Jump to content
oldflyguy

Missing layers with ASXP, SPM and RWC

Recommended Posts

I've had SPM (just updated today to .8) and RWC for some months now.  I use these with ASXP and as much as I want to like them they don't seem to well with ASXP - the altitudes are still "off" and more importantly the cloud depiction is still missing layers.  After updating SPM I tried a test flight at KVUO (looking for layers) about 008 SCT thru 060 then OVC from then on.  ASXP without SMP and RWC had the layers spot on (ASXP HiRes Clouds enabled).  I restarted with SMP and RWC back in the plug-in's folder and sure enough only had the 060 OVC layer.  Totally missing the lower SCT layer.  This is not an isolated situation - it seems (after a few months of use) that the SMP/RWC combo is always missing a layer or layers.  This could be operator malfunction - if so please let me know what I'm doing wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can I confirm you have RWC set to "external injector" mode?

We don't have any lines of communication with ASXP, so it's possible they changed something we didn't know about. If you do have it in the proper mode, we'll have to investigate - first I've heard of this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can confirm that RWC is set to "external injector".  Funny, I uninstalled both SMP and RWC (looking to try anything) and now that SMP is re-installed (and seemingly working fine with just XP's WX, by the way) I can't install RWC (as apparently others have found as well) :blink:.  As Rosanne Rosanna Dana (SNL - yes I'm that old) would say "it's always something".  I'll let you know if anything changes as soon as I'm able to install RWC 1.1...

'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm told X-Aviation is working on a fix for the RWC installer issue... hold tight...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While we're waiting, I fired up ASXP to do a quick test. It *seems* to be working; as an example it wants to position 3 cloud layers right now at KSEA and that's what I'm seeing:

image.thumb.png.71b1833bff75498fe81d29e3aa59f5eb.png

(I moved the camera up through them to confirm.)

What might be going on is that the new ASXP weather isn't getting shown due to having "never change visible weather" on in the RWC settings. Try turning that off, if it's on.

Also it can take up to a minute for new weather to get picked up by RWC after ASXP drops it.

One other thing that can mess things up is if you used FSGRW at some point in the past, and it left an old fsgrwsmp.rwx file in your X-Plane folder. If that's present, it will use it before the ASXP weather data.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for this information.  Downloaded the new .8 version and was able to install RWC - going to check it out later today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wanted you to know that all is working as it should with ASXP, SMP and RWC.  The cloud layers appear to all be there and at the expected altitudes.  I've only been able to find 3 layers in my recent "hunt" - hoping to find something a bit more complex.  Thank you again for your response and also the quick turn around on the broken installer.

Ken

Edited by oldflyguy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well Frank, loving the way the latest version is looking.  Unfortunately I'm still missing a layer.  I just tried a flight out of LAX as there were two layers at that airport - 010 SCT and 050 SCT - the 050 layer was there but couldn't tell about the lower layer until I took off (Dutchess - easy for testing).  Sure enough clear as a bell all the way to 050 when I entered the scattered layer.  Now that I'm thinking about it the layer(s) I'm most often missing ARE the lower ones.  Don't know if this is helpful but it's easy to check out (right now)! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure everything is working correctly and configured correctly - it isn't that difficult.  (ASXP with SMP and RWC)  Still not getting the lower cloud layers.  KVUO just now - BKN 017, BKN 030, OVC 060.  Only the OVC 060 shows up.  It appears that BKN, SCT and FEW layers don't show up when they are very low - say 010 - 030 AGL.  Most noticeable departing and arriving at airports obviously.  Otherwise SMP cloud depictions are fine.  Default XP RW WX shows the layers correctly but once you've experienced the SMP clouds you don't want to go back.  What to do??
 

Edited by oldflyguy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, oldflyguy said:

I'm sure everything is working correctly and configured correctly - it isn't that difficult.  (ASXP with SMP and RWC)  Still not getting the lower cloud layers.  KVUO just now - BKN 017, BKN 030, OVC 060.  Only the OVC 060 shows up.  It appears that BKN, SCT and FEW layers don't show up when they are very low - say 010 - 030 AGL.  Most noticeable departing and arriving at airports obviously.  Otherwise SMP cloud depictions are fine.  Default XP RW WX shows the layers correctly but once you've experienced the SMP clouds you don't want to go back.  What to do??
 

