Adam4171

Hi, my first recommendation: change some values in your FS9/FSX.cfg file; like that: for FS9 go to: Username --> AppData --> Roaming --> Microsoft --> FS9 and open the FS9.cfg file; find this value: CLOUD_COVERAGE_DENSITY and change it to higher number, CLOUD_COVERAGE_DENSITY=12. for FSX go to: Username --> AppData --> Roaming --> Microsoft --> FSX and open the FSX.cfg file; find this value: CLOUD_COVERAGE_DENSITY and change it to higher number, CLOUD_COVERAGE_DENSITY=12. I think 12 is the biggest value. Higher numbers (≤ 12) will improve the clouds density so you are able to see (finally) a real overcast (if reported in METAR or when set). But I'm afraid you thought to change the textures, to see the BKN clouds as a total OVC, correct? (In that case, I don't know how to change that, sorry.) So if there was reported BKN in the METAR, you would like to see a total OVC? So please let me/us know to go on, Adam

Truth, truth…“and I will be first in line” BUT SURELY NOOT ALONE, sir! :)

Yeah, I know, I was playing with the FSX default weather for the hole yesterday night. And the result? You really can have overcast with no holes in it, but the problem is that you can create the weather just for 1 airport (and it also takes a lot of time if there is reported OVC and you'd wish to create it using default FSX weather; and then, the weather might even change quickly, and what? :)/) -> and if you're flying a long IFR flight e.g. from KJFK —> KSFO, then it's simply unusable to create any weather using that FSX default w. engine (for the reality)… Well, the pity is that these external FS weather engine, as you mentioned, are not able to generate the real (and I really mean the real) clouds conditions, even if they're very nice … but not consistent with the METARs (it's pretty accurate just when you're on the ground that airport, but as soon as you're in CRZ phase and see the METAR (in AS) -- locked to nearest -- there, you read /for the nearest ARPT/ totally overcasted sky, so you expect, when you look out the window, that you will NOT see the ground from above, but instead, in fact, you see a lot of cumulus clouds under with A LOT OF HOLES … well, this is maybe a bit disappointing.Or, just 1 more example:You're planning a flight from AAAA to BBBB, you look at the BBBB metar and see there: 3300 -SN BR OVC018 –> so you expect that during descending, there will be absolutely no chance to see the airport from e.g. 15,000 ft; but in fact (if you're using any of these weather engines) you will see something like FEW–SCT–BKN clouds and you WILL be able to see the airport (over which there should be overcast) in the empty holes between the clouds … so, you continue to descent now from that 15,000 ft to the minimum ALT for ILS approach (which, let's say, is 4,000 ft), in 10,000 ft -- also a chance to see the airport (almost) clearly (but from different point of view, of course -- where the holes are); and until you're above 8,000 ft (or something like that), there's nothing different -- still able to see the ARPT (with, as mentioned before, OVERCAST); OK, then finally, some thousands above the ARPT ELEV, you suddenly fly into a strange haze layer and suddenly there's nothing to see (but until that, you might be thinking it's CAVOK or maybe SCT /if you would not had looked at METAR before/). :-) So, what do you think? :) Well, I know it's useless to write long stories about it; just my opinion of that all: IN FSX, IT WILL NEVER BE POSSIBLE TO HAVE AS ACCURATE WEATHER (CLOUDS) CONDITIONS AS IT'S IN THE REAL WORLD. (and you can do all you want to have) -- Maybe I had better to add: AT LEAST UNTIL YOU ARE USING ANY EXTERNAL WEATHER ENGINE. But I don't worry too much about that, cause the clouds that the AS2012 is generating are just soo pretty that sometimes I can forget that “little” bug. ;-)Thanks guys and nice evening (if you're in Europe and reading it in the evening),Adam

OK, I have found it out! :) I hadn't been saving the FPL in FSC as FSX format… :) Mea culpa.… and that's what I didn't know before -- I thought that AS only could create flight plans using VOR or NDB navigation; but now I know that for every weather-planning of the flight, I'll save the route in FSC (in FSX format) and then it's gonna be working for 100 %! ;-) (Using the averages, which btw. I can now also see there under the waypoints table.)So, as soon as I fly somewhere tomorrow (I hope), I'm going to plan it carefully -- with using AS and FSC (+ Adacalc); so now I hope it should be alright (but the truth is, which I had not realized before, that it's winter and the weather now changing a lot -- cyclones, winds, icings, etc. --).… we'll have to wait for summer for the most accurate values! :–)So, I think my problem is solved (if there are some problems again, I'll post them). ;-)THANK YOU VERY MUCH!!Adam

Hi again, sir!Well, now it seems to be more clear! Thank you!I have also been using FSC, I have just tried to save my FlightPlan, and when I click on Import in AS and select the FPL saved from FSC, it just doesn't work -- the cursor just skips to Alternate ID box, but the DEP and DEST airports boxes stay blank (so I cannot to create the FPL)… But If I try to open the .fpl in FSC again, it was working. Don't you know why it's not working?Btw. yes, I mean Vatsim FPL -- I file it via the Vatsim FPL website and there's no possibility to enter e.g. M078 in the cruise airspeed (-> then it's showing the ATC "0". But as you wrote -- it's just for forecasting and planning and even in winter it's very probable that the values will be during flight (even if it's a long flight) changing.

