I am getting an irritating little problem and I wondered if any of you guys know a workaround. Basically, I am getting clouds drawn on the ground when they should not be there. For example, just doing a flight, I set only high altitude stratus, for 30,000 ft. But after a while, I noticed that I was getting patches of cloud on the ground as well in places. Removing the layer of high altitude cloud ( IE clear sky) solved the issue.I have noticed it also happens when you use cumulus at lower altitudes, FSX seems to render some clouds too low. I like my clouds, but clouds in the ground is a real problem for realism, and I dont want to have to have no clouds to avaoid the issue.Does anyone have any suggestions? Thank you, Mark

I am getting an irritating little problem and I wondered if any of you guys know a workaround. Basically, I am getting clouds drawn on the ground when they should not be there. For example, just doing a flight, I set only high altitude stratus, for 30,000 ft. But after a while, I noticed that I was getting patches of cloud on the ground as well in places. Removing the layer of high altitude cloud ( IE clear sky) solved the issue.I have noticed it also happens when you use cumulus at lower altitudes, FSX seems to render some clouds too low. I like my clouds, but clouds in the ground is a real problem for realism, and I dont want to have to have no clouds to avaoid the issue.Does anyone have any suggestions? Thank you, Mark

I use RW weather and have the same issue. Apparently no one told Aces the difference between MSL and AGL when rendering clouds. My solution is to just call them 'fog' and fly the approach :(

My suspicion Mark is the temperature settings. I can't remember what they are in FSX now but I think you set a temperature and a dew point. Thus if the dew point is close to the air temperature, clouds will form very low.If you set FSX weather to not change as time goes on, then this will stop your problem or alternatively raise the dew point.If I remember correctly, the lapse rate varies from 1 degree per thousand feet to 3 degrees per thousand feet depending upon whether the air is wet or dry. So take an average lapse rate of 2 degrees for example and if the dew point is 4 degrees above the ground temp, then clouds will form ats 2,000 feet.Does that make sense?Cheers, IAN

Thx, Ian, I will try that, mark

Ahh, wondered where you'd got to Mark. Hope that works - Let me know.Cheers, IAN

Will have to wait until I come across the problem. Presumably, when it manifests itself, I can just go to the weather settings and check what the temps are and adjust as required and check the result. Will report back! Cheers, Mark

I use RW weather and have the same issue. Apparently no one told Aces the difference between MSL and AGL when rendering clouds. My solution is to just call them 'fog' and fly the approach :(

Imagine that: fly the actual weather even if it doesn't match your expectations. What a concept!

Imagine that: fly the actual weather even if it doesn't match your expectations. What a concept!

Maybe, but it looks bad the way its rendered in FSX

Imagine that: fly the actual weather even if it doesn't match your expectations. What a concept!

Gosh, and to think that FS isn't perfect. Go figure. :(

I don't think the dew pt is that 'effective' as far as forming CLOUDS. Mist or fog maybe yes. What puts those clouds down to ground is what you have for the BASE of those cumulus cloud range. You need to set the BASE to above the surrounding terrain elevation. That should do it. I have a pic of what my settings are for 'World>Weather>User Defined>Custom>Advanced' that might shed some light on subject. Or even be to your liking, since you insist on clouds (even on a clear day-ha). You can have multiple cloud layers too. Improvise. Experiment. But don't complain. Weather is unpredictable as we all know.Chuck BNapamule

Gosh, and to think that FS isn't perfect. Go figure. :(

FSX is definitely wrong. It takes the weather report reading for cloud height above ground level, and turns that into cloud altitude above sea level. So when Salt Lake City reports clouds at 4000 feet above the ground, the clouds there end up on the deck, obscuring the local mountains, and sometimes even floating below the control tower. (see picture) I'm all for the element of random surprise in weather, but this is not random, nor is it even realistic. It's not random because it only affects higher altitude airports. It's not realistic, unless one is used to seeing clouds sitting near the ground, looking like big white fluffy Goodyear balloons.It's a fault in FSX, no doubt. However, the thing we can be certain of, like death and taxes, is that FSX won't be fixed, ever.So here's an opportunity for the addon weather programs, like ASA and REX, to add some value and to make the correction themselves. If they simply add airport altitude to reported cloud height, and feed that into FSX, they would fix it. Simple as that. It's not rocket science.So come on, REX and ASA, are you going to do that?

