (upper and blending layer). Since I only have 2 to work with for constant clouds (the other 2 are for transitions) this leaves no room.What I think may be best (Chris and others please share your opinion!) is to put in a "Vsky" checkbox with two sub options: Vsky ONLY with clear METAR skies, or Vsky ALL THE TIME (all METAR clouds disregarded). With the first option, you won't see VSKY at all unless you get to clear reported skies - then the layers will be automatically set right to see Vsky. With the second option, you'll see Vsky all the time but will NOT see any cloud layers reported by METAR. Comments? Suggestions? Anyone?Thanks again Chris - and sorry again for the misunderstanding. A little language barrier perhaps but nothing we can't get past!-Damian Clark