Lower cloud base

[laren]

reality does not have sliders and settings, as well. ;)

 

Right, but this is were flightsim is better than the realily - one can set any conditions anytime.

[laren]

I would love to have in depth weather simulation in DCS, but what part would you cut the resources from?

 

I'm not asking for advanced wheather, but very basic tools. A lower cloud base and proper visibility won't take any extra resources.

[laren]

Yeah, I wouldn't mind improved weather, but you make it sound like this should be the single highest priority.

 

As a pilot myself, yes, I think the weather builder is the main flaw of the game, out of these which are easy to fix.

[Jarlerus]

I think you are grossly underestimating what goes into software development by calling this task an "easy" one.

 

Swedish proverb: "Many small steams... [make a large river]"

[laren]

I think you are grossly underestimating what goes into software development by calling this task an "easy" one."

 

Easy comparing to the global map, for example.

[cichlidfan]

Easy comparing to the global map, for example.

 

Actually, a map is easier since it is just time consuming artwork applied to an elevation model of the area being worked on. Weather relies on software being written which must interact and coexist with the rest of the existing simulation code while not degrading performance of the entire product.

[Yurgon]

As a pilot myself, yes, I think the weather builder is the main flaw of the game, out of these which are easy to fix.

 

We all have different aspects of the sim we'd like to see addressed first.

 

Calling this an easy fix, though...

 

Keep in mind that weather must always work for an entire map. Maybe it would be easy to define a zone and set a certain visibility within that zone. But clouds don't stick to perfect circles or spheres, and so this would look extremely unrealistic from the outside.

 

Unless you can come up with an easy to describe way that this could be implemented into the current version of DCS, I think it's presumptuous at best to call this "easy" and then argue that someone else has to be able to code it.

 

I know a thing or two about software development, and most seemingly "easy" tasks are quite the opposite, while sometimes seemingly difficult tasks are actually quite easy to implement.

 

Maybe you should consider the fact that if it was as easy as you thought, it would probably be long implemented.

[shagrat]

I think the underlying problem is, that laren wants an alternative to civil flight simulators and has issues accepting that combat simulations have a different focus.

I've said it before the cpu and GPU resources are limiting factors, as well.

So handling detailed weather "objects"/"zones" is not simply put some slider and a couple code lines.

 

I have one question? IIRC if you lower the cloud base with the deck below 1,000 ft the tops of the mountains stuck out above the clouds, right?

So the clouds could go even lower than ground level?

Did this change?

What is the most elevated airfield on the Caucasus map?

Should be possible to set the deck a couple feet higher than field elevation if it isn't Batumi at MSL + 3ft, at least in theory. Need to check that tonight.

[MikeMikeJuliet]

A little side tangent, gents. First off, the minimum cloud base is 1000ft, right? Regardless, some airfields are on sea level. Telling someone to "just use an airfield that is higher up so you can have the clouds lower" seems like trying to evade the whole subject.

 

Wha IS an easy fix, is to allow the cloud base limit to go higher and lower. Those are just arbitrary limiting numbers.

 

The visibility issue is tricky, yes. And something that unfortunately requires either a "x-visibility everywhere" or a proper dynamic weather system.

 

DCS has always been poor in using multiple cpu-cores for the reason of complexity and integration level of its components. That said, the one thing that could be dedicated to a separate core is the dynamic weather, since that data wouldn't have to be synchronised with the aerodynamic similation on the go, but rather at longer intervals (the issue of keeping cpu cores synchronized is the issue why multi-cpu may indeed be slower that a single-cpu solution).

 

An easy fix, no. But one that might be feasible. That said I do believe this would require a full rework of the whole weather system.

 

 

On real life topics: It is not that rare to see a cloud base of, say, 100-500ft AGL and still have virtually unrestricted visibility below them. Low cloud does not mean it is foggy. Many times quite the opposite.

 

 

On tve importance of clouds... Clouds and weather ARE an important tactical and technical aspect in air combat. Do not dismiss it so haphazardly. Clouds restrict and or allow CAS. Clouds are the perfect cover against IR and Imaging seekerheads. Clouds are a handy escape route in dogfights. High water concentration in clouds reduce radar detection ranges slightly. Contrails up high reveal you to your enemies (and in is also not uncommon to have no contrails at all). Humid summer weather can restrict detection by a large amount in low altitudes, even though visibility is tecnically very good... And how about poor weather in the home base... it is quite important to know which airfield is your divert airfield, since that determines your bingo fuel, which limits your playtime which might effect the whole operation.

