Visibility bug in 1.15

[Guest]

Hi Damian, Thanks for the update but the visibility bug is still evident in 1.15. For example, position your self at Adelaide YPAD and have the following METAR set in the offline MET file:YPAD 220529Z 14017KT //// 29/24 Q1020and you will see the visibility drops to zero.The set TAF isYPAD 220407Z 0606 14012KT CAVOK FM02 21013KT CAVOK T 28 24 20 19 Q 1020 1019 1018 1017And my PC time 19:16 local and 221016ZI look forward to any fix you can give for this case. Until then I have to go back to 1.0Regards,Stephen

[Guest]

I am certain it is a visibility bug because when I set the METAR toYPAD 220529Z 14017KT 9999 29/24 Q1020Then the visibility is set correctly, i.e. greater than 10km.similarlyYPAD 220529Z 14017KT CAVOK 29/24 Q1020Regards,Stephen

[Damian Clark 1,260]

Hi Stephen..This is yet "another" vis bug, having to do with the new //// reports.. I am fixing this for the next update..-Damian[table border=0" cellspacing="30" cellpadding="0][tr][td align = "left"]Damian ClarkHiFi Simulation SoftwareDeveloper of ActiveSkyThe next-generation weather environment simulation for FS2002!http://hifi.avsim.net/activesky[/td][td]http://hifi.avsim.net/activesky/images/wxrebeta.jpg][/td][/tr][/table://http://hifi.avsim.net/activesky/ima...][/tr][/table

[Guest]

Hi Damian,My metar setting in ver. 1.15 is the following:LICD 250800Z 29008KT 7000 BKN020CB 11/10 Q1008and I get visibility of 1/8th of mile, but I recall having visibility almost zero also with 9999 in metar. My FSUIPC settings are tuned according to your directions.Thank you and best regards,Luca

[Guest]

Damian,There is such a thing as BETA TESTING which, for whatever reason, is a concept seemingly lost on you perhaps? You've released three versions of Activesky thus far, each of which has had significant bugs with basic surface visibility among other things. You really aren't testing your work enough I think? It's to the point now that I just assume the lastest releases of Activesky are going to have at least one major overlooked flaw. Please make an effort to devote time to quality control in the future. I think it reflects poorly on a programmer to consistantly make the same mistakes over and over. There is just no need for this to happen. Metar formats and standardized and programming logic should be able to interpret Metars consistantly without any problem. FSMeteo does not seem to have any difficulty in this regard, I fail to understand why at least one version of Activesky can't meet the same standard.To Err is human, to Err over and over is complacent. :)I think we users should be able to expect a higher level of quality in the future, thank you.

[Guest]

Usually I try to stay away from getting into such posts as yours, but this time I can't help myself.Let me ask you one simple question - what have YOU programmed lately?? Are you so perfect that you can do everything right the first time, no matter how complicated it is?Next question - have you ever seen how FSMeteo handles a METAR with no altimeter setting in it? How about when you have an overcast condition which really looks like a broken layer because of the eternally blue horizon? How about the versatility of the flight planning section? How about the transition from one weather system to the next? How about the ability to eliminate the sudden changes from having 10 stations right next to each other, each giving a different METAR (yes, that really can happen in real life!)? I could go on, but I definitely do NOT want to sound like I'm bashing FSMeteo, because it is a very, very good program. However, wxRE is a totally different program and done in a totally different way. That means bugs can creep in that aren't found in older programs, but sometimes that's the price one pays for being willing to go out on a limb and develop something from scratch. This is especially true for something as variable as weather (my professional training is in climatology, and if you think ANYTHING in meteorology is easy to "capture", you might want to try spending a few days at a Met office some time).Now you seem to think that these additional releases are all about fixing bugs. In fact, each has contained an enhancement, and the next release is due to contain a greater enhancement yet. Yes, there have been some bug fixes along the way, IN ADDITION to enhancing the product! What's wrong with that? The vis error seems to have just been in the last 2 releases, part of which was repaired by the last fix. Apparently there is still one area that isn't quite right. Maybe you would like to sit down (by yourself) and test every single conceivable scenario for this program? At least then you'd be accomplishing something positive, but I seriously doubt you have the time. You also seem to be confused over the term "complacency". I would view complacency as one who receives bug reports but does little to fix them, and does equally little to answer questions or respond to posts on them. If you can find that here, then I'd be having the old eyes examined in a hurry, my friend. Not only does Damian respond almost immediately, he is ALWAYS courteous and helpful, even at folks who are obviously a bit ticked. This guy could give courses in Customer Service. Far from being "complacent" (just sitting back collecting the dough while we complain at length about how almost nothing works), he goes out of his way to fix problems and to respond immediately when a customer is having difficulties.Now, with freeware dropping and payware increasing in FS, I'm the first to admit that a customer has the absolute right to complain if things aren't working right. Unlike freeware, when you pay for something, you have an expectation of it working well. However, we all know that software is a nightmare to debug, and most of us know that this program has many fewer bugs than most. Just look at all the things it does well! Compared with other payware packages, this is one of the least-issue-laden programs I've seen, judging by the posts I've seen here since its release. Believe me, in the early days, Marc had his share of troubles as well, and he was extremely good about getting things set right. I don't see why you would expect more of Damian than that.'Nuff said, at least from me.GlennPS - I do not work for Damian or Marc, and I'm not a beta-tester. I'm simply and end-user that would rather see constructive complaints and criticisms rather than simply running the program and/or the author into the ground.

