how is navigation done when there is 8/8 cloud cover?

[FlyinCoffin]

1. how is navigation done when there is 8/8 cloud cover?
2. and your above the clouds?

    

   it seems like Iam a good weather pilot....

   So your counting the time and distance with instruments and calculate the route?

    

   my weak spot the boring navigation fun

Edited December 14, 2024 by FlyinCoffin

[AndyJWest]

Yup. Dead reckoning as far as anything provided in IL-2 GB is concerned, radio beacons for finding your own airfield excepted. It would be nice to have more, but modelling things like Knickebein or GEE, or even adding multiple beacons for triangulation would make for significant complexity, for limited benefit: they might if used under optimum conditions allow you to drop a bomb within a few miles of a target, but that's about all.

 

 

[jollyjack]

Quite boring, fog flights. Here's a long flight Ju52 mission with a beacon target far off, made by Saldy.

01-Moving to a new base.zip

 

So i had to get me a new VR head set, quite cheap actually, you can see through anything, $1,67 on Ali Express:

Edited December 14, 2024 by jollyjack

[FlyinCoffin]

the "bodenplatte" campaign was frustrating. Much clouds much nothing visible. I remember like that.

But I heard the Ta-152 is finally available.

 

So 2ww bombing is a "war crime"(...) under 8/8 Cloud cover cause your lucky if your hit.

 

interesting technologies you named their yes maybe we can add such things in the future.

In il2 1946 you can fly an bf110 with an wuerzburggerät in the night. And hunt bombers.

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

With a compass, a clock, a airspeed indicator,  and of course a map to determine correct flight path.

[JG4_Deciman]

55 minutes ago, RNAS10_Mitchell said:

With a compass, a clock, a airspeed indicator,  and of course a map to determine correct flight path.

That is not enough...

 

Your instruments show IAS (indicated air speed), so how fast is your plane moving through the surrounding air.
This is absolutely nessassary to know if your plane is able to perform any manouvers and able to stay in the air.
But for navigation you need the 'speed over ground'.
And this speed is much more different from the 'IAS' when flying at higher altitudes or with wind and even effected by the temperature in that altitude...

You also need a course to fly (read from the compass).
This course is also affected by 'deviation' (not implemented in BoX), 'declination (not mplemented in BoX) and wind (IMPLEMENTED)

 

So steering a course of 0 degrees, taking the speed from the gauges, flying at 7000m and having wind from 90 degrees with 20 m/s

and then doing the base calculation without any recalculation for altitude, wind, temperature
will lead you somewhere when flying a course at a speed for a time, but NEVER where you want to go

(except you are flying at ground level with no wind)

 

 

Deci

And simply, to take only the wind....

You manage so start in a PO2 and head to the north, flying for an hour with 120km IAS on your gauges
The wind is blowing with 120 km/h from the north

Where will you be after 1 hour of flight?

 

Exactly where you started

 

(Even if I know that this scenario is impossible because you'l never make it to manage the take off)

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

6 hours ago, JG4_Deciman said:

That is not enough...

 

Your instruments show IAS (indicated air speed), so how fast is your plane moving through the surrounding air.
This is absolutely nessassary to know if your plane is able to perform any manouvers and able to stay in the air.
But for navigation you need the 'speed over ground'.
And this speed is much more different from the 'IAS' when flying at higher altitudes or with wind and even effected by the temperature in that altitude...

You also need a course to fly (read from the compass).
This course is also affected by 'deviation' (not implemented in BoX), 'declination (not mplemented in BoX) and wind (IMPLEMENTED)

 

So steering a course of 0 degrees, taking the speed from the gauges, flying at 7000m and having wind from 90 degrees with 20 m/s

and then doing the base calculation without any recalculation for altitude, wind, temperature
will lead you somewhere when flying a course at a speed for a time, but NEVER where you want to go

(except you are flying at ground level with no wind)

 

 

Deci

And simply, to take only the wind....

You manage so start in a PO2 and head to the north, flying for an hour with 120km IAS on your gauges
The wind is blowing with 120 km/h from the north

Where will you be after 1 hour of flight?

 

Exactly where you started

 

(Even if I know that this scenario is impossible because you'l never make it to manage the take off)

Unless I'm missing something,  that's how you navigate with zero/limited visibility.  That was the OP question. Not really any other options that I'm aware of.  Of course it's not ideal.  It's doing the job as best you can with the tools available.   That's it.  How would you accomplish the job?