-> HiFlyI absolutely agree with you! But “complete overcast” or something like that -- with no holes and not to take too much FPS -> that is evidently very hard to create… It would be very nice it FSX had something like this (as FS2002 had): http://www.avsim.com/pages/1201/fs2002_part3/weather_5.jpg -- and I think it's even much realistic than drawing lots of stratus clouds (which btw. require A LOT OF FPS /and unnecessarily/) -- when it would be OK if it was just 1 layer with the overcast… Yeah, as you mentioned -- the developers try to create pretty clouds, but instead, they should create something like it was in previous FS… IS IT DIFFICULT to make just 1 layer with total overcast with no holes in it? (And there are sooo many discussions about that theme…) Well, some developer could say that it's possible to get fully-overcasted sky, but you will have to improove your settings so much high that then it surely not be much smooth to run it on any average PC… BUT why?? Do you think that everybody who wanted to “play” FS98 had to have a super PC-specifics? Of course not!I still hope that someday it will be possible to see in FSX EXACTLY this: (this is how the real OVERCAST should look like).Adam

Now I'm cruising in F370; according to the AS, the SAT should be here --55 °C, but when I look into FMC, I see --60 °C -> different ISA DEV -> still different TAS; i calculated the TAS using an upper mentioned tool -- and the TAS I should fly was 450 kts and I have now TAS 444 kts. I really don't know why the SAT is not showing correctly (in AS / in PMDG 737 NGX), but I would really like to fix that…Adam

OK, thanks for that reply!What a useful calculating tool! I hadn't known about this before and I'll be using that since now always for sure! :) Well, I am always filling the AS FPL to have the route on map; but I am asked for the cruise speed -- and how do I know it before I see the SAT? Or is it not so important here to be accurate? OK, I fill there e.g. 440 KTAS (just my supposition). Now, I have filled the AS FPL, with waypoints as required. When I look on the Flight Plan, I scroll down and see there a “table” with the waypoints and winds aloft by them. Next to the wind, there is the SAT in the brackets -- so do I manually have to calculate the average CRZ SAT? Because under that I only can find the average wind at F400, but not the average SAT. Then, as soon as I know the (T/C) SAT, I enter it into the FMC and find out the ISA DEV, which I then can enter to the Adacalc to know, finally, my TAS (also according to mach). But many times the SAT in changing during CRZ (sometimes a lot) -> then also the TAS is changing -> I would prefer to fill the cruise airspeed in mach into the FPL, but it's impossible (only knots).To the updates: So if the update cycle is unable to be successfully downloaded/updated (no/slow internet connection), then it will just wait till the next download (in the next 5 min.)? But now it seems to be OK, btw. the truth is that I was having problems with internet connection during my flight yesterday -- sometimes I was disconnected from Wifi or it was very slow -> then it's no wonder that I was having problems with AS updates. I'll try to improve the Wifi connection and have some flight to check it.Thank you,Adam

Hi,I have a couple of questions related to AS 2012 & PMDG 737 NGX.1) I plan a flight, for example, from EETN to LKPR (CRZ ALT F400). When I need to know what the CRZ TAS is going to be, I have to know the OAT in that level -- then I calculate speed mach 1 (in kts) according to that OAT and multiply it by the mach number which is going to be my CRZ (ECON from FMC); the speed that is economical for me in F400 is mach 0.782 … that's why I need accurate OAT -- BUT here I see the problem: For filling T/C OAT in FMC, I always find any airport that is located near by the T/C point (seen from NavDisplay), then I write this ARPT (ICAO) to the Active Sky (Wx Report) to see the TEMP at the required FL (under the symbols of weather, there are wind and temperature information for certain altitudes -- 3K, 6K, 9K, … 49K) -- so from that I can read that e.g. in 39K feet the OAT is –57.4 °C etc. According to that temps, I calculate the OAT for 40,000 ft (which is sometimes higher than in lower FLs -- possible?) -> I put that temp. to this http://www.csgnetwor...achonecalc.html and just calculate the mach 1 speed according to that temp, and then multply it by e.g. 0.782 -> I find out that my CRZ speed (that I also fill in the FPL) is going to be +- 447 KTAS. … well, as soon as I reached F400, I saw in FMC that the OAT was much lower, approximately –77 °C, so my airspeed then was a bit lower, e.g. just 425 KTAS and not 447 as I had been expecting… But if I check the weather at AS (locked to nearest ARPT), I can see there's just written something like 39K & –55.8, 44K & –57.4 --- so how is it possible that I have so much lower OAT than everywhere is issued? -- now I mean also this: http://jeppesen.com/...ion-weather.jsp -- also showing the TEMP if you open the wind forecast -- e.g. FL390 & showing –55 °C, but in FMC I can see OAT –77 °C…So, I'd like to know if the AS (and then aslo the JEPP. weather) shows the OAT correctly (-> then there must be any problem with FSX/PMDG), or if the OAT that shows FMC is correct. (But I suppose there shouldn't be any incorrect entry in the JEPP. weather maps.) :)And why do I need to know it?Well, just because I don't like when something is not working as it should / is not accurate, then also to fill the CORRECT CRZ airspeed to the FPL, and finally, when I calculate the EETs to FIRs, then it's not accurate (according to the planned TAS & actual TAS -- even if the wind is calm).P.S. I'm not using FSInn, but Squawkbox with Weather settings OFF.And the second, last, not so long question: :)2) Is it very important to have very quick internet connection to get the actual METARs on time (with minimum delay)? Because I have Wifi connection and sometimes it's delayed up to 20 min. -- it's 10:20 Z and I still have valid METAR from 09:30 Z (instead of 10:00 Z). And just one more note: In AS 2012 settings, I have set Automatic Downloads (+ VATSIM Online Weather) to every 5 min., but if I look on Wx Report, I can see “Last Updated: 00:15” and now it's 00:43 -> so “Last Updated” should now be showing +- 00:40 (update every 5 mins.); am I correct? (if yes, why is it not?)Thank you very much in advance!Adam