sundog Posted June 9, 2016 Report Share Posted June 9, 2016 10 minutes ago, brucie1dog said: Frank, I will do all that later on today and see where I get and advise. However I can't even find X-Life on my system. Thanks, Andy My previous message wasn't directed at you, Andy. That said I think the current metar.rwx file that is coming in from X-Plane for this hour contains some invalid data that is causing a crash. I'm looking into it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brucie1dog Posted June 9, 2016 Report Share Posted June 9, 2016 Thank you Frank! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brucie1dog Posted June 9, 2016 Report Share Posted June 9, 2016 Frank, I was able to start X-Plane again and started a KRSWKORD flight. Hopefully all will go well like it did last night. I have to say when 3.2 is working it's magnificent. I appreciate all your patience and support! Andy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brucie1dog Posted June 10, 2016 Report Share Posted June 10, 2016 Hi Frank, I was able to complete the KRSWKORD flight with out any issues. I am now doing KORDKBIL flight. Hopefully I'll fly into some nasty Thunderstorms on my descent. Andy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Stian Posted June 11, 2016 Author Report Share Posted June 11, 2016 On 5.6.2016 at 5:38 PM, sundog said: OK, I see what's going on here. METAR cloud heights are specified as AGL (above ground level,) but in X-Plane we need to draw them in MSL (above mean sea level.) To convert between the two, SMP 3.2 tests the height of the terrain underneath you to figure out where "ground level" is. Problem is, if you're flying over mountainous terrain or over islands, ground level changes frequently, and that's what's leading to the cirrus cloud moving like it does. Coding up a fix now. Hello Did you find any clever solution on this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sundog Posted June 11, 2016 Report Share Posted June 11, 2016 2 hours ago, Tom Stian said: Hello Did you find any clever solution on this? Yes, the upcoming 3.2.1 update should fix this. It's been handed off to X-Aviation so should be soon. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Stian Posted June 11, 2016 Author Report Share Posted June 11, 2016 1 minute ago, sundog said: Yes, the upcoming 3.2.1 update should fix this. It's been handed off to X-Aviation so should be soon. Great stuff.. cant wait Thank you Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brucie1dog Posted June 11, 2016 Report Share Posted June 11, 2016 I have had a couple of days of really nice flying in some moderately bad weather. Hopefully it continues. These are the settings I am using since Frank has determined that my 2GB of video memory isn't really enough. Andy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Stian Posted June 14, 2016 Author Report Share Posted June 14, 2016 On 11.6.2016 at 3:50 PM, sundog said: Yes, the upcoming 3.2.1 update should fix this. It's been handed off to X-Aviation so should be soon. Im not impatient, but how long does this process take? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cameron Posted June 14, 2016 Report Share Posted June 14, 2016 Im not impatient, but how long does this process take? [emoji5] It varies. Right now we are considering some things so it will be out when it is out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Stian Posted June 14, 2016 Author Report Share Posted June 14, 2016 Would be awesome to have a option on the cloud brightness for the next version. I like the 3.1.2 version. Realistic or not. Its very split what people prefere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Stian Posted June 30, 2016 Author Report Share Posted June 30, 2016 No jumping clouds so far in 3.2.1. Looks good. Thanks 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denco Posted June 30, 2016 Report Share Posted June 30, 2016 (edited) On 6/14/2016 at 5:15 PM, Tom Stian said: Would be awesome to have a option on the cloud brightness for the next version. I like the 3.1.2 version. Realistic or not. Its very split what people prefere. I'm hoping that the v4 improves the shading of the clouds. What I mean is that the top of the clouds are more white because of the sun shining on them and the bottom is darker. Example is the image bellow. Edited June 30, 2016 by Denco Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas_99 Posted July 1, 2016 Report Share Posted July 1, 2016 15 hours ago, Tom Stian said: No jumping clouds so far in 3.2.1. Looks good. Thanks Hi ! Hmmm, I could not really confirm that, but maybe I'm facing a different problem.... Yesterday I've made a short test-flight with V3.2.1 from SPJC (Lima) to SPZO (Cusco). Usually Lima has low-hanging dense clouds, which go until the mountains. It looks perfect, below the clouds and above the clouds. Very good. But as I turn around direction to Cusco, the clouds are jumping several times up, as the ground level changes. I'm using SMP 3.2.1 and RWC 1.0. best