DamianAn update on any thoughts you may have would be greatly appreciated. I really feel that this is an important issue.Bud

Hi,Not much to report at the moment. We are working hard on several enhancements and fixes to ASX SP3 including this, but it will be at least a few more days before its ready for public testing.More news soon.Best,

Hi Damian,Thanks for your reply. As soon as you're able to I'm sure we'll be interested in the specifics of what you will be changing.

Ok,We went ahead and moved this up ahead in our schedule and spent several hours on it today. Much of this was researching past cloud thickness issues and limitations, which I failed to recall in my early response.Unfortunately there is some bad news.Since FSX and SimConnect, there is no longer the ability to control cloud thickness directly. It is something we fought with in the development of FSX, SP1, SP2 and ASX. Cloud thicknesses are instead automatically chosen by FSX based on the type (cumulus, stratus, cirrus or cb), base height, precipitation and coverage. For example, FSX may choose 10,000FT thickness for a nimbostratus layer, or 5,000FT for a altocumulus layer. In general, their 'table' of cloud thicknesses based on cloud parameters is quite accurate but obviously does limit us.Recalling the past, when we realized FSX would ship with this limitation, we enhanced our CAVOK, No-Data and Cirrus cloud layer generation to add realistic and visually appealing layers as much as possible. These are the only situtations in which we can control the base parameters (base height AGL and type mostly), otherwise we would be changing METAR-specific information and making data inconsistencies.In conclusion, these are the only ways you can affect the cloud height:- Adjust your stratus over cumulus % to provide more stratus, which has different thicknesses.- Use the Wx Configuration screen to adjust cloud types, precip and base heights manually to affect thickness.There are many resources on the internet that talk about cloud types, classifications and general heights/thicknesses. Here is one link: http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/guides/m...ldtyp/home.rxml .Other than that, we are at the mercy of the METAR report and what FSX decides to do with it.I apologize for my earlier misguided response about us working on adding a thickness option. We did indeed code this option in the interface but when I was handed the task to plug it in and make it work, the thickness issue was once again apparent and after recalling all the details it obviously would not work.Best,

Hi Damian,Thanks for your comprehensive reply. It is very disappointing that cloud thickness is controlled by FSX. Even more incomprehensible is Microsoft's decision to make some cloud layers so thick that even now, 18 months after FSX's release, top of the range graphics cards and CPUs struggle to cope with some weather situations. I will certainly experiment with settings using those you suggest.Does the choice of FS interface affect your control over things such as cloud thickness? Would switching to FSUIPC4 allow you more control? I appreciate this is not something you could contemplate for the current version but if SimConnect is limiting control then maybe FSUIPC might be a better alternative if it did allow such control.I will also ask Pete Dowson to read this thread and see if there's any way he can get into the inner workings of FSX and see if these thickness layers can be manipulated. He's performed marvels in the past but it really depends on whether it's something that is controllable and of course whether he wants to delve into FSX.I still feel the weather depiction in FSX falls way short of what could be achieved. Specifically the haze layer is a clean cut-off so as you climb or descend out of/into it it's akin to switching it on/off. By now it should be possible to have a gradual transition over a couple of thousand feet. This is no reflection on ASX of course - just a comment on the limitations of the basic weather engine.Let's hope FSXI brings considerable improvements to cloud depiction. I'm sure everyone reading this would benefit from it.Regards,

Hello DamianVery disapointing news indeed. I've made suggested changes to the cloud %s but have to admit I'm not too clear how to use the wx cfg screen as recommended. Is it necessary to edit the clouds for each station along the route? Additionally, do not such edits mess up the metar data?Ray - Pete Dowson might not welcome your query. I had a look at his forum when you raised this issue and spotted references where he is saying that cloud thickness, amongst other things, is not able to be controlled.Bud

Hi Bud,Firstly, I've changed the stratus-cumulus slider from 0% (all cumulus) to 75%. I've yet to try a flight since doing it but let's see how it works out. The suggestion to modify layers on the Wx config screen is probably only for die-hards as it would involve a lot of manual intervention.Don't worry about me and Pete. He and I are good friends. :-) As it happens I've just written to him and asked if it's something he could look at. He has worked miracles in the past via FSUIPC (remember the ever-lasting rain bug?) and it does no harm to ask. It would benefit him too of course if those default values could be user-configurable.More later...

Hello RayI'll keep my fingers crossed.Bud

Hi Bud et al,Well, I've had a reply from Pete and I'm afraid the news is as depressing as feared. This is was he said regarding cloud thickness...This is among the many deficiencies in the controls provided for FSX weather. MS are well aware of our discontent. It is an area which they must improve upon for ESP, so hopefully that will spill back into FS in time for FSXI. I don't know anyone who can control cloud thickness on FSX -- in fact we can't even read it!Looks like this one will have to be put to bed until FSXI and if you're reading this ACES please change things for the next version.

Hello RayYup, that's depressing, not unexpected though. Guess we'll have to see what difference is made by the change to cloud %ages. Bud