Metar

[Guest jjlobo]

I need some help again. I started using metar information to bring more reality to my flights. I noticed that the environment becomes much more real when loading metars than when simply defining the weather in the wheter menu.However, there is an strange point. I've loaded the following metar for SBGR and SBCT. I don't know why, it loads the correct information, but up side down. SBGR takes the SBCT line and vice versa. Does any one have a tip?------ Metar file2002/12/27 18:00SBCT 271800Z 16007KT 5500 BKN015 26/19 Q10152002/12/27 18:00SBGR 271800Z 08005KT 9999 BKN020 SCT015 OVC030 26/19 Q1015___ JJLobo ___55 11 37268158*:-*

[Guest DSandberg]

Where are you getting the METAR file from? And is the way you show the two lines in your post the exact way it appears in the file (i.e., without an empty line between the two reports?) Fly expects METARs in the NOAA data format, which your post *almost* shows, except for not having the empty line between the reports.And are you sure that each station gets the other station's data? Or is it possible that both stations are using the same report? The latter could easily be the case if the METAR lacks a blank line as shown here.[br][br]http://www.usinternet.com/users/mystic/infomsig.gif

[Guest jjlobo]

David, thanks for replying.I've downloaded using infoMetar. It looks nice but I didn't go deeply on it yet (installed yesterday). Congratulations for infoMetar.The original file had the empty line between reports. When I detected the problem I've tested without empty line. The same result. Fly does import with or without the empty line.Yes, I'm sure Fly is importing two lines and gets the other station data. When I start Fly! each station has different weather configuration, but one took "some how" the place of the other. I've tested later yesterday with three different stations and it mixed them up. Each had different configuration but all three configurations I imported was there.For example, the following was tested yesterday night.2002/12/28 17:00 SBCT 271800Z 16007KT 5500 BKN015 BKT080 BKT150 26/19 Q10152002/12/28 17:00SBSP 271800Z 16005KT 6500 -RA FEW010 SCT040 FEW070 26/19 Q10152002/12/28 17:00SBGR 271800Z 08005KT 9999 BKN020 SCT080 OVC120 26/19 Q1015Fly! imported first to SBGR, second to SBCT (it was raining only in SBCT not in SBSP) and third to SBSP. The other thing I've noticed is that Fly! respects the first level information only. For second and third levels it created something totaly different than reported in the metar for all three stations. There was BKT around 800 feet for both second and third levels in all stations.I'm having fun any way.. -smile12Sorry for this long message and thanks again.___ JJLobo ___55 11 37268158:

[Guest DSandberg]

That's the first time I recall anyone having this particular type of problem (station swapping), so I don't really know how to advise you offhand. Same with the 2nd and higher layers not being interpreted correctly ... I've never seen any particular distinction between the accuracy of the lowest layer vs. other layers either.Just so I'm clear on what you are doing: how are you checking the weather to verify that it is wrong? Using the weather dialog, monitoring ATIS in sim, or looking out the cockpit window?Can I assume you are already using the final Fly II patch that was just released a week ago? And if so, do you have the "clear existing weather" checkbox checked when loading the METAR file?You also might try flying in a different part of the globe to see if you get better results. I'd especially recommend that you try an area with a denser METAR station coverage (like most any part of the continental U.S.). It is not beyond the realm of possibility that Fly's database has the wrong positional data for one or more of these Brazilian weather stations. I know that there are at least two stations (one in Australia and one in the western U.S.) that have incorrect positional coordinates in the Fly METAR station database, and hence their weather shows up in the wrong location in the sim.By the way, I note that the first of the three reports you quoted has invalid data for the 2nd and 3rd layers. ("BKT" is not a valid layer designation according to any version of the METAR spec I'm familiar with. Knowing the Fly! METAR interpreter, this could potentially result in the entire METAR going unused.)http://www.usinternet.com/users/mystic/infomsig.gif

[Guest jjlobo]

You are fast man, thanksYes, I'm in the last patch.I use the weather overview to check this out. Only rain I can see without weather overview help but I took a look and it was lite rain.Your are rigth it is BKN and I have typed BKT. The problem remains even with this corrected. I tried with KMIA, KTPA and KORD.The only difference is that the rain was in the proper station, KORD. But KORD took visibility from KMIA and vice versa. The second and third levels also presented some problems. KMIA was clear clear instead of keeping BKN015 BKN080 and BKN150. KORD aparentely took this configuration instead of FEW010 SCT040 FEW070, exactly what I sow in KTPA.I've used:2002/12/28 17:00 KMIA 271800Z 16007KT 5500 BKN015 BKT080 BKN150 26/19 Q10152002/12/28 17:00KORD 271800Z 16005KT 6500 -RA FEW010 SCT040 FEW070 26/19 Q10152002/12/28 17:00KTPA 271800Z 08005KT 9999 BKN020 SCT080 OVC120 26/19 Q1015Many thanks___ JJLobo ___55 11 37268158

