Jim and Damian, To be constructive, I love testing things and trying to come up with solutions. It is obvious that the product has taken a lot of time, so I want to help out as I have some time on my hands. I have done a lot of tests with ASV, probably 10-15 hours in the last couple of days, and I think I have a possible solution. When I put a layer of anything in ASV with 020 as the level, I get clouds down to the deck almost. When I put the level at 002, I get clouds at 2000 AGL or above. Is it possible that the code is transposing the last two numbers of the ceiling altitude? I am not a programmer, but I assume that would be easy to check.And, as I am sure a few of the beta testers were not RW pilots, and would react just as the recent poster did,"In these shots you can clearly see the overcast.And it is fairly dense.The only thing that's not right is the ceiling which is about 1000ft rather then 200ft.Other then that everything is ok."maybe low level clouds were not really brought up by Beta Testers. To say, "clouds are at 1000 and not 200, but that is the only problem", is kind of a large issue if you are trying to arrive/depart an IFR environment. In fact, it is the difference between legal IFR conditions and VFR conditions. But, one that would be acceptable if the beta testers did not do a lot of low approaches to test cloud height or did not know what it looks like in RL. Again, I love all of the hard work that you guys have done, I am just trying to figure out why the low clouds have gone way with ASV, which were there with AS 2004.5.. THANKS FOR ALL OF YOUR HARD WORK!CBCB

Or is it possible that giving us the ability to now have a much more realistic Thunderstorm cloud with layers extended upward, came at a price of lower clouds? The enroute environment in storms or cumulus is incredible these days, but could any of the settings, like suppression, extend layers upward, etc. cause a deficiency in the sub Fl050 areas? You say that ASV reads stability now, is that affecting the type of clouds? Obviously as you know Damian, tyically stability is associated with low ceilings as it can be foggy, constant rain, marine layers, etc. Low stability would be cumulus, winds, and most of all GREAT VISIBILITY. Could the low clouds be affected by the stability as you said that different clouds are written given different stability levels that ASV sees.Just thinking outloud to help stir any ideas on the way that you have things interconnected in the program. I obviously have no idea how you wrote it and what things are interdependent as a result of ASV itself, or the limitations of FS9.Bottom line, did we give up anything to get a lot of other features?CB

HI,Right now Damian is in the hospital, please be patient little bit.Let us the chance to see it. We are always looking into this and others reports like we did before. The accuracy are the goal, will remain like before nothing have been changed. It is possible indirectly somethings have change little bit and easly fixed, sometime is a very minor thing, will make a made BIG difference in fs2004.There will be updates that's will fix all issue reported.ThanksChris WillisHiFi Simulation Software Team Developerhttp://www.hifisim.com/images/asv_dev_team.jpg http://www.hifisim.com/images/asv_proud_supporter.jpg

Schnikeees.. Hopefully it isn't serious. All my best to the Damian and the crew.Thank you for looking into it!CB

>Right now Damian is in the hospital, please be patient little>bit.Hope it's some routine visit and nothing serious.All the best to Damian.

Hi CB,We always support the product like we did it before, with active sky 4.5 etc., You should be only worry if we never supports, which is not the case, we will always listen to the users!Constructive information and idea is always better for anything here and in real life!ThanksChris WillisHiFi Simulation Software Team Developerhttp://www.hifisim.com/images/asv_dev_team.jpg http://www.hifisim.com/images/asv_proud_supporter.jpg

Claudio, Thanks for testing the problem earlier. Just to let you know, here is the current real METAR for KSMOKSMO 000000Z 27012KT 7SM OVC006 12/11 A3001I went into the clouds at 6200 FT after putting it into Weather Configurator function.Do you have time to try it and see what you get?CB

In fact, it is beautiful at 7000. Very realistic. But, just 7000 higher than it is supposed to be. CB

Hi guys,Back from hospital for the moment (false alarm)... my wife and I are having a baby (boy!), or so we thought, but I guess he is just not quite ready to come yet - so we are waiting back at home as patiently as we can!Thanks for the construtive feedback on this issue..First, there seems to be some misunderstanding, somehow that this reaction in ASV is "by design" to limit realism? This is not the case by any means, there is no reason an OVC002 layer shouldn't show at 200ft AGL. As many of you might know, realism is probably the most important design criteria in all our works. Why would we make things unrealistic on purpose? Also there is no association between ceilings and visibility... we don't ever reduce vis based on cloud positions and likewise we don't change cloud positions based on visibility. This call comes from the METAR report. We only simulate changed vis if the report shows 10sm or 9999sm, we extend it based on air stability and humidity.Last night I ran several tests and could not duplicate the effect you were experiencing. Every airport I tried with different heights above ground (between 000 and 020) were all correct. So now I am really confused why several folks can duplicate this but I cannot?One thing in common with the error reports I have seen is use of Wx Configurator. In my tests I used real world data after finding IMC METAR report locations. I will have to run more tests, perhaps there is a problem in Wx Config or something un-intuitive about the process.Other possibilities might include LOCAL SUPPRESSION preventing local wx changes, and maybe you are not expecting that? If you are not on the ground, parked (or slewed) you will be considered "Airborne" and by default your suppression settings will prevent any changes in wx depiction to your local area. Depending on your startup process this can certainly influence things and sounds very much like it is taking a role in these problems.Either way I will perform intensive tests on this very soon, obviously there is a problem somewhere that needs to be addressed and we will do just that! Thanks for the input...Things might be a little delayed a couple days due to the "new addition" to my family but this is at the top of the list and will get full attention ASAP. Thanks again!

So Damian between programming still time for a baby :-lol:-lol:-lolJust enjoy it and I whish a smooth birth of the young baby ;-) Andr

>Things might be a little delayed a couple days due to the "new>addition" to my family but this is at the top of the list and>will get full attention ASAP. Thanks again!>WAIT A MINUTE HERE!!! :-jumpyI am a paying customer and I demand that the baby be put on hold until our problems are solved. Babies are easy to get - paying customer are not!Harummph!:-wink2Congrats to the spouse - did all the work.Congrats to you - you picked the spouse!Vic

I see a lot of blue sky for an overcast of 500fthttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/119828.jpg

>Back from hospital for the moment (false alarm)... my wife>and I are having a baby (boy!), or so we thought, but I guess>he is just not quite ready to come yet - so we are waiting>back at home as patiently as we can!Congratulations and all the best to your extended family!When i read your post i couldn't believe: you are here answering the forum when you are going to have a baby?Man...Eighter you don't really have a baby on the way, or i kindly ask you to refrain from such futile things and hold steady at the side of your wife :) (flight assistant tone intended)Testing, solving, coding and all the rest can surely wait a new life to come first.All the best again!

Damian, CONGRATULATIONS! Hope all is well. Thank you for the feedback as well. I am very puzzled as well, but one factor is that I have updated while airborne, so that could have something to do with it. But, with that being said, if I do get a relatively close report, with apply to all stations, or within the range, it will soon give way to many layers of clouds as I fly around, with holes around some of the airports, and clouds in between. No suppression is on.CB