No overcast in 10.50b5

[charlesmc]

Real world METAR for KRDU is showing overcast at 800 ft. When I fly this in 10.45, I'm in the soup at 800ft. When I fly this in 10.50b5, It's basically CAVU all the way to 2,300+ ft. (as high as I flew).

I have attached screen shots and log files from both installations.

KRDU 040151Z 07005KT 10SM OVC008 22/19 A3011 RMK AO2 SLP193 T02170194 $

Log - 10.45.txt

Log - 10.50b5.txt

METAR - 10.50b5.rwx

METAR - 10.45.rwx

[sundog]

If you compare your two log files, you'll see that the 10.50b5 one indicates it "raised stratus layer to avoid a collision" while the 10.45 one did not. SMP takes steps to avoid cumulus clouds from intersecting with stratus clouds, because it looks unnatural to see puffy cumulus clouds sticking out of a flat stratus cloud.

So, I think it's not really a 10.45 vs. 10.50 thing, but rather a case where the cloud draw area or weather conditions in the distance were different in the two cases. In your 10.50 screenshot, I can see a distant cumulus cloud on the horizon that could very well be what forced SMP to push up the stratus layer (which I can see above you) to avoid intersecting with it.

SMP 3.2.1 handles this a bit more aggressively than 3.2, so it may also be the case that you have 3.2.1 installed on your 10.50 installation and 3.2 on 10.45.

If you want to avoid this, you can set SMP's stratiform representation to sparse or dense particles, which will disable the cloud collision prevention code. In this mode, cumulus and stratus clouds are represented in similar ways, and they look OK when they intersect.

[charlesmc]

I did some experimentation in 10.50 this morning. KFDK was showing real world METAR with OVC013. I took off from KFDK and reached 2000 ft. without any decrease in visibility. The Cloud Area Covered in SMP was set to 10137 sq. km. I then decreased the Cloud Area Covered to 5192 sq. km and I was then in zero/zero visibility at 2380 ft. So far so good. This was with solid stratiform. However, when I climb above the stratus deck, the weather goes CAVU, i.e. I can see straight through to the ground. When I test this in 10.45, I correctly see a stratus deck underneath me.

Note that I double checked 10.45 and the SMP plugin shows ver 3.2.1.

Sparse particles works correctly as well even at 10137 sq. km, i.e. zero/zero visibility.

However, when I set it on dense particles, the weather goes CAVU. 

As an instrument rated pilot practicing instrument approaches in x-plane, I'm trying to get the most realistic entry and exit into cloud decks.

[sundog]

What if you fly a little higher? There is an area of a few hundred feet of "scud" at the top and bottom of stratus clouds; you might just be flying in and out of it.

[WR269]

I did some experimentation in 10.50 this morning. KFDK was showing real world METAR with OVC013. I took off from KFDK and reached 2000 ft. without any decrease in visibility. The Cloud Area Covered in SMP was set to 10137 sq. km. I then decreased the Cloud Area Covered to 5192 sq. km and I was then in zero/zero visibility at 2380 ft. So far so good. This was with solid stratiform. However, when I climb above the stratus deck, the weather goes CAVU, i.e. I can see straight through to the ground. When I test this in 10.45, I correctly see a stratus deck underneath me.

Note that I double checked 10.45 and the SMP plugin shows ver 3.2.1.

Sparse particles works correctly as well even at 10137 sq. km, i.e. zero/zero visibility.

However, when I set it on dense particles, the weather goes CAVU. 

As an instrument rated pilot practicing instrument approaches in x-plane, I'm trying to get the most realistic entry and exit into cloud decks.

I can confirm I am seeing exactly the same thing

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[WR269]

Did another 3 flights, Skymaxx is not working at all with the latest Beta, if you disable Skymaxx, the clouds appear, enable it and you get mild haze, no clouds whatsoever.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[sundog]

22 minutes ago, WR269 said:

Did another 3 flights, Skymaxx is not working at all with the latest Beta, if you disable Skymaxx, the clouds appear, enable it and you get mild haze, no clouds whatsoever.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Send us your log.txt please.

