Goggles

Yes, it's been years like this. Curiously, this was not a problem in version 1.5. My hunch is that the developers are tinkering with the 'fog' function of the graphics engine, which may be completely acceptable for shoot-em-up games, but is probably unsuited to accurately convey weather in aviation. Version 1.5 renders proper visibility at sea level: a setting of 240 meters in fog does not show any objects beyond that point, so that with this setting while on the runway, you can see 4 runway lights, but little more beyond that. However, it shows more visibility as the altitude increases, which is not usual. A visibility of 240 meters in fog displays up to that distance in Batumi at sea level, but in Tblisi at 1500 feet above sea level, you can clearly see all the way down the runway and objects such as trees and buildings way past that. If I want a visibility of 600 meters in Tblisi, I have to set in the fog settings to something like 60 meters. Version 2.7 seems to show the appropriate number of runway lights, given the set visibility, but then incorrectly shows topographical features on the horizon, miles away. Version 1.5 also renders cloud base quite realistically. If you set a ceiling of 400 meters, you will lose the ground at slightly above that in the climb. I also liked the scud type cloud base, giving a very realistic scud run at low level in a helicopter. However, that height is above sea level. So taking off from Tblisi with a cloud height of 400 meters, you are already in the clouds because Tblisi is at an elevation of 500 meters above sea level (which is possible, as it becomes an obscuration, or cloud reaching the ground). If I want to shoot an instrument approach and break out at minimums (or lower), I still fly version 1.5. Version 2.7 is more of a fair weather simulator, which is a shame, given the extremely complex modelling and fidelity of the aircraft, and their ability to realistically conduct instrument approaches. As for version 2.7, most canned cloud selections give you VFR clouds. And even if you set a given cloud height, say 800 meters, you climb past that and never enter cloud, so the cloud height setting is meaningless. I would like clouds selection 0 to allow the user to be able to select a solid overcast cloud base down to 0 feet if desired. Within the fog layer set, the visibility set should be constant within the layer (thickness), regarless of the height.

How does this discrepancy affect practical gameplay?

"Cloud differs from ground fog, fog, or ice fog only in that the latter are, by definition, in contact with the Earth's surface… " If you don't understand what 'only' means, here are some other official definitions: UK Met Office definition: "Fog is essentially a cloud at ground level that causes a reduction in visibility to less than 1000 metres." https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/learn-about/weather/types-of-weather/fog ---------------------------------------------------- American Meteorological Society definition: Fog: "....Fog differs from cloud only in that the base of fog is at the earth's surface while clouds are above the surface." https://glossary.ametsoc.org/wiki/Fog ---------------------------------------------------- Royal Meteorological Society definition of fog: "Fog is literally a cloud on the ground...." https://www.metlink.org/fieldwork-resource/fog/ ----------------------------------------------------------- Environment Canada's 'Weather and Meteorology - Glossary" "Fog A cloud based at the earth's surface, consisting of tiny water droplets, or under very cold conditions, ice crystals or ice fog. It is generally found in calm or low wind conditions. Under foggy conditions, visibility is reduced to less than 1 kilometre." https://www.ec.gc.ca/meteo-weather/default.asp?lang=En&n=B8CD636F-1&def=hide11BFF655E I hope that clears the fog up a bit.

"cloud A visible aggregate of minute water droplets and/or ice particles in the atmosphere above the earth's surface. Cloud differs from fog only in that the latter is, by definition, close (a few meters) to the earth's surface." (https://glossary.ametsoc.org/wiki/Cloud) "3.2.5 Cloud A visible accumulation of minute water droplets and/or ice particles in the atmosphere above the Earth's surface. Cloud differs from ground fog, fog, or ice fog only in that the latter are, by definition, in contact with the Earth's surface." (National Weather Service, Observing Handbook No. 7) DCS does not seem to understand that. Modelling of restrictions to visibility such as in clouds and fog would be much more representative if they did. In DCS, sitting on the ground in fog, one can still see surrounding items such as buildings and topographical features that are much further away than the fog visibility value set in the weather settings. If you are sitting in 50 meters visibility in fog, nothing further than 50 meters should be seen, period.

Yes, and when the base of the clouds touches the ground, it becomes fog for the person standing there. Something a lot of people don't seem to understand. Fog is a cloud that has reached the ground. BTW, the picture at the top with clouds below and hills sticking out is quite common for people who fly real airplanes.

Thanks. Version 2.5 showed the surrounding features in fog, including the horizon, only with clouds set to 9 or 10. Version 1.5 seemed to have got it, except for increasing visibility with altitude. My suggestion is that the visibility in fog should remain the same within the set 'thickness'.

