On Monday 11 February 2008 13:59, Melchior FRANZ wrote: > * Thomas Förster -- Monday 11 February 2008: > > At least I think conservative is the right term. > > Oh, I didn't think that it was wrongly used. It's just that > the decision was meant to be reasonable for the 9999 case > based on logical considerations, and not the least on whether > it would be (seen as) conservative. And I found the fact that > a clear rendering bug is blamed on METAR or a "conservative" > decision there annoying. > > But I like the idea to make an educated guess based on > other METAR values, and I plan to implement that later > today. I'll use a large set of stored METAR messages with > specified (i.e. non-9999 or M*) visibility to see which > elements (other than humidity) have a correlation with the > visibility. BTW: the biggest numbers that I found were > 110 miles (KMWN Mount Washington -- not in our DB -- but > there's a KHIE Mount Washington Rgnl!?). (That's assuming > that the 9000 km from HAAB were a mistake. ;-) > > m.
9000km - lol:) I think I'd suspect the 110 miles figure (if that's a ground level value) as well, not only because that's a lot of atmosphere to see through but also because of curvature. I tried a quick Google to see if I could find any rules/formulae for visibility due to atmospheric conditions but didn't hit anything. It'll be interesting if you can come up with rules or a formulae from your analysis of a large set of METAR data. LeeE ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