 

Weather Is important because aircraft FLY in weather. People who only enjoy the Arizona all-year-round CAVOK need to remember that on other parts of the world (Caucasus for example) have poor weather.

 

A proper weather system is not the most important thing to have in DCS, but I'd be hard pressed to dismiss it as a "civilian sim" feature.

 

 

Regards,

MikeMikeJuliet

[Jarlerus]

...

An easy fix, no. But one that might be feasible. That said I do believe this would require a full rework of the whole weather system...

 

I think you're close to the truth here. My guess is, extrapolated from how ED have worked so far, is that they'll address this issue once they get to the point where they'll do the weather revamp. (They've talked about updating weather effects at times)

 

//Jarl

[WRAITH]

Maybe in the distant future.......................

 

I think you're close to the truth here. My guess is, extrapolated from how ED have worked so far, is that they'll address this issue once they get to the point where they'll do the weather revamp. (They've talked about updating weather effects at times)

 

//Jarl

 

For sure DCS in near future will need a full weather engine.

 

This is a good read:- http://www.olafurandri.com/nyti/papers2010/ThePossibilitiesOfAVirtualWeatherEngine.pdf

 

 

 

DCS needs allot of work which I hope will take place after "THE MERGE"adding realistic atmospheric conditions like..........

 

I.e.

 

• Air Turbulence
  
• Low-Pressure Pockets
  
• Wind Turbulence
  
• Jet Streams
  
• Funnels
  
• Cold/Warm Fonts
  
• Air Masses
  
• Air Velocities
  
• Wake Turbulence
  
• Clear Air Turbulence
  
• Microbursts / downbursts
  
• Wind Shears
  
• Low Altitude Oscillation Wind Flow
  
• Contrails and Vortices Effects and Causes
  
• Icing
  
• Thermal Condensation
  
• Head Winds
  
• Tail Winds
  
• Cloud layers
  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

More here if interested............ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meteorology#Aviation_meteorology

There is no doubt that DCS will need a complete weather engine its a sim so like all other sims assuredly it will get a full weather engine to suit DCS standards if they choose to remain a sim developer as thats the market audience that they're in, aviation.

 

It would come down to a priority list like.............

 

1./ One code-base stable and mature in code thats merged with other game features.

 

2./ Game features - C.A - Air-Land -Sea

 

3./ ATC module code into master base-code

 

4./ Weather Engine module ...... atmospheric conditions working like real

 

5./.............

 

10./ etc

 

So till then we just...............

 

Edited May 3, 2017 by WRAITH

[Nealius]

As far as I'm aware the cloud base is calculated from MSL, at least in Caucasus, or did I miss something over the last decade?

 

Then why is my cloud base so inconsistent over mountains? Or over the whole of Caucasus?

 

In the ME I set cloud base 984'. Over the water, actual cloud base was 6,470'. Over Kobuleti, 7,333'. That cloud in my attached screenshot, which is obviously higher than the clouds surrounding it, was over the mountains at 18,371'.

 

If I set the cloud base as 984' MSL, why is it that every cloud is not at 984' MSL across the entire map?

[WRAITH]

Then why is my cloud base so inconsistent over mountains? Or over the whole of Caucasus?

 

In the ME I set cloud base 984'. Over the water, actual cloud base was 6,470'. Over Kobuleti, 7,333'. That cloud in my attached screenshot, which is obviously higher than the clouds surrounding it, was over the mountains at 18,371'.

 

If I set the cloud base as 984' MSL, why is it that every cloud is not at 984' MSL across the entire map?

 

 

Probably layers over terrain mesh map issues or cloud layers in code have bugs incorrect parameter settings, who knows unless a developer/programmer explains all this from what they see in the master source-code itself.

 

Again look at the thread your in "1.5 & 2.0 Open Alpha" just means issues unresolved and in an unfinished state.

 

Gota wait till they roll over code-base "THE MERGE" and then see where things are at and then begin serious bug reporting on issues found and fixed in updates.

 

They wont do that now I think, it would be pointless.

 

I have been observing just how they manage the project (Development Plan) from this side of the business as I check the Change Logs - https://forums.eagle.ru/forumdisplay.php?f=105

 

That is all you can do it would be sweet if we had a ED Programmer explain the "Project Road Map" in construct from a Development Plan view and sequence of events (Current WIP areas in development) posted in Forum and keep updating the Change logs from that perspective.

