Flying into JFK this morning and the weather was for 4nm vis with light snow. 20nm out and I can still see the airport clear as a bell. 10nm out...same. 3nm out and finally the program updates the weather for JFK??? Why does it do this? I see this happening alot with your program? I kept checking the wx stations enroute from around 50nm out and they all kept giving about the same METAR as JFK's with overcast conditions around 4000 but never saw that either. The METARS really had not changed for the last 2 hours either. Here is my ini files...am I doing something wrong or is the program buggy?//AS2004 configuration file[General]WindowPosX = 6480WindowPosY = 6525DefaultWeatherFolder = C:Program FilesMicrosoft GamesFlight Simulator 9ModulesActiveSky2004SuppressionCeiling = 10000SurfaceWindLimit = 10CloudLayerLimit = 10LocalSuppressionRange = 60OnlineUpdates = TrueExtendedDestinationWindsForce = FalseGlobalWrites = TrueVoicePlayback = TrueLocalSuppression = TrueStartupSound = FalseUseProxyServer = FalseFogLayerGeneration = TrueUpdateSuppression = FalseOvercastEnhancement = TrueRouteWindSmoothing = FalseLimitSurfaceWinds = FalseLimitCloudLayers = FalseDisableUpperLayerGeneration = FalseVisibilitySmoothing = TrueDisableMessages = TrueAutoTimeZoneDetection = TrueUpdateInterval = 10VATSIMData = FalseZuluConversion = -5TAFProcessing = FalseWakeTurb = TrueStartPaused = FalseUseSystemTime = TrueDisableCAVOKClouds = FalseProxyAddress = NONEFSUIPC:WindSmoothing=NoWhiteMessages=NoGraduatedVisibility=NoLowerVisAltitude=6000UpperVisAltitude=25000UpperVisibility=6000GenerateCirrus=NoWindShearSharp=NoUpperWindGusts=YesExtendMetarMaxVis=NoPatchSimApAlt=YesAutoClearWeather=YesExtendTopWind=NoWindSmoothness=5SmoothPressure=NoPressureSmoothness=5SmoothVisibility=YesVisibilitySmoothness=2MaxSurfaceWind=0WindLimitLevel=200WindDiscardLevel=400WindAjustAltitude=NoWindAjustAltitudeBy=2000MinimumVisibility=0MaximumVisibilityFewClouds=0MaximumVisibility=0MaximumVisibilityOvercast=0MaximumVisibilityRainy=0OneCloudLayer=NoThinClouds=NoThinThunderClouds=NoCloudThinness=1000ThunderCloudThinness=10000CloudTurbulence=NoCloudIcing=NoWindTurbulence=NoSuppressAllGusts=NoExternalOptionControl=YesAutoTuneADF=NoMagicBattery=YesKeepFS98CloudCover=NoRudderSpikeRemoval=YesElevatorSpikeRemoval=YesReversedElevatorTrim=NoAileronSpikeRemoval=YesShowPMcontrols=NoTrapUserInterrupt=YesNavFreq50KHz=YesClockSync=YesSmoothIAS=YesSetVisUpperAlt=NoVisUpperAltLimit=6000SuppressCloudTurbulence=NoSuppressWindTurbulence=NoTCASid=FlightTCASrange=40TrafficScanPerFrame=10AxisCalibration=NoCentredDialogue=NoClearWeatherDynamics=YesOwnWeatherChanges=NoFixWindows=NoFixControlAccel=YesWeatherReadInterval=4MainMenu=&ModulesSubMenu=&FSUIPC ...ThrottleSyncAll=NoSpoilerIncrement=512MoveBGLvariables=YesMaxIce=3[JoystickCalibration]FlapsSetControl=0ReverserControl=66292MaxThrottleForReverser=0AileronTrimControl=0RudderTrimControl=0