[Damian Clark 1,260]

Hi Luca,This particular station is causing a parse error for some reason.. I will look into it. Can you confirm all works correctly at other stations? Thanks!-Damian[table border=0" cellspacing="30" cellpadding="0][tr][td align = "left"]Damian ClarkHiFi Simulation SoftwareDeveloper of ActiveSkyThe next-generation weather environment simulation for FS2002!http://hifi.avsim.net/activesky[/td][td]http://hifi.avsim.net/activesky/images/wxrebeta.jpg][/td][/tr][/table://http://hifi.avsim.net/activesky/ima...][/tr][/table

[Damian Clark 1,260]

Hi Luca,I found the problem.. there is a redundant/false vis setting being reported in this station in the RMK section of the METAR... Since it mimicks the real vis setting ASwxRE is getting confused.First METAR station I've seen with this problem.. anyhow, it is fixed.. you can correct the problem temporarily by stripping the RMK section's contents and using CUSTOM WRITE. Or you can also delete the LICD airport from the icao.txt file, so that the next closest station (hopefully without the same type of METAR RMK data) will take over and give you similar weather.Thanks for the report, the fix will be included in 1.2..-Damian[table border=0" cellspacing="30" cellpadding="0][tr][td align = "left"]Damian ClarkHiFi Simulation SoftwareDeveloper of ActiveSkyThe next-generation weather environment simulation for FS2002!http://hifi.avsim.net/activesky[/td][td]http://hifi.avsim.net/activesky/images/wxrebeta.jpg][/td][/tr][/table://http://hifi.avsim.net/activesky/ima...][/tr][/table

[Damian Clark 1,260]

Hello, Anakin Skywalker...Your motive here is apparent, you are doing nothing but trolling for flames. I will not respond in the manner you are hoping for, sorry to dissapoint you.Each and every issue that is reported has been fixed. The error that was in v1.1 WAS fixed.. this user is reporting an entirely different issue. What issue ARE YOU experiencing, if any? There is no way that I can predict every possible METAR report condition, especially when METAR reports are so various. There are thousands, and MANY of them get tested greatly, but some do not, and sometimes METAR reports will contain temporary errors. I continue to add programming logic to handle new cases.Please do not continue such forum posts... if you have issues I would love to address them, but just trying to make me or my product look bad (your obvious intention) will simply not be tolerated. You have been warned. This thread is now LOCKED.-Damian[table border=0" cellspacing="30" cellpadding="0][tr][td align = "left"]Damian ClarkHiFi Simulation SoftwareDeveloper of ActiveSkyThe next-generation weather environment simulation for FS2002!http://hifi.avsim.net/activesky[/td][td]http://hifi.avsim.net/activesky/images/wxrebeta.jpg][/td][/tr][/table://http://hifi.avsim.net/activesky/ima...][/tr][/table