Just a quick question: Are cloud tops, particularly for thunderstorms, reported in METARs? How are the heights of thunder storms determined using real weather through AS2004?Thanks!sg

Hi Scott,Cloud tops are not reported through any kind of weather data broadcast including METARs. When Tstorms are reported, we use computations of temperature, dewpoint, air pressure and some random variables to determine the tops of the tstorm layer (same goes for all cloud layers actually). This works great most of the time and provides a pretty accurate picture. Sometimes if there are many layers of clouds reported, FS9 can only make the tstorm layer go "so high" before interfering with the other layers, making the tstorm layer thinner than expected. But we attempt to make the layer as high as possible (up to the computed / desired tops) given these constraints.Hope that helps!Damian ClarkHiFi Simulation SoftwareDeveloper of ActiveSkyhttp://www.hifisim.comhttp://www.hifisim.com/images/as2004betateam.jpg

Thanks, Damian - quick follow up: Can we expect to find Cells at 50,000 feet over the plains, or is that very unlikely? Spring is coming, you know....;)Best,sg

Hi Scott,Let me see if I can remember... I think the AS2004 limit is 30,000ft tstorm layer height, assuming no conflicting layers around. Thus if you're flying in a very high elevation area (say 10K) I suppose it is possible to get tops up to ~45K depending on the storm layer base (from METAR) and the other factors I mentioned.. but not very likely. There are also some FS9 limitations on layer thickness... I don't think they let you go higher than 18K regardless of what AS2004 decides. But it was a while since I tested this in detail, I could be wrong. If you can get 50K thick tstorm layers in FS9 somehow (without killing frames too bad), let me know how, I will certainly work at making that happen in AS!Damian ClarkHiFi Simulation SoftwareDeveloper of ActiveSkyhttp://www.hifisim.comhttp://www.hifisim.com/images/as2004betateam.jpg

I posted some shots of my flight yesterday in the screen shots forum. The FS9 size limitation of thunderheads is a bummer. Would doubling or tripling cumulus layers be too much of an FPS hit? I'm thinking Cumulus layer 1 = ceiling (1000'agl) to 18000, layer 2 - 16000 - 34000? Maybe a third layer from 32000 to 50000? I'll try some manually created situations like that over the weekend and see what the effect is...It just a little unrealistic to see massive bolts of lightning emitted from relatively tiny clouds.BTW, the flight I posted pix of, build 90 performed flawlessly!Best,sg

It does sound like a nice goal to accomplish if it can be done. The real weather radar summaries over the plains (I live in Minnesota) frequently show cloud tops of 35 to 50,000 feet for moderate to severe storms.So if you are flying at FL350 your are not going to be safely over the tops and allowing for verticle shear margins need to see the tops protruding through where you are dealing with embedded CB.Radar needs to see these as well. I am using Reality-XP's WX500 and that is based on 3D cloud formations and while can tilt down, it would be nice to see the "holes" between CB at high altitudes.