>... 3nm out and finally the>program updates the weather for JFK??? Why does it do this? I>see this happening alot with your program? I will let the activesky folks provide the details (and corrections ... ;-) ) but what you are seeing is 'normal' behavior for FS2004.The problem is that weather conditions within FS2004 are set based on reporting stations. For each station the weather is set for a fixed radius around that station. I believe that radius is 2 miles - consistent with your statement that at ~3 miles the conditions change. The problem is that unless all reporting stations overlap, there will be gaps in the weather. I believe that this is where the "global writes" concept comes into play. For areas not covered by a station (or for which a station is not reporting data) the global writes "injects" weather conditions. If the weather written as a global write is not consistent with the weather of an adjacent reporting station then you get something like what you describe.Confirmation/correction of my post is appreciated as I'm still trying to understand what's going on! ;-)-michael

And without sounding like a worn out record, here again is where I feel this program either needs modification or a feature to allow destination weather to be set from a pre-set distance. The issue of weather/visibility changes near destination is well documented throughout posts. Last time I mentioned it, the developers said they were "thinking" of adding a type of "destination lock" which would allow destination weather to be displayed from say 100nm or 80nm or whatever distance....away from the airport. However, there has been no concrete confirmation of this in the next update.Another poster who has something to do with the program advised he felt this would be a step "backwards". I don't see how having weather change 3-4 nm away from the airport to the actual airport weather conditions is any more a step backwards than having a destination lock feature. At least with a destination lock feature, when the weather changed, you would know why it was changing and what it would change to. I really have nothing but praise for the people who make this program a reality. My flights are practically flawless in terms of wind and weather, but this destination weather change is, in my opinion, where this program falls short. And no matter what combination of options I try, the weather changes close to the airport, even with the suppression ceiling set from anywhere between 2000 and 9000 feet. The weather changes near the airport. Incidentally, someone asked if I was confusing a change in visibility with a change in weather, I said I honestly couldn't tell. Isn't suppression supposed to STOP all changes? What's the point of the weather staying the same if the visibility changes from 25nm to 1.5 mile in the space of a few seconds? I flew into Buffalo a few days ago, had to circle for a runway 5 approach. The visibility, the altimeter changed 3 times as I made my way around to the approach and final heading. How could a feature which adds destination lock be a step backward to what I've described above?I would like confirmation that a "destination lock" feature is in the works for the planned update. I would encourage others who feel the same way to speak out in support of this. From someone whose used different weather programs, I'm trying to offer some feedback, that's all.Thanks, John Haley

FS9 is a strange bird - The switch to a localized weather system has provided some very interesting and realistic weather representations, however as real world weather is so diverse, it has also made evident where the new system fails.First, with regard to visibility: how would one go about displaying "visibility" in a sim? Picture a table with glasses of water on it, equally spaced in a nice grid pattern, each about six inches apart from its neighbors. These of course will represent FS9s "weather stations" by analogy. Lets say one at the bottom, second from the left, is JFK. Its current weather report is 2 miles visibility. Newark, the first glass on the left, is reporting 12 miles visibility. What would the visual appearance of those glasses be from your perspective? Well, JFK's glass would be cloudy - Newark's no so cloudy. But FS does not "display" columns of cloudy air over an airport, in fact it doesn't really display visibility per se. It displays clouds. Clouds are objects, visiblity is handled very differently using drawing distances and fog effects of video cards. So what happens is that when you fly into JFK's glass, the sim can represent it's reported visibility by reducing the drawing distance and increasing the fog. The sim cannot display that effect until you've entered the glass, if you will. Its particulary ugly when the reported visibility is nearly equal to the radius of the glass (I believe Michael is correct in that the glasses are ~2nm in radius.). But wait: What is AS2004s update supression doing then - why did the visibility change? The answer is "it didn't". JFK's visibility is exactly as it was reported before you flew into the glass. Nothing has changed except your location. In FS9, visibility is handled in a binary fashion - you can't see visibility from a distance, you can only see it from within, and it makes obvious a flaw in FS9s local weather settings. Not a bug, just a shortcoming. One way to get around this is to create a fog layer above the visibility layer - make it easier to "see" that visibility is going to change, but this is not a satisfactory effect in my mind. Its fine if you descend into the visibility layer, but when you enter it laterally, you simply fly under a cloud layer, and visibility drops. Reducing the rate at which the sim displays the visibility change is the only option, and AS2004 currently excels at this, producing a very believable transition, in my opinion.Second, with regard to global writes: the space between those glasses I've described above is where global writes comes in. In areas where reporting stations are few and far between, the glasses are just farther apart, and global writes represent a significant amount of the weather environment. In densly populated areas, that space is minimal.Third, the destination lock feature: which stations then would be locked? Would you arbitrarily discard the real data for stations within a 50nm radius around your destination and re-write those stations to be the same as the destination, as well as redefine the global weather? Remember, FS9 has localized weather - as far as I know, you can't tell FS9 to just disregard the weather that is reported at the station's glass you've just flown into and keep the current setting - You can't have your local cake and eat the global cake too. The local conditions must be set to something. The problem is how do you decide what to discard and what to keep? I personally would hate a 50 mile ring of fog around JFK just as much as flying into it right before landing. Its a difficult concept to impliment, especially regarding something so amorphous as visibility. I believe this is exactly what the route-based wind smoothing does - rewrites local winds along your route (Damian?). Maybe a route based visibility smoothing would solve this issue?Finally, I am in no way speaking on behalf of Damian/Jim/Hifi - I got lucky and was selected to participate in the beta test for AS2k4. This program has come a long way in a short time, and I'm sure these guys will make it even better at filling in the gaps of FS9s weather illusion. I am, however, a weather afficionado - I'm one of those people who believe that simulation of flight is inextricable from the weather in which the plane flies. I was pleased with FS9s own real-weather, except that I seldom had more than one or two layers of clouds, and would routinely climb out of a rainstorm at 6000 feet to clear blue skies. AS2004 has proven to me that weather in FS9 can be much more realistic than FS9/jeppesson's, and I cannot fly without it now. Understanding how the weather is displayed in FS9 is important to understanding what AS2004 has accomplished, and what it cannot accomplish because of limitations of the sim.I would love to hear your comments.Best,sg

