Hi,OK so DWC off doesn't help you with this as it did another user at another forum.Now, how do we explain to users why the data in ASA doesn't match what is shown in FSX? A reported cloud layer at 12K in ASA, at a 5K station would now be drawn at 17K in FSX.Also, the ATIS system would now use the fake(modified) data in FSX and wouldn't be close to the ASA data, even though FlightWatch in ASA would be totally correct.I just want you to think about what other situations this affects by just doing this one thing. And that doesn't even take into consideration if it is even possible and what kind of re-coding would be necessary to accomplish this and if the final benefit is worth it or not.Thanks,

Now, how do we explain to users why the data in ASA doesn't match what is shown in FSX? A reported cloud layer at 12K in ASA, at a 5K station would now be drawn at 17K in FSX.

A cloud layer reported at 12K in the METAR and in ASA, at a station that is 5k in altitude, should be drawn at 17k above sea level. That's exactly what the METAR is saying, 12k above ground level, so 17k above sea level. Why draw the cloud in some other and incorrect place?*

Also, the ATIS system would now use the fake(modified) data in FSX and wouldn't be close to the ASA data, even though FlightWatch in ASA would be totally correct.

If by 'fake' you mean 'corrected' and 'correct' and 'real world', and if FSX uses its own intenal numbers rather than METAR figures, then that is probably the case. Let's face it, we're talking about dealing with an FSX error here. So both things cannot be correct at the same time. What do we want, an ATIS with incorrect cloud heights, or those clouds floating 200 feet off the ground like Goodyear balloons? When I listen to ATIS, I'm more interested in wind direction / speed and runway in use. I can see where the clouds are by using my eyes. So I know what my answer is.

I just want you to think about what other situations this affects by just doing this one thing. And that doesn't even take into consideration if it is even possible and what kind of re-coding would be necessary to accomplish this....

Are there any other situations? I'm well aware that system changes may have other implications that need to be thought through. (I wrote my first ALGOL program in 1967, and 12 languages and untold systems later I retired from IT in 2003) So what are the other implications and let's work them through - and what do the rest of your team think? If ASA is written in a structured way then the change should be simple - at every point where the cloud base is fed into FSX (and isn't it just the one place, embedded in a nested loop?) - add the station height.

...and if the final benefit is worth it or not.

That depends on whether ASA wants to represent real weather or fictional weather.Something to ponder - FSX doesn't show these 'Goodyear balloon' clouds in the same circumstances. Isn't it just possible that MS have got one bit of FSX doing some sort of a work work-round for a problem in another bit of FSX? Who knows? Whatever they are doing, they are avoiding the problem somehow.*METARs giving cloud heights above ground level, not sea level, is very important in real life. My local airfield, EGNM, is at 687 feet altitude, and being in northern England, often suffers from low cloud. If I'm flying back home and the METAR says OVC006, then I know I can get in by following the ILS down through the overcast and breaking out at approximately 600 feet above the ground. That's what happens in real life. If I were flying FSX and ASA with the same METAR, then the clouds would be drawn at 600 feet above sea level, and go all the way down to the ground.

Petraeus,Well analyzed! You are totally right with your theory. It's as simple as adding the height of the station for clouds and you have them depicted at the correct level.Many thanks for raising this issue. I fly too often from airports near sea level. But if you start from some higher place, the depiction is wrong. Your screenshot is a very good proof.RgdsReinhard

Hi All,At this time we are not going to change anything within the AS data system. If individuals want to use the Wx Config screen to create their own cloud layers, that is totally up to them and is understandable. I will put this on a list to look into in the future.Thanks,

Hi All,At this time we are not going to change anything within the AS data system. If individuals want to use the Wx Config screen to create their own cloud layers, that is totally up to them and is understandable. I will put this on a list to look into in the future.Thanks,

That's a shame, because the work-round you suggest is completely impractical.Unlike some of the other problems, where you can't seem to be able to reproduce them yourself, here is one where the symptoms are clear-cut and a fix appears to be relatively straightforward.However I did get the impression from the very start that you weren't keen to do anything about it. I feel that I personally have put far more work into it than you have. Is it just you now who is doing the support for ASA? Are you only part-time, because all your replies seem to be written in the evening out there in Michigan. Is there no technical team behind you?

At this point this thread is heading nowhere and I am going to lock it. In all it's glory, FSX is what it is and and the code has been frozen by MS. There is no need to go into who does what, when, and how. Any issues that users find are entered into a database and we will continue to look at those issues in the future.