[Defiance_co]

Frank,

I removed smp purely to test the beta 5a for being a stable vanilla beta

I sure as heck saw clouds lol, even posted at least one on the 'what did you fly today'

It's surely gotta be something his side of things

In fact, i'll put smp back in and post a pic or two here

Tony

[sundog]

Yup, I just installed 10.50b5 here and SkyMaxx Pro seems to work fine with it. What WR269 is describing sounds like a license activation issue to me. If so, that will be indicated inside the log.txt file.

 

[WR269]

I am seeing exactly the same as the original poster....the second photo is the vis you get when BKN clouds should be showing...see my log attached and also a photo.

 

Log.txt

[Defiance_co]

Some pics

Have Fun

Tony

 

ps: That was with a fresh rar install too, so a clean install WR269

 

Edited July 5, 2016 by Defiance_co
added text

[WR269]

Another thing I noticed...when the weather refreshes it goes back to no clouds....but if I disable Skymaxx in Plugins....I get default clouds:

 

[WR269]

Then if I re-enable Skymaxx. the Skymaxx clouds appear but not fully, and they go away as soon as weather refreshes and I am back to no clouds

 

[Defiance_co]

WR269,

Have you checked the support forum (i guess global weather has one, i don't use it myself) for any problems with 10.50 betas

For instance, RTH is being worked on, as that has problems in 10.50 betas

A beta is a beta afterall, until all bugs if any are squished, no one can fully expect any plugin/addon to work in most cases

Hope you get it sorted though

Tony

Edit : Disable or remove your FS global, try vanilla beta 5a with only smp installed

Edited July 5, 2016 by Defiance_co

[WR269]

Yes I have, but if the original poster has the same issue as me, and he is using XPlane's weather, and I am using FSGRW, then the issue is somewhere else, don't you think?

Disabling FSGRW makes no difference in this case. I have reinstalled FSGRW and Skymaxx, no change. I don't use RTH, my system is as plain as they come.

 

[Defiance_co]

Hiya WR269,

Yeah, seems so, i've not even tried NOAA in the beta yet, no idea if that's worth a punt for you to try, obviously test at your own risk etc lol

The RTH mention was purely because i saw posts about it, and it's a known issue now and is being worked on

I've only messed with stock weather settings to take a few pics recently, don't know much about the settings, i just took winds/clouds etc down/off to snap pics, but if you can, and by the sounds of it you know your way around x-plane, see if you can manipulate smp via it's settings that way

I guess if you can't get any result that way, then somethings gone south

All's i can think of with not having that plugin to test

Have Fun

Tony

[sundog]

WR269, try setting SMP's stratiform representation to sparse or dense particles. Your log indicates that a lot of intersecting cloud layers of different types are being received, which is forcing SMP / RWC to move around your stratus layers to avoid the collisions. I think that's what's causing the confusion, but setting SMP to sparse or dense particles will remove the need for SMP to reposition the layers.

[WR269]

18 minutes ago, sundog said:

WR269, try setting SMP's stratiform representation to sparse or dense particles. Your log indicates that a lot of intersecting cloud layers of different types are being received, which is forcing SMP / RWC to move around your stratus layers to avoid the collisions. I think that's what's causing the confusion, but setting SMP to sparse or dense particles will remove the need for SMP to reposition the layers.

Thanks Frank,

I was playing around with the settings and found that the slider for cloud/terrain blend softness was all the way to the left...when I moved it to 500, the clouds appeared!  Anyway, I have also moved SMP to dense particles and will leave it there...so far no major FPS hit which I hope is still the case when I test it with heavier payware aircraft.

 

Many thanks for the assistance and support....hard to fly without your product!

 

Cheers

 

Will