So here's an opportunity for the addon weather programs, like ASA and REX, to add some value and to make the correction themselves. If they simply add airport altitude to reported cloud height, and feed that into FSX, they would fix it. Simple as that. It's not rocket science.So come on, REX and ASA, are you going to do that?

Petraeus - I know you're frustrated but repeating the same old mantra over and over will accomplish nothing. Ignore my sig as a beta tester - I am speaking as a long tiime programmer - Considering this problem has been around since before ASA & REX and is a constant annnoyance to us all - do you REALLY think both developers are not aware of the issue and searching for a solution?I have no knowledge of either program's code but as a programmer of many years I can categorically say that what seems a no brainer to you can become a nightmare to a programmer. It's just not as simple to do as it is to say.Just a hypothetical here - ok, it's simple - get the report, get the station altitude and add to the reported level. Hmm, is that reported level used elsewhere? Yes it is. OK, do we need to change it for that scenario also? Nope, it's ok there. OH! That means we now have to test every scenario and compare and decide if we add or ignore the setting. Hmm, I wonder if the value is used elsewhere? Oh no - it is, now we have a three way test.. etc. etc..etc.It's just not that simple - cut the guys at ASA & REX some slack, please.So, as one use to another, give it a rest and be assured that your concerns have been noted by both developers.Vic

I have discussed this error and its potential solution in the Hifisim forum before, but this is the FSX forum. It's a general FSX problem, but one that could be fixed by any (and all) weather addons, so I make no apology for responding to the thread that was raised here. I'm always slightly confused by people in forums who claim to be "just another user" and then seem to give chapter and verse about addon manufacturers' future plans. If you are genuinely a user and not associated with any company, how can you assert that "be assured that your concerns have been noted by both developers". Have they shared their plans with you?People in this forum may well not know what the ASA or REX or FSMeteo response would be, so if those companies want to respond then let them do so, they don't need anyone else to speak on their behalf.

I have no knowledge of either program's code but as a programmer of many years I can categorically say that what seems a no brainer to you can become a nightmare to a programmer. It's just not as simple to do as it is to say.

OK, if we're quoting programming experience, I wrote my first ALGOL 60 program in 1967, and worked in IT ever since then until my retirement - see my bio. I've seen very few computing problems that can't be solved with clear thinking and a bit of application. If it can be described, then it can be programmed. On the other hand, I've heard thousands of reasons why things can't be done; why computers will never play video and music, why it's impossible to simulate something as complex as an aeroplane, why you'll never have a computer opponent with artificial intelligence being three of the more noteworthy ones.The problem we're trying to fix here is much simpler. Your example just tries to muddle it unnecessarily. To repeat:Every METAR reporting station specifies the cloud base above the height of that station.Add the station height to the METAR cloud height, and tell FSX to draw clouds at that height, and they will be drawn at the right height for that station.Repeat for every station, and they will be drawn at the right for every station.And so if Salt Lake City reports a cloudbase of 4000 feet, adding this to the KSLC altitude of 4200 feet gives 8200 feet; give that to FSX to draw its clouds, and they will appear at the right height of 8200 feet, which is where they are in real life.The weather addons corrected for the 10mile METAR visibility problem a long time ago; this is another useful correction they could perform, then they would get rid of (to quote the thread's title) an irritating cloud in ground problem, and perform a service for all FSX users.

To repeat - I am speaking for myself not any developer. I did not say that it couldn't be done - I agree as a programmer that I can make any computer do anything I want within it's capabilities. What I said was that it might not be as simple as you outline. There may be a lot more variables involved than simple adding one to another. If it were, in fact, that simple I feel certain that the developers would have resolved it long ago. I may be wrong. Maybe you're right - they just don't care.Think I'll go eat some worms. :(

Maybe, but it looks bad the way its rendered in FSX

It was a joke. A jape. A jest. A crass frivolity. I fully appreciate and understand the issue* and meant no disrespect to anyone. I support diversity in the workplace- my company even hires idiots!_{*Offer void where prohibited by law. Actual mileage may vary. Objects in Mirror are Losing the Race. Some warranty exclusions may not apply to you if you live in Shackleford Station, Antarctica or Peoria, IL. See package for dosage instructions which completely invalidate these statements. Side effects may include Dyspepsia, Myocardial Infarction and Recalcitrant Plebney. See a physician if you experience respiratory arrest for more than four hours. Keep away from children. Not suitable for large pets such as yaks and mammoths. DANGER! Aviation Fuel is Flammable! Do not use extension cords rated for less than 17.69 megajoules.}