John,Damian explained to all of us that to force destinations a global weather system would need to be used. This is how Active Sky wxRE operated. In that regard it would be a step backwards. I can neither confirm nor deny that a destination lock feature is being worked on. We do look forward to everyone's input.Hope this helps,JimActiveSky Support

Hi all,Scott, very well said, you understand the technicalities of the FS9 weather system very well, and the issues we are thus up against...As to work on destination lock, I AM working on that for MR1, and yes it will be optional. I personally feel it is an unrealistic approach to handling destination weather in the station-based system in all cases, BUT, as others have pointed out, in certain areas or scenarios it can be much better than the effect they currently get. Of course it really depends on the user's opinion of how the destination weather report should effect their depicted weather during approach. Either way, it would be good to provide the option so we are working on this.-Damian

Seems to me that one could use an algorithm to "smooth" visibility. What I mean is that if JFK is 2m vis and Newark is 12m Vis, then you can setup a graduated vis in a radius around so that as you progress closer, the vis gradually gets worse/better.However, I may be talking out of my nether regions here - FS9 may not be able to provide this or it would be too complicated.Anyway, FYI I am happy with my purchase! Most of of problems have gone. Congrats!

FSUIPC and AS2004 cooperate to smooth visibility temporally - the change in visibility is noted, and the rate at which the change occurs is smoothed. I think that it's true that a spacial or geographic algorithm could be implimented to smooth visibility, but that's assuming that the program knows that you are flying from Newark to JFK, for example. To spacially or geographically smooth visibility "on the fly" would require an impossible number of weather writes and CPU demand - it would have to be smoothed ahead of time. It's probably not feasible to smooth the whole worlds' visibility ahead of time - might as well just use FSUIPC to set minimum visiblity to 2 or 5 miles - that way when entering a station with low visibility, at least the local scenery won't disappear.One last comment about route-based smoothing - of visibility or winds. The ability of this procedure to smooth well is dependant on how accurate the route is that is entered. For example: If the user creates a direct-to flight plan, and uses FS ATC, about 50 miles or so from the destination, ATC will begin giving you vectors to a final approach fix. The route that ATC vectors you along may or may not be smoothed based on the flight plan depending how far from the route the plane is actually vectored. Conversely, a flight plan built from soup to nuts with a SID, STAR, and transition, will probably be smoothed very well and accurately, but that is beyond the ability of AS2004 to control. "Your results may vary."Just some ideas.Best,sg