If you can send me the metar.rwx file that's in place when you encounter this, and the location you were flying at, that should allow me to figure out what's going on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here you go!  I flew around KLAX where OVC at 012 was reported.  Didn't hit a layer until 020 - I thought that this was nit picking so I paused the sim and checked out KPDX (always dependable for layers) and found BKN at 012 through 035, then BKN at 100 as I remember.  It was clear until I hit a BKN layer at 054 - I could see another layer above that I assumed was the BKN 100 layer but didn't go there.  I does seem something is "off" with those lower layers.  This is with SMP, RWC and ASXP.  Also using FlyAGI but just for LOD (didn't make a difference when I removed flywithlua).  Gotta say, where the layers exist SMP looks pretty good...

METAR.rwx

Edited by oldflyguy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well that's odd - your METAR.rwx file is actually empty of any data at all! I think maybe ASXP wiped it out before you were able to grab a copy of it.

However, I just now tried KPDX with ASXP and fortunately similar conditions still existed there. I think I might know what's going on.

Do you have your overcast representation in SMP set to solid or broken procedural? If so, cumulus (broken) cloud layers that intersect the overcast layer are suppressed in SMP, because having these two different representations of cloud types overlapping each other looks weird. The issue isn't that the broken layer is low, it's that it's too close to the overcast layer.

If you change your overcast representation to something else, like "Soft HD", you should see both layers appear. Although, they are close enough that they can be difficult to distinguish - but they are there. Our clouds tend to be larger and taller than default clouds, so visualizing distinct layers that are close together can be tricky at times.

Anyhow, I hope you just had overcast set to a procedural setting and that's all it is.

Edited by sundog
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good morning!  Man, you are dedicated - I did not expect a response until after the weekend!  Here's another Metar file (seems to contain some data).  KVUO BKN 012 - 060, OVC 110.  Only a BKN layer at about 050 is depicted - clear below.

METAR.rwx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, this is getting weird. I loaded up your metar.rwx, went to KVUO, and moved up - and the two layers are distinctly visible to me. They look pretty darn good if I may say so, even.

layers.png

Might be time to have a look at your log.txt and SMP and RWC settings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good morning Frank!  I beginning to see where my issue is with layers.  I also loaded up the metar I sent to you and of course I had the same result.  The difference is - and you can tell from your screenshot - that the broken layer is supposed to start at about 1200' AGL and goes up to about 6000' (KVUO is at about 20') but the broken layer we see is at about 5000'.  That broken layer is certainly "correct" but should be much "thicker" (?).  The 2nd layer of overcast at about 11,000' looks correct but I did not fly up there.  I can see now that this is where I'm seeing "incorrect" layer info - the layer is there but the altitude and extent (vertically) is still off.  And yes, the cloud art looks great.  I'm going to post over at the .org site to see if anyone else has picked this up as it may just be an ASXP / SMP, RWC thing...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, I see. For cumulus clouds (ie, "broken") we only pay attention to the base altitude of the layer, and allow our physical model of cloud growth to take care of the thickness of it. But we do model in some variation to the bases of the clouds as well - and the clouds themselves vary quite a bit in size and shape. So it's not really possible to position a cumulus cloud layer at a precise altitude and still have it look realistic. It's just the trade-offs we chose to make there.

However I do suspect this may be worse with ASXP,  because I believe they limit themselves to 3 layers. So if they really want multiple cumulus layers close together at similar altitudes, they don't have a way to convey that information to us. FSGRW, and RWC used alone with X-Plane's default weather system, can both represent unlimited numbers of layers and so this is less of an issue in those scenarios.

Be forewarned you're likely to encounter a lot of tribalism around weather add-ons on the org. But if you learn anything useful there please let me know. I stay off the org for my own mental health!

Edited by sundog
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL!  I never take anything personally and I find all this "stuff" interesting.  I do appreciate your timely and informative responses.  I am a SMP fan...

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/28/2019 at 6:50 PM, sundog said:

But if you learn anything useful there please let me know.

I've recently learned 'SMP is a resource hog' but my computer just does not believe... 

:-)

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×