Edited December 15, 2024 by RNAS10_Mitchell

[Nickkyboy99]

gps

[MaxPower]

It seems like the simulation gives you enough information to plot it out.  But, I don't blame you if that's a bit much.

You plot your route.
You check landmarks near your waypoints.
You decide on the altitude you want to fly at during each leg.
You check the weather report.
You replot your route given the wind speeds at each altitude during each leg.
You fly your route and pop out of the clouds to see how you're doing if needed.

Or you turn on the map icons.

[JG4_Deciman]

Just check these pages...

 

https://jagdgeschwader4.de/index.php/flugplanung-und-kursberechnung

 

All in german, but google translate will propably give an understandable result in other languages

 

Deci

[R33GZ]

Plot your course on the map ie, which heading you will take. Take into account any cross wind. I usually fly at cruise speed, so that will depend on what aircraft I'm flying. Then, when you have a feeling you might be getting near, or a feeling you're off in the wrong direction, descend below cloud level, spot for some recogniseable land mark amd adjust your heading as needed.

 

Most maps for BoX are painfully flat, so hitting solid  clouds shouldn't be a problem 😁

 

Dead reckoning and old Mk 1 eyeball as others have said. In all honesty, the difference between TAS and IAS shouldn't matter that much in this game as the maps aren't really big enough for that to be a huge problem. Once you drop below cloud height for a looksee you can correct.

[BlitzPig_EL]

[czech693]

That's the way it's done in RL when you dont' have radio navigation aids like VOR.  And it was a problem.  Case in point is when the 133rd Squadron (Eagles) got blown off course by higher than expected winds above the overcast and let down over Brest where most of the squadron were shot down by AAA.

 

https://www.memorialflightclub.com/blog/morlaix-disaster-26th-september-1942

[JG4_Deciman]

'Indicated Airspeed' (taken from the gauges)

and 'Speed over ground' (important for the time needed)

will have a difference at higher altitudes.

 

Flying with 330 km/h (IAS) without any wind

will release in about 413 km/h speed over ground

when flying at 4500m!

 

Deci

[R33GZ]

1 hour ago, JG4_Deciman said:

'Indicated Airspeed' (taken from the gauges)

and 'Speed over ground' (important for the time needed)

will have a difference at higher altitudes.

 

Flying with 330 km/h (IAS) without any wind

will release in about 413 km/h speed over ground

when flying at 4500m!

 

Deci

All true, but the maps are small enough, that if you haven't bothered to calculate TAS you will either get turned around at the edge of the map, or find out you've still got a bit further to go. In any case, you're still going to have to drop down below cloud base for a look-see 😉

 

Korea will make it a bit more interesting as there are large mountains areas in northern Korea.... did any of the aircraft in the Korean conflict have radar altimeter?

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

8 hours ago, JG4_Deciman said:

'Indicated Airspeed' (taken from the gauges)

and 'Speed over ground' (important for the time needed)

will have a difference at higher altitudes.

 

Flying with 330 km/h (IAS) without any wind

will release in about 413 km/h speed over ground

when flying at 4500m!

 

Deci

Yep.  And those are all things you need to consider.   Flying blind, means you will need to fly by gauges and guesses.  This is how its done, which was the point.  In WWI aircraft, there's not really much else you can do.  As another pointed out, sometimes there's a small break in the clouds. When/if there is, try to spot a landmark on the ground (river/village/etc) to try and determine your progress.   

 

Perhaps you could share the calculations required to determine tactical air speed at various altitudes?

Edited December 17, 2024 by RNAS10_Mitchell

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

14 hours ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

Longtime Far Side fan.  Love it

[AndyJWest]

Adding 2% of indicated* airspeed per 1,000 ft of altitude will give a good approximation of your your true airspeed. Not that this is particularly useful unless you know the wind speed and direction, can hold an accurate compass course etc.

 

*Or more accurately, calibrated airspeed, rather than indicated airspeed: CAS is IAS after correcting for instrument errors. As far as IL-2 GB is concerned though, such errors don't seem to be modelled.

 

Just to throw a spanner into the works, the anemometer-type airspeed indicators used by WWI German aircraft show true airspeed (or at least an approximation of it). Not that you should be flying them above 8/8 cloud cover, if you've got any sense. 