regards, Thomas Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sundog Posted July 1, 2016 Report Share Posted July 1, 2016 Thomas, is it the cumulus (puffy) clouds that seem to be moving? The 3.2.1 fix was specifically for stratus, cirrus, and cirrocumulus clouds. I suspect you're crossing a tile boundary which can result in some small differences in cumulus cloud altitudes just due to how the math works (but it shouldn't happen often). If we could see your log.txt following this, I could confirm if that's the case or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas_99 Posted July 1, 2016 Report Share Posted July 1, 2016 3 hours ago, sundog said: Thomas, is it the cumulus (puffy) clouds that seem to be moving? The 3.2.1 fix was specifically for stratus, cirrus, and cirrocumulus clouds. I suspect you're crossing a tile boundary which can result in some small differences in cumulus cloud altitudes just due to how the math works (but it shouldn't happen often). If we could see your log.txt following this, I could confirm if that's the case or not. Hi ! I don't think that the cumulus clouds are moving. I like to show you 4 photos: This was the situation after start below the clouds. Perfect :-) Above the clouds: wonderful And here we are some seconds before the jump: It's cloudy in the valley, no water to see And here we are some seconds later: we are below the clouds, can see the ocean. You are completely right, I'm passing a tile boundary: SkyMaxx Pro: Found new METAR.rwx file SkyMaxx Pro: Parsing METAR data SkyMaxx Pro: METAR parsing took 517 ms. 0:10:37.464 I/SCN: DSF load time: 5448 for file Custom Scenery/zz-w2xp_america/Earth nav data/-20-080/-13-076.dsf (0 tris) SkyMaxx Pro: Coordinate system changed; repositioning cloud layers. 0:10:42.659 I/SCN: DSF load time: 5193605 for file Custom Scenery/zzzz_hd_global_scenery3/Earth nav data/-20-080/-13-076.dsf (1208493 tris) 0:10:43.218 I/SCN: DSF load time: 10918 for file Custom Scenery/zz-w2xp_america/Earth nav data/-20-080/-12-076.dsf (0 tris) 0:10:48.442 I/SCN: DSF load time: 5215571 for file Custom Scenery/zzzz_hd_global_scenery3/Earth nav data/-20-080/-12-076.dsf (1158304 tris) SkyMaxx Pro: Raised stratus layer to avoid a layer collision. SkyMaxx Pro: Raised stratus layer to avoid a layer collision. SkyMaxx Pro: Raised stratus layer to avoid a layer collision. But this is not a small difference, it's a huge one :-) best regards, Thomas Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sundog Posted July 1, 2016 Report Share Posted July 1, 2016 (edited) The real issue is this: SkyMaxx Pro: Raised stratus layer to avoid a layer collision. Basically some new localized cumulus clouds came into your view area that were at the same altitude range as the stratus clouds. Because cumulus clouds and stratus clouds don't intersect in nature, and they look terrible visually when they do, we adjust the cloud altitudes to avoid an intersection when this happens. Otherwise we just get a different set of complaints. To avoid this issue, you can set SMP's stratiform representation setting to sparse or dense particles. Edited July 1, 2016 by sundog Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas_99 Posted July 2, 2016 Report Share Posted July 2, 2016 (edited) 13 hours ago, sundog said: The real issue is this: SkyMaxx Pro: Raised stratus layer to avoid a layer collision. Basically some new localized cumulus clouds came into your view area that were at the same altitude range as the stratus clouds. Because cumulus clouds and stratus clouds don't intersect in nature, and they look terrible visually when they do, we adjust the cloud altitudes to avoid an intersection when this happens. Otherwise we just get a different set of complaints. To avoid this issue, you can set SMP's stratiform representation setting to sparse or dense particles. Hi ! Thanks for the info. Some remarks: 1) If I set it to "sparse particels", it's working, but it looks like a usual cloudy sky. 2) If I set it to "dense partices", I don't have clouds at all. Clear blue sky. -> (edit:) I have to correct that. If I'm below the clouds (here 1400 ft) it looks perfect. While climbing through the clouds, they began to fade out. reaching the top level of the clouds, they vanish. Blue clear sky. 3) If I set it to "solid stratoform" it's working like before the jump, low-layer clouds. If there were new localized cumulus clouds, where are they gone after setting it back to "solid stratoform" ? best regards, Thomas Edited July 2, 2016 by Thomas_99 additional Info point 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sundog Posted July 2, 2016 Report Share Posted July 2, 2016 Not quite sure I follow what you experienced there. Your "2" scenario sounds like X-Plane reduced the visibility in some layer you flew into that caused the clouds to fade away while you were in it. "sparse" or "dense" particles represents stratus clouds using really dense cloud puffs jammed together, instead of as a solid, bumpy slab. Since it's the same technique used to represent cumulus clouds, we don't have to