 

I have asked about this in a PM from a code-base point of view like an ED Programmer posting a visual project road map overview / outline or diagram.

 

Similar to this......... https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/1c/fc/3f/1cfc3fc91af44d221b917a8a0169958e.png

.... or ..... https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/74/e1/6a/74e16a0abbe52ac14196b7c416747fdd.jpg

 

Made in a professional way with boxes in a tree branch format explaining the road map.

 

Kinda what you see on GitHub with commits but not so public of course if people understand my meaning here just more like a run down overview keeping it more professional.

 

I also just quickly had a look at some DCS Youtubes they look the same as your pic in comparison to make the case for argument if any truth to possible issues, seems like there is more happening there, but again no way of knowing from here.

 

They are a small group of developers and not EAGAMES in comparison so its a long wait.

 

Anyhow feel free to carry on just felt to interject here.

 

Cheers

Edited May 2, 2017 by WRAITH

[shagrat]

Then why is my cloud base so inconsistent over mountains? Or over the whole of Caucasus?

 

In the ME I set cloud base 984'. Over the water, actual cloud base was 6,470'. Over Kobuleti, 7,333'. That cloud in my attached screenshot, which is obviously higher than the clouds surrounding it, was over the mountains at 18,371'.

 

If I set the cloud base as 984' MSL, why is it that every cloud is not at 984' MSL across the entire map?

 

Just as I said in my previous post, set it up at an elevated airport or in the mountains with the right settings.

 

Try to land the Hawk at Beslan (You can change it to whatever aircraft you like).

 

Beslan elevation 1772 ft MSL

Cloud base at 1800 ft MSL overcast (setting 9) - that is 30 ft AGL! And you can go as low as 998 ft... that means Beslan would be IN the clouds. :smartass:

 

You start at 6000 ft MSL in the direction of runway 10 about 10 NM west of Beslan rwy threshold

 

Wind is from 90° at 4kts

 

Oh, and fog is off, of course. You can add a fog layer with max to middle (10,000ft) visibility and adjust the height to the cloud base to have more haze below the cloud deck.

 

You can setup a similar scenario for training at Soganlug, Tblisi-Lochini, Vaziani, Mineralye Vody and Nalchik.

 

The mission to try it out yourself. Have fun:Soup-Hawk.miz

 

Some impressions...:smilewink:

 

Below the deck over the outskirts of Beslan:

 

Beslan Outer Marker (close call):

Edited May 2, 2017 by shagrat
Corrected auto-correction... again!

[MegOhm_SD]

Clouds at sea level? I am guessing that is an exceedingly rare, if it ever occurs, situation.

 

Not rare in southern california. Happens every morning and always lifts around 11:00AM, certain times of the year. Its called marine layer clouds. Happens frequently on and near oceans/seas under the right conditions. You can call it fog if you want but its clouds and in the South Bay you can throw in some smog with it.

Edited May 2, 2017 by MegOhm_SD

[shagrat]

My guess is, with cloud base at 30ft virtually ALL the Caucasus Map would be "in the clouds".

So maybe it is intentional to keep at least the costal, western Georgian and western Russian airports accessible?

Yet, for now it is easy to emulate low cloud layers/bad visibility at the airports above 1,000 ft.

[shagrat]

A little side tangent, gents. First off, the minimum cloud base is 1000ft, right? Regardless, some airfields are on sea level. Telling someone to "just use an airfield that is higher up so you can have the clouds lower" seems like trying to evade the whole subject.

 

Wha IS an easy fix, is to allow the cloud base limit to go higher and lower. Those are just arbitrary limiting numbers.

 

The visibility issue is tricky, yes. And something that unfortunately requires either a "x-visibility everywhere" or a proper dynamic weather system.

 

DCS has always been poor in using multiple cpu-cores for the reason of complexity and integration level of its components. That said, the one thing that could be dedicated to a separate core is the dynamic weather, since that data wouldn't have to be synchronised with the aerodynamic similation on the go, but rather at longer intervals (the issue of keeping cpu cores synchronized is the issue why multi-cpu may indeed be slower that a single-cpu solution).

 

An easy fix, no. But one that might be feasible. That said I do believe this would require a full rework of the whole weather system.

 

 

On real life topics: It is not that rare to see a cloud base of, say, 100-500ft AGL and still have virtually unrestricted visibility below them. Low cloud does not mean it is foggy. Many times quite the opposite.