[JG4_Deciman]

1 hour ago, RNAS10_Mitchell said:

 

 

Perhaps you could share the calculations required to determine tactical air speed at various altitudes?

Already done yesterday...

 

 

[JG4_Deciman]

9 hours ago, R33GZ said:

All true, but the maps are small enough, that if you haven't bothered to calculate TAS you will either get turned around at the edge of the map, or find out you've still got a bit further to go. In any case, you're still going to have to drop down below cloud base for a look-see 😉

 

Hm, not really...

 

Flying an estimated course with the IAS (instead of the speed over ground) for only 15 Minutes

at the given difference between those 2 speeds (roughly 80 km/h) will lead you 20km further than you estimated...

 

That may be the difference between your chosen destination and the enemy AAA waiting for you 2 grids away from there...

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

2 hours ago, JG4_Deciman said:

Already done yesterday...

 

 

Ok then. Thank you.  For me personally,  for this game, the techniques I have used in the past using "indicated airspeed", will be sufficient for my uses and enjoyment.  But thanks for the link.

[JG4_Deciman]

28 minutes ago, RNAS10_Mitchell said:

Ok then. Thank you.  For me personally,  for this game, the techniques I have used in the past using "indicated airspeed", will be sufficient for my uses and enjoyment.  But thanks for the link.

As long as you can handle everything you must do as before it's ok.

And just in case for whatever reason you need a more precise calculation for your flight plan you know where to find further input.

 

And I know, it's a lot of input and calculation.
But if really everything was made the right way

and you flew that flight plan perfectly

you may be able to drop your bombs into the target

even after flying all the time without seeing anything but clouds below you.

 

But that is very very hard to achieve...

 

Deci

 

PS: Not really reliable is the time and distance during the climb phase.
But when taking a 'beacon' to set the initial start of your flight plan directly after flying over it (which is indicated by the instruments)
that should be easier to fly as a perfect route...

[MaxPower]

Yeah I think the difference between indicated airspeed and true airspeed would have to be done when you're figuring how long it will take to cruise to your waypoint.

The speed over ground and heading corrections can be done when you do your wind speed offset.  I'm sure there are more efficient and effective ways to do this... but, as a layman, I would plot the course, then offset my destination upwind given the windspeed and travel duration.  Then I would take that virtual waypoint to figure my new heading and travel time for each leg.  Then I suppose I would travel at my heading to the virtual waypoint for the time I calculated, then descend below clouds to figure out if I'm off course at each waypoint if needed.  Dropping in for a peek would be a lot more practical for fighters than for large aircraft full of bombs or supplies tho.

[[CPT]Crunch]

Sure, in the real world, but not in this sim, the wind doesn't act with real world physics on your air frame.  It acts like your still pegged to the ground.  In the real world trimming your ball centered doesn't send you merrily on your course heading without drift, in game it does.  Especially aggravating on high wind low level ground attacks in a fighter bomber.

[AndyJWest]

51 minutes ago, [CPT]Crunch said:

Sure, in the real world, but not in this sim, the wind doesn't act with real world physics on your air frame.  It acts like your still pegged to the ground.  In the real world trimming your ball centered doesn't send you merrily on your course heading without drift, in game it does.  Especially aggravating on high wind low level ground attacks in a fighter bomber.

 

I'd like to see verifiable evidence for that.

Edited December 18, 2024 by AndyJWest

[MaxPower]

1 hour ago, [CPT]Crunch said:

Sure, in the real world, but not in this sim, the wind doesn't act with real world physics on your air frame.  It acts like your still pegged to the ground.  In the real world trimming your ball centered doesn't send you merrily on your course heading without drift, in game it does.  Especially aggravating on high wind low level ground attacks in a fighter bomber.

Whatever else it does, the wind does push the flight path of aircraft, bombs, etc in the direction of the wind.  Flying towards an HUD marker in a side wind requires yaw into the wind, especially significant in low speed aircraft such as the HS-129.

