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.

I don't really understand what you meant by that. Right now FSX is drawing clouds at position X. All the time. X is wrong. (Is X used elsewhere?) If every station has the information of it's height, Y, just add X + Y and you'll get the right altitude. Maybe I'm missing something (probably) but your explanation does not satisfy me.So, does FSX get the altitude number and than draws the clouds at that altitude?

I don't really understand what you meant by that. Right now FSX is drawing clouds at position X. All the time. X is wrong. (Is X used elsewhere?) If every station has the information of it's height, Y, just add X + Y and you'll get the right altitude. Maybe I'm missing something (probably) but your explanation does not satisfy me.So, does FSX get the altitude number and than draws the clouds at that altitude?

It was a hypothetical. I have no programmer's knowledge of how FSX deals with it's variables. Petraeus may, in gact, be perfectly correct. What I'm saying is - *IF* that variable is used elsewhere in other calculations ( I do NOT know that it is or isn't) then the EASY solution becomes more complex.Consider - this problem has been around since day one - it has been complained about since then also - the developers involved are very astute and competent - my logic says that ONE of them would have quickly fixed it IF it was that easy - ergo - there's more to the problem that a simple addition.I have programmed way too many applications to buy into the easy fix statement at face value.Vic