take steps to avoid collisions between the two different cloud types - they look fine when they intersect. So that's why it behaves differently in that case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas_99 Posted July 2, 2016 Report Share Posted July 2, 2016 (edited) 31 minutes ago, sundog said: Not quite sure I follow what you experienced there. Your "2" scenario sounds like X-Plane reduced the visibility in some layer you flew into that caused the clouds to fade away while you were in it. "sparse" or "dense" particles represents stratus clouds using really dense cloud puffs jammed together, instead of as a solid, bumpy slab. Since it's the same technique used to represent cumulus clouds, we don't have to take steps to avoid collisions between the two different cloud types - they look fine when they intersect. So that's why it behaves differently in that case. Hi ! I'm really not sure what the trigger is. First pic shows the view to the right just before it happens. Second pic after effect. Next pics show the different settings of SMP. Please look at pic 5 (no clouds) and at pic 3 and 6 (red arrows). There was even a different cloud height just switching between representations. 0:03:02.272 I/ATC: Changing SPLP CabState from 0 to 1 0:03:02.272 I/ATC: All departures are done at SPLP. Advancing... 0:03:02.272 I/ATC: Changing SPLP CabState from 1 to 2 0:03:02.272 I/ATC: All arrivals are done at SPLP. Advancing... 0:03:02.272 I/ATC: Changing SPLP CabState from 2 to 0 0:09:33.728 I/SCN: DSF load time: 2185 for file Custom Scenery/zz-w2xp_america/Earth nav data/-20-080/-13-076.dsf (0 tris) SkyMaxx Pro: Coordinate system changed; repositioning cloud layers. 0:09:39.325 I/SCN: DSF load time: 5616435 for file Custom Scenery/zzzz_hd_global_scenery3/Earth nav data/-20-080/-13-076.dsf (1208493 tris) 0:09:39.973 I/SCN: DSF load time: 15768 for file Custom Scenery/zz-w2xp_america/Earth nav data/-20-080/-12-076.dsf (0 tris) 0:09:45.524 I/SCN: DSF load time: 5542532 for file Custom Scenery/zzzz_hd_global_scenery3/Earth nav data/-20-080/-12-076.dsf (1158304 tris) SkyMaxx Pro: New settings applied. SkyMaxx Pro: New settings applied. SkyMaxx Pro: New settings applied. Clean exit from threads. best regards, Thomas Edited July 2, 2016 by Thomas_99 added logfile Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sundog Posted July 2, 2016 Report Share Posted July 2, 2016 Well, I can speculate as to things that may have happened: - METAR reports cloud altitudes as AGL, not MSL. So when you cross a tile boundary or otherwise cause clouds to be re-positioned, the altitude may change to reflect the new ground altitude. - When you change SMP settings, it causes the local weather conditions to be re-evaluated and all clouds to be re-generated. This could result in visual changes, especially if you have the "never change visible weather" checkbox on in RWC - that setting could cause what you see to diverge from what's being reported, but changing settings recreates clouds regardless of this setting. - Particle-based stratiform clouds do not have a distinct upper boundary or the ability to portray cloud layers of arbitrary thickness, while "solid" and "broken" do. So you'll find the altitude of stratus cloud tops will be more accurate with "solid" or "broken." In short, I think things are behaving as designed - you're just running into some edge cases we had to deal with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas_99 Posted July 2, 2016 Report Share Posted July 2, 2016 10 minutes ago, sundog said: Well, I can speculate as to things that may have happened: - METAR reports cloud altitudes as AGL, not MSL. So when you cross a tile boundary or otherwise cause clouds to be re-positioned, the altitude may change to reflect the new ground altitude. - When you change SMP settings, it causes the local weather conditions to be re-evaluated and all clouds to be re-generated. This could result in visual changes, especially if you have the "never change visible weather" checkbox on in RWC - that setting could cause what you see to diverge from what's being reported, but changing settings recreates clouds regardless of this setting. - Particle-based stratiform clouds do not have a distinct upper boundary or the ability to portray cloud layers of arbitrary thickness, while "solid" and "broken" do. So you'll find the altitude of stratus cloud tops will be more accurate with "solid" or "broken." In short, I think things are behaving as designed - you're just running into some edge cases we had to deal with. Hi ! Maybe it is worth trying and see if you can reproduce it yourself. It's very simple: 1) Go to Lima SPJC airport 2) takeoff. 3) set course to 25000 ft, 90deg, autopilot 4) wait. At me it happens within 15 minues. And don't care of the weather :-) At this season in Lima there is 24h the same weather. So you can try whenever you want to. best regards, Thomas Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.ede78836fe6795baf7b91e5eb2aad35e.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.