[[CPT]Crunch]

Soon as you can explain why the P-38 which has the the slip and ball perfectly centered on any windless mission suddenly requires rudder trim off from center on a windy mission to correct for slip, lets not even worrying about holding a course.  But if you do want to hold a course in a high wind mission you'll need the ball and slip centered, and now magically that can only be done by shifting the rudder trim off from 0%, the windless neutral point.  The ball should not be centering, ever, when coming off it's normal designed static trim position, which on the P-38 with symmetrical power and torque settings is 0% rudder trim, so long as the wheels aren't in contact with the ground, never should it be causing slip.  It'll take corrective flying or you can deliberately induce slip to course correct for bad drift.

 

The P-38's slip ball and indicator centered should be rudder trim set on zero all of the time in any airborne condition regardless of wind, unless you want to deliberately slip to adjust course for drift, and in that condition it shouldn't have a centered ball.  There is no direct wind effects on an airborne aircraft, the airplane don't know wind and doesn't care, it's simply drifting along happily flying same as on any other day.  A trimmed airplane is a trimmed airplane any time the wheels are up, any slip indications are certainly never going to change due to drift. 

 

If wind was an actual effect there would have long ago been onboard wind instrumentation giving you basic information on it's effects such as direction, there is no measurable wind instrumentation in an aircraft besides ground speed measured by a radar altimeter compared to computed or true airspeed, so there is no measurable effects by wind on slip and trim.  But in this game there is, just told you how to measure it with the slip indicators.

[AndyJWest]

My P-38 doesn't demonstrate any need to 'correct for drift' to keep the ball centred in windy conditions. Trim is the same, regardless of wind direction. Just as with any other aircraft.

[unlikely_spider]

1 hour ago, [CPT]Crunch said:

unless you want to deliberately slip to adjust course for drift, and in that condition it shouldn't have a centered ball.

Not sure why one would do that - the rudder is not a navigational control. During cruise one should always be coordinated.

[geckoSOH]

Let's define a few key terms here to remove confusion:

 

Indicated Airspeed (IAS)- the airspeed you read off of your airspeed indicator.

 

Calibrated Airspeed (CAS)- IAS corrected for installation and position errors. CAS is the same as TAS at sea level under standard atmospheric conditions (15 degrees C and 1013 mb at sea level).

 

Equivalent Airspeed (EAS)- CAS corrected for compressibility.

 

True Airspeed (TAS)- EAS corrected for altitude, temperature, and pressure.

 

Ground Speed (GS)- The speed you are actually moving over the ground. TAS + Wind correction.

 

Ground Track- The path your aircraft follows over the ground.

 

True Course (TC)- Your plotted course line relative to true north.

 

True Heading (TH)- The heading (relative to true north) to have to fly for your ground track to match your TC. With no wind, TC and TH will be the same.

 

Magnetic Course (MC)- TC corrected for local magnetic variation. 

 

Magnetic Heading (MH)- TC corrected for local magnetic variation, magnetic deviation (by referencing the compass correction card) and wind. This is the heading you actually fly off of your compass, so you have to calculate your MH to give you a ground track that will match your TC.

 

With the above information, and a good winds aloft forecast, with practice, one can consistently arrive within 1/4 mile of a waypoint within 15 seconds of your calculated arrival time, using only a stopwatch and compass. That's dead-reckoning, and if you're above a solid overcast in your average WWII aircraft, dead-reckoning is all you have.

 

Now of course in IL-2, we don't have all of that information. I believe, but could be wrong, that IL-2 simplifies this by removing the magnetic component entirely and our compasses always show true north. Or they just took the true component out and have everything magnetic by default. We also don't have enough information to precisely calculate any of the above speeds other than reading IAS off of the gauge. 

In WWII, they were not a whole lot better off in that department. Aircraft manuals would include an IAS to TAS conversion chart for different altitudes. In practice though, this is an approximation, and it's limited by the accuracy of the weather forecast or having instruments to read temperature and pressure directly. It was apparently good enough most of the time though. But, as was referenced above, a bad forecast could be disastrous. It should also be pointed out that later, the same unit flew from Debden to Poltava and arrived at the their assigned Soviet base within a minute of when they said they would. So it can also work incredibly well.

 

You can make these calculations with an E6-B Flight Computer, and every WWII pilot would have carried a similar device. There is plenty of info on how to use one on the web, and at least the wind correction, if not more, can be applied to IL-2 if you're wanting to really dive in to realistic navigation. It is probably more work than most want to put into it, but it's there.

 

So, to solve this problem in IL-2, you could create some tables for your aircraft showing IAS vs TAS at different altitudes and using an E6-B to get your wind correction in based on the weather report, if you are disciplined in your aircraft handling, you can likely fly a reasonably accurate course without being able to see the ground.

 

Alternatively, if you can see the ground, you can calculate your groundspeed directly by measuring the time it takes to fly between two known points on the ground, and dividing the distance between them by the time it took in hours. You can figure out a heading that corrects for crosswinds by carefully watching your ground track. If you can do this early in your flight, and lose contact with the ground later, you can run off of the information you gathered and hope for the best. 

 

And this is what the real pilots did. Dead-reckoning, backed up and corrected visually at regular intervals whenever possible. It's a lot of work (and why larger aircraft often had a dedicated navigator), but it is certainly doable, even with somewhat limited or imprecise information.

 

Regarding centering the ball: yes, you should always fly with the ball centered unless performing a maneuver that specifically requires it not to be. And also yes, with a strong enough crosswind at altitude, you sometimes do have to correct for it with rudder trim to re-center the ball. Happened to me on Monday. And lastly, no, centering the ball does nothing to correct your ground track, in real life or in IL-2, unless there is no wind.
 

[JG4_Deciman]

About wind influence (headwind, tailwind and crosswind)

The first two will only influence your TAS.

Crosswind will also influence your course.

 

Just search on youtobe for some videos about landings with a strong crosswind.
You'll get a lot (mostly big airliners)
And you can really 'see' what course they are flying before touchdown and correcting that course directly before touchdown by excessive rudder input.

 

I think the heading they fly sometimes is at about 10 or more degrees different from the orientation of the runway...

[geckoSOH]

Not TAS, ground speed. TAS (and all air speeds) is always relative to the air the plane is flying through. If that air is also moving (wind), it has no bearing on the aircraft's airspeed.

 

Usually you will have a component of total wind speed influencing both ground speed and ground track. Also, if you are having to crab too much into the wind, the drag will eventually be enough to also influence air speed as well as ground speed.

 

It isn't linear, so a flight calculator is helpful here. On an E6-B, you provide your TAS, TC, the wind speed, and wind direction, and then you can calculate your course correction, crosswind airspeed reduction, and ground speed.

[JG4_Deciman]

Maybe there is a difference in terms used by the luftwaffe....

 

They used

Eile (IAS) -> read from the gauges

Grundgeschwindigkeit (translation would be groundspeed) -> IAS corrected by wind influence

Eile über Grund (translation would be speed over ground) -> Grundgeschwindigkeit corrected by altitude and temperature

 

Deci

 

So flying with 360 km/h (IAS)
and having a tailwind of 30km/h

would result in a groundspeed of 330 km/h

 

And that is taken to calculate the speed over ground...

which is calculated in the next step by taking the groundspeed, temperature and altitude.

 

Edited December 19, 2024 by JG4_Deciman

[geckoSOH]

Ok, interesting. There are some important differences in those terms, and I think that's been causing some confusion. Most interestingly, the Luftwaffe terms you list have no equivalent to TAS. It also doesn't produce the same results since it factors in the wind at the wrong point in the process. This is because when you add the wind speed, it is already the true wind speed. If you add it to IAS, and correct that total for altitude and temperature, you're essentially correcting the wind component twice, leading to an error.

 

I'll substitute CAS for IAS in this example, since the difference between IAS and CAS is aircraft-specific, and generally not very large, and there is no direct conversion between IAS and TAS. You can try it yourself with this online airspeed conversion calculator: https://aerotoolbox.com/airspeed-conversions/

 

So, starting at 7,500m, and we can ignore the temperature offset this time, I enter a CAS of 360 km/h. This results in a TAS of 525 km/h. Supposing we add (different from your example, since you subtracted tailwind instead of adding it, or did you mean to write headwind?) 30 km/h of wind as a direct tailwind, we get a 555 km/h Ground Speed.