[Guest jjlobo]

Sorry David, in my last message I corrected one BKT but there was two and I didn't noticed that.With this correction, the layers problem was corrected. However, Fly! still mix up stations in Brazil and in US. My comments about what is interpreted by Fly! in Brazil and US remains the same, but, the leyers.Thanks for your patiance on this.Regards___ JJLobo ___55 11 37268158

[Guest DSandberg]

It's highly unlikely that the stations are actually "swapping" reports with each other. More likely you are seeing a degree of interpolation between the various reports. Even after the final patch, Fly II still interpolates between multiple stations to determine the weather; we changed some things in how it selects and validates stations in that process, but attempting to remove the interpolation entirely would have meant a complete rewrite of the weather system, which was never intended.If you are only loading the three reports you've listed when you are testing, I suggest that you try simply loading a full METAR cycle file instead, or at least one that includes all available reporting stations within 300 miles or so of the flight route. Unlike previous builds, the final Fly II patch produces more satisfactory results when more weather data is made available to it. (This is why I've been saying that Fly II/InfoMETAR users should now set '0' as their "minimum spacing" setting when using InfoMETAR's Thinning dialog.)[br][br]http://www.usinternet.com/users/mystic/infomsig.gif

[Guest DSandberg]

Well, that's one problem down. :)[br][br]http://www.usinternet.com/users/mystic/infomsig.gif

[Guest jjlobo]

David, I tried to load the full metar downloaded by infoMetar but Fly! crashes. I'll try to make a loadable metar to cover a wider area and will let you know the results.Regards___ JJLobo ___55 11 37268158

[Guest DSandberg]

If Fly! crashed when loading a full METAR there was probably just a particularly malformed report in that particular download, so you would more than likely not encounter this crash again if you were to repeat the same process with a different cycle file. Since many METAR reports (particularly those from international stations) continue to be hand-coded rather than automated, it is practically impossible to determine when or how a horribly coded report might appear. One thing I'm thinking of adding to a future release of InfoMETAR is an option to filter out any METAR report that doesn't appear to be completely readable, before Fly can see it. (Forgive me for being less than humble, but InfoMETAR's METAR interpreter, which I coded from scratch, is a lot more robust than the one in Fly! ... I've not yet encountered a METAR report that has been able to crash version 1.01.)The best way to get a report with all local stations but more limited in overall scope is to use InfoMETAR for the download, set your intended flight route on the map, and then thin the weather data using a minimum spacing of 0 miles (so all area stations are included) and a buffer space setting of perhaps 300 miles or so (which excludes all stations that are clearly too far away to have any bearing on the flight). Then save the resulting thinned METAR file with all of the METAR Modification options active in the "Save Thinned METAR Data As" dialog. The resulting file is in most cases going to be your best bet for satisfactory results in Fly II with the final patch.http://www.usinternet.com/users/mystic/infomsig.gif

[Guest jjlobo]

David,I don't think you need to say "forgive me" related to any possible bug or weakness in your software. What you did is great, like many others have being doing for Fly!. There is no place for such need "forgive me".I'm trying to develop tools for Fly! and I realy know how hard it is to understand Fly! structure and databases. Actualy I'm frustrated with this situation. I would like to see elevations and cost lines easily solved. But it is impossible for me for while.Your help in this metar subject is realy appreciated.Regards___ JJLobo ___55 11 37268158

[Guest DSandberg]

> I don't think you need to say "forgive me" related to any> possible bug or weakness in your software. You misunderstand me. I wasn't asking for forgiveness for a supposed bug ... I was saying that MY software ain't got no bugs. It was thinly-disguised bragging on my part. :)[br][br]http://www.usinternet.com/users/mystic/infomsig.gif

[Guest Colins2]

David,:-xxrotflmaoColinPS love the new sig!

[Guest DSandberg]

Hehe! ... wait a minute? Are you now saying you don't BELIEVE that I never write code with any bugs???? :-lolGlad you like the sig. My old static one didn't quite comply with AvSim guidelines, so I took it as a challenge to come up with an even cooler one that did.[br][br]http://www.usinternet.com/users/mystic/infomsig.gif

[Guest tonyc]

Hi, David. different topic, but same subject..... do you know how different custom clouds affect metar reports and their FLY's representation. That is, if a Metar report calls for broken clouds at 3000, will Jure clouds make them look different than FLy's generic clouds?tony