 

 

On tve importance of clouds... Clouds and weather ARE an important tactical and technical aspect in air combat. Do not dismiss it so haphazardly. Clouds restrict and or allow CAS. Clouds are the perfect cover against IR and Imaging seekerheads. Clouds are a handy escape route in dogfights. High water concentration in clouds reduce radar detection ranges slightly. Contrails up high reveal you to your enemies (and in is also not uncommon to have no contrails at all). Humid summer weather can restrict detection by a large amount in low altitudes, even though visibility is tecnically very good... And how about poor weather in the home base... it is quite important to know which airfield is your divert airfield, since that determines your bingo fuel, which limits your playtime which might effect the whole operation.

 

Weather Is important because aircraft FLY in weather. People who only enjoy the Arizona all-year-round CAVOK need to remember that on other parts of the world (Caucasus for example) have poor weather.

 

A proper weather system is not the most important thing to have in DCS, but I'd be hard pressed to dismiss it as a "civilian sim" feature.

 

 

Regards,

MikeMikeJuliet

I did not dismiss it as "unimportant", I meant it isn't the focus of DCS, where as in civil aviation simulation and procedural training sims it is one of the most important factors.

At the moment the "limitations" of DCS World don't look too hard to me.

 

Yes, you can't have a cloud base at 10m above ground at Batumi, or Sochi etc., but it is very well possible to do it on the eastern elevated airfields.

 

The CAS weather aspect is similar. A cloud deck of 1,000 feet is not that much more "CAS-friendly" than a 300 feet deck. And you can still go into east Georgia if you need it that way.

 

I think it would be a "nice to have" along with the upcoming overhaul of the clouds to enhance the whole weather system, but I won't try to make it sound like the weather system is "the single most important part" of DCS and thus the whole simulation is flawed!

 

And before putting any resources into the weather engine, we should focus on combat AI, damage model, a useful ATC, and when it comes to clouds I would be more than happy to have clouds synched in Multiplayer and make them a hideout from the all-seeing AI. ;)

 

If I need a 99% realistic weather simulation for IFR approach training, I can use the setup I posted above or fall back on FSX/X-Plane, but I rarely do...

 

Someday if CPU and Devs allow, we may get complex and ultra-realistic dynamic weather. Until then I personally can do a lot with DCS already, I never dreamt of, a mere 20 Years ago.

[MikeMikeJuliet]

Fair enough.

[Nealius]

Just as I said in my previous post, set it up at an elevated airport or in the mountains with the right settings.

 

Try to land the Hawk at Beslan (You can change it to whatever aircraft you like).

 

 

Now try that with cloud coverage set to 8 and you will see for yourself that the cloud base is not correct to MSL. Your "right settings" aren't right, it just so happens that overcast clouds correctly render to MSL while scattered/broken clouds render to AGL over the terrain mesh.

[MikeMikeJuliet]

Now try that with cloud coverage set to 8 and you will see for yourself that the cloud base is not correct to MSL. Your "right settings" aren't right, it just so happens that overcast clouds correctly render to MSL while scattered/broken clouds render to AGL over the terrain mesh.

 

Interesting find. That has got to be unintentional.

[shagrat]

Interesting find. That has got to be unintentional.

Agreed, though I need to check that first, as scattered clouds are created "from" the cloud base "up to" the layer ceiling.

 

Could be they do it this way to prevent puffy blobs partly in the earth, which would be totally weird.

 

I have to say I personally can't remember seing a broken/scattered cloud deck at lower than about 300m (1000ft) in real life, but that's just me and German north sea coast isn't exactly Californian Pacific, as Meg_Ohm pointed out. So would not say it won't happen.

I have no idea what realistic weather in Batumi looks on a regular basis.

 

I know fog settings are a bit limited /unrealistic, as they are calculated from MSL, as well. So they can't give you "morning" fog in mountain valleys.

 

I still believe, for the purpose of training low visibility/low cloud approaches or IFR flying in a realistic way, setting 9/10 and using a cloud slightly higher than field elevation on the airports in the west of the map does a pretty good job.

 

And for me personally I care more about the fact that damage to a Tank or APC is more or less only a "health bar" degrading, so they can shoot you down in an A-10 3 seconds after a strafe, with 1 Hotpoint left, like you never even blasted the compartment with a hail of 30mm bullets, shrapnel and kinetic force... The first thing I would love to see addressed talking about weather, is the clouds in terms of synchronisation in Multiplayer and most definitely, that they currently are transparent for AI aircraft and ground vehicles. So they spot you perfectly, with eyeballs Mk I, while you see only white or grey? :huh: