Hi all,I wonder if you can help regarding how you determine how much cloud to generate in ASX and how thick a layer should be.This METAR in ASX is from EGLL at 9am on Wednesday 30 January 2008...EGLL 300850Z 27406KT 10SM FEW012 04/01 A3036I remember the morning well as I was returning from South Africa and waiting for my flight to Manchester which left at 8am. There was a cold front moving south over London and the air was very clear. By 9am the skies over Heathrow would have been nearly cloudless. The above METAR bears that out.On loading the weather for 0900 30 Jan 2008 into ASX the depiction in FSX is somewhat different. There are large amounts of cloud over the airport and there appears to be little or no blue sky. But in FSX's Advanced weather screen the only cloud layer is Stratus, 2/8, Base=1200ft, Tops=3200ft.Why is so much cloud generated when the METAR reports 2/8? How is the cloud type determined? Is it possible to choose Cumulus over Stratus?I'm also concerned that at EGLC (15 miles east) the METAR reports few at 1200 but in FSX there is a single cloud layer starting at 1200ft and extending up to 11200ft. That is absolutely killing the frame rate. It's currently around 11fps but if I close ASX and change the cloud layer to 1200-3500ft it more than doubles to 23.Why would a cloud layer be made so thick? Do you get additional information from your weather server about cloud thickness that isn't visible in the METAR?I understand FSX is generating all this cloud from the info you feed it. The two problems as I see it is that FSX is generating too much cloud from the METAR and some cloud layers are so thick they're adversely affecting frame rates.As you can see from my sig I have a fairly powerful system and with reasonable amounts of cloud it performs well. What it can't do though is process cloud layers thousands of feet thick. Looking through the options available to me there isn't one to limit cloud layer thickness. If I could limit those to 2000ft or so FSX would be so much better.I'd appreciate your views on this.PS. I've just loaded the same weather into FS9 via AS6.5 and the contrast could be more stark! Blue skies with scattered cumulus. Base is 1049ft extending up to 4500ft. This begs the question why are the two sims so different when fed the same data? And if anything I'd expect FSX to beat FS9 but the reverse is true. With a frame rates of 60 at EGLC it's a compelling reason to stay with FS9 and AS6.5.

Hi Ray,I personally have no idea about this. I'll see what I can do!Thanks,Jimhttp://www.hifisim.com/banners/hifi-community-sigbanner.jpghttp://www.hifisim.com/

Hi Jim,Thanks. I wasn't sure what part of my post you were referring to. My main concern is the cloud layer thickness. On the 30th Jan at Heathrow it was just 2000ft but 20 miles to the east at London City airport with a similar 2/8 coverage it was 10000ft.

Hi Jim,I've been testing my theory by moving to various airports and checking the cloud layers.Where a single layer exists its thickness always seems to be 10000ft. Where multiple layers exist the ones below the topmost can be of various thickness. However, the topmost one is often 10000ft.Whether this is deliberate or not I don't know. Is it possible to have a user-controlled option to limit cloud layer thickness?Cheers,

Hello JimI believe that this is a vitally important issue. I have a similar set up to Ray and was about to pose a similar question. I doubt, however, that I could have done it quite as expertly as he does.There is a long thread on the FSX forum relating to the issue of poor performance in cloud - many of the contributors having fairly high end systems. I'm now beginning to wonder if Ray has hit on the root cause of the problem.I look forward, eagerly, to any thoughts coming from your end in response.Bud

Hi Jim,Have you found anything regarding this problem yet please? I had a few more flights over the Easter break and the 10,000ft thick cloud layer was still present.Bud,Can you confirm if you're seeing the same as me just so I know my ASX installation is okay?If this problem is not linked to my install I'm mystified as to why it hasn't been brought up before.Thanks,

Hello RayI'm seeing the same. I think the reason it has not been brought up before is that no-one has thought of the thickness of the cloud as being an issue. Other avenues have been explored, such as cloud quality or number of layers or the effect of AA etc etc. I could be wholly wrong, but I believe your query has brought a new perspective. My breath is bated as I await a response.Bud

Hi all,Cloud thickness determination is based on several factors, and it has been modified and tweaked in almost every new revision in order to improve visuals. There should not be a hard 10K thickness except for a single stratus layer (I believe) which requires much thicker "data" thickness in order to get a decent "visual" thickness (i.e. 10K data = 1K visual). But there are many other factors at play here including air stability, other layers, etc.There should not be a hard 10K thickness for cumulus layers, but we will take a look. Since there have been so many revisions it is possible something has become broken.As to allowing a maximum thickness option, we will also look at this.Best,

Hi Bud,Thanks for confirming you're seeing the same as me. I have tried installing a couple of themes via ASG just in case I was using the default FSX cloud files but the frame rates remain the same.The number of cloud layers can be adjusted via the ASX Settings screen but there's no option for cloud thickness. Of course the Hi-Fi lads may have a good reason for frequently setting cloud layer thickness to 10,000ft but if there is it beats me.The lack of blue sky with a cloud layer of 2/8 is not only down to the cloud layer thickness but also to the visibility layer. Again, this is something I probably need to do more research on. Adding a 30 mile layer appears to act as a barrier to seeing blue skies until you're above it and then it just clears abruptly. But the visibility layer for many airports extends to 90,000ft! Not even Concorde could get above that. I would have thought that once you get above 20,000ft visibility was more or less unrestricted. :-hmmm I do hope the developers can get to the bottom of this and maybe issue a new interface that includes a cloud thickness option. At least that way we have some control. As things stand the depiction of the skies falls short of what I would have hoped for.

Hi Damian,Thanks for your answer and an explanation as to how you achieve the 'look' of realistic clouds. I appreciate it can't be an easy thing to balance realism with performance. I can't remember now if all the 10K cloud thickness types were cumulus but it shouldn't be difficult to determine.Can you also look at the visibility setting please? Sometimes where one is present it seems to go right up to 90,000ft and has the effect of killing the blueness of the sky.If I download the Wx using FSX's internal option what I see shouldn't be too far removed from how it appears using ASX. If anything ASX should make the skies appear more realistic but unfortunately that isn't the case (for me anyway).If you need an example of the cloud thickness and visibility problem then the example in my opening message should suffice...EGLC at 0900Z Wed 30 Jan 2008. With few 2/8 at 2,000ft the skies should be mainly blue with a few cumulus dotted around. AS6.5 shows it well, ASX with the same data produces a completely different look.Good luck and thanks for considering the cloud thickness option. :-)Cheers,

Hello RayCompletely agree. It's odd, but you always get the feeling you are the only one with an issue. I can't tell you how pleased I was to see your post. The problem with these things is that there are so many factors which are in play. It's not only the settings in the program itself but also settings in FS, graphic cards, drivers etc - the list is endless. I sometimes wonder how it is possible these days for a developer to produce a program which works on all computers.Having said that, it would be a great step forward to have an element of control over the thickness of the clouds.Bud

I have just the opposite problem. I do not think that the cloud thickness is sufficient or the cloud cover adequate in most instances. The KDAL area was recently in a period of heavy rain and thunderstorms which was reflected in the ASX map, but this is not what is shown in FSX. I suspect this problem may be related to some stations in the area not reporting. All my settings are "default".Bill

Bill,Then if a cloud thickness option was available you could alter it to suit your preference. I'm sure you're aware that increasing it will have a negative impact on your frame rates but as long as that's under your control then you can set whatever suits you.Bring it on I say :-)

HiJust wondering if there are any further thoughts on this before it disappears from page 1.Bud

Damian,In the 10 days that have elapsed since your last post can you update us on your thoughts and investigations please?Thanks.