Night in Batumi, Caucasus map. Overcast 2, base of clouds at 420 meters Fog set with visibility 10 meters, thickness 1000 meters Player in aircraft at ground level. Outline of trees, buildings and mountains can still be seen in the distance. Clouds can clearly be seen. A visibility restriction should not allow any features to be visible beyond the set value visibility value, including vertically within the set 'thickness': Clouds should not be seen Outline of trees and buildings in the distance should not be visible. Except for the surface of the ground that can be seen up to a distance of 10 meters in this case, while the player is at ground level, any other feature beyond should not be visible. At night, blackness (except for back-scattering lights) should surround the player beyond the set visibility value. In daytime, the player should be surrounded by grayness while in fog. Video card: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 foggy_weather.trk

HI, Track does not replay correctly. CC-101 in track replay does not follow original flight path, and aircraft eventually spirals into the ground. Tested both in VR and 2D. Night flight, Marianas map, Overcast2, cloud base set at 420 meters. On steep descent final from 5000 feet ASL for 24R Andersen Field, runway becomes visible at 4300 feet ASL. In weather settings for Overcast 2 with cloud set at 420 meters, the runway should not be visible until 1300 - 1400 feet ASL. When climbing, start entering clouds at 3500 feet, and ground/water reflexion still visible until 4500 feet ASL. Should enter cloud at 1300 feet ASL, and ground/water reflexion should disappear no later than 1400 feet. Cloud density too thin. This happens very rarely in real life. In real life, visibility in cloud is very low, like a hundred feet, and density to the top of cloud layer should remain thick. Normal overcast sky should not let the moon glow shine through, especially when there are cloud layers above. Despite some shortcomings, entering/climbing in clouds in version 2.5 was more realistic.

That's the spirit! Not everybody is a fair weather flyer!

Brush up on you instrument flying skills and you can play it. The real boys are qualified.

That's fog. Fog is a cloud at ground level. Don't know if that was intentional, but that's what it is. That weather should not prevent an actual mission from launching.

Marianas map night Can see parts of the sky, so not overcast but broken. Clouds set at 420 meters, but no cloud below 5000 feet.

Marianas map Night Take-off from Anderson Field 06L Cloud base set at 420 meters = 1300 feet ASL Entered cloud base at 3300 feet ASL. Could see Rota Island 50 NM away. Incorrect cloud base does not match weather settings. Also, there should not be a moon glow through the clouds.

People seem to be overly preoccupied with puffy clouds (cumulus). Clouds are most often stratocumulus, or rather flattish clouds. They have a base, tops, and go from scattered to completely overcast. Flying inside clouds should be good for the frame rate, as rendering of external objects would be inhibited as generally, visibility inside cloud is very low. So low that the wingman may have to stay very close to the lead in a formation. I wonder if they'll add turbulence while flying inside those puffy clouds.

I hope that DCS is working on this at the present time. I can't imagine them developing a new weather system based on the present one, as the present one is very limited, to put it mildly. DCS has an extraordinary level of fidelity and detail in flight dynamics and aircraft and weapons systems. Weather is always a major factor in operations (away from Nevada), but is lacking in this to make it a true operational simulation.

You wrote: 'It is unbelievably frustrating when you are flying around trying to pass a location of a target to your wingman, just for them to say "i am in a cloud".' What you just described, is it something you actually experienced before, whether in DCS or another simulation, or is it rhetorical conjecture, i.e. it didn't happen before but you can imagine the upcoming changes producing this result?

Has this been the case before? on another simulation?

Why is it simpler from a programming point of view? Would the visibility be the same all over, or would it vary from airport to airport? What determines what kind of cloud, and what heights are the bases and tops, and where the clouds are situated: everywhere on the map, or at specific airports? Would the user be able to set the clouds and visibility at individual airports?

Seed values and deterministic algorithms seem quite complicated. You then have to translate those values into a proper weather structure. All that's needed is, at the start of play, a one-time download of airport forecasts located in the simulation universe (i.e. Caucasus) and based on this, set the weather generating graphics. Those settings can change over time, depending on the changing forecasting values. In a multi-player environment, there would be one master server or player, from where the weather information can be downloaded and transmitted to the other players.

If you want real time weather at sea, where does the app find the appropriate weather report to integrate into the simulation? Or do you mean by real-time weather, weather the user defines at the start, that evolves over time to a user defined end state?

The question I ask myself is if whether these enhancements add to the tactical aspect of the simulation. Does having pretty clouds add to the challenge of winning an engagement? IMO, having properly modeled low visibility conditions increases the challenge, because if one crashes as a result of not being able to handle the weather, the result is the same as being shot down. As for realism, they should get the runway environment perfected, such as proper markings and runway and approach lighting first, before such things as hovering rescue helicopters.

I wish they would fix the approach lights in the Caucasus map. For example, at Mineralye-Vody, runway 12 has a Cat II approach, and runway 30 has a Cat I approach, but no approach lights either end. If they took the time to feature functional ILS at these airports, should they not complete the picture with appropriate runway and approach lights? For those fair weather flyers, it would at least appear prettier.

What kind of enhancements would you like to see? What do you find lacking presently?

You're missing the point: Compare the visibility of departure airports only, not after flying to the destination airport. For example, put your airplane on the runway at Batumi (near sea level) and set the fog to 300 meters. Notice how far you can see. Now put your airplane on the runway at Tbilisi (about 1500 feet ASL) and set the fog to 300 meters. Notice that you can see multiple times the distance you had at Batumi. The fog setting at the departure airport does not reflect how far you can see at that airport, and the difference increases with airport height above sea level. If you set the visibility to 300 meters, whether at sea level (Batumi) or 1500 feet ASL (Tbilisi), the maximum distance you can see should be the same: 300 meters. It is not.

Absolutely. What's the point of posting here otherwise?