 

Now, using this Luftwaffe method, in the same conditions at 7,500m, we start with an Eile (IAS, but without knowing the aircraft type, we substitute CAS) of 360 km/h, and add our 30 km/h tailwind to it, to get a Grundgeschwindigkeit (no modern equivalent, since it has no purpose other than creating errors in ground speed calculations) of 390 km/h. We enter this into the calculator as CAS, and read Eile über Grund (Ground Speed) from the TAS output (to correct it for temperature and altitude), and see that we have 567 km/h. That's a 12 km/h difference. Not huge, but that wind component was pretty light too, particularly for 7,500m. The greater the headwind or tailwind, the greater the error. With a more typical tailwind for 7,500m of 75 km/h, the error grows to 30km/h. The departure from typical German precision here mystifies me.

 

Edit: perhaps German wind reporting in reports and forecasts gave winds without altitude and temperature corrections. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me to do it that way, but perhaps there's an advantage I'm not considering. But if they did do it that way, their ground speed calculation method is at least logical.

 

 

Edited December 20, 2024 by geckoSOH

[MaxPower]

@geckoSOH Are you sure you're interpreting what @JG4_Deciman said correctly?  You seem to be assuming these calculations are part of some algorithm or that German navigators are mixing IAS and TAS when applying wind direction.  People in the 20th century were pretty smart and very serious about making accurate calculations.  Remember, the theories of general and special relativity were published in the first decade of the 20th century, and quantum mechanics was pretty mature by the mid 1920s.  I would be very surprised to find that Luftwaffe navigators were not applying the required transformations to make accurate navigation.  In fact I think that's pretty much impossible, given the aeronautical navigational feats of the world in the interwar period.

[geckoSOH]

I fully agree, which is why it was quite surprising. But also see my edit at the bottom of my post for a way this discrepancy might be worked out logically. I don't know how else I would interpret @JG4_Deciman's post. The order given is IAS, apply wind correction, THEN apply altitude and temperature corrections. My assumption in this was that the wind speeds are already corrected for altitude and temperature, as this is how it is done now, and how it has been done for quite a long time. Carrying that assumption into the Luftwaffe equation causes issues. However, Germany may have been reporting wind without those corrections.

Going back to IL-2, I'm pretty sure True (altitude and temperature corrected) wind speeds are given. If you use the Luftwaffe method posted above in navigation calculations in IL-2, you will get the error I described.

[JG4_Deciman]

Maybe that difference is because of the 'flash created' DR2 used.
The original documents for that part of the navigation sais clearly, that the results by using the 'pogramm' can be a bit different from using the original 'hardware', so a 'real' DR2 from that time. But they are rare and expensive...

 

Also keep in mind that there are several steps to be done for the final calculation result.
And each step (even without the differences between 'real' and 'programmed') will have you to interpret the result.
And a rounding up or down or interpreting the shown values of the tools (both in this case) will finally result in a slightly different final result.

 

But whatever method you choose...
Taking the distance on the map and the indicated airspeed from your gauges for calculating course and time

and ignoring wind, temperature and altitude will lead you somwhere, but never where you want to go!

 

Deci

 

PS:

And even if the calculation would be absolutely perfect.
I don't think that anyone is able to fly it absolutely perfect.
Meaning that speed, altitude and heading are always and exactly the same as the calculation said.
Beeing 2 km/h too fast/slow and having an altitude difference of about 100m and a course mismatch of 1 degree is absolutely normal.
And that is what will happen when you fly nearly perfect!

Edited December 20, 2024 by JG4_Deciman

[geckoSOH]

1 hour ago, JG4_Deciman said:

Maybe that difference is because of the 'flash created' DR2 used.
The original documents for that part of the navigation sais clearly, that the results by using the 'pogramm' can be a bit different from using the original 'hardware', so a 'real' DR2 from that time. But they are rare and expensive...

Wasn't aware of this tool, cool! But help me understand, are you pulling the instructions you posted previously from original sources, or somebody's documentation on how to use the flash DR2? Perhaps there's a discrepancy there (beyond simple margin of error from using the device)?

And bottom line, you're absolutely right. You're not driving a car, where you can just look at your speedometer and know how fast you're going. More has to be done, and it has to be done right. But if you do, you can be quite accurate. I have done a decent amount of dead-reckoning in real aircraft, and when I was doing it regularly, I certainly wasn't perfect, but it is possible to consistently fly a course by dead-reckoning almost as accurately as you would be able to fly it with a GPS.

[Rjel]

I thought I’d always read cloud cover described in tenths, as in 10/10s?

[MaxPower]

I feel like I have some kind of magical power sometimes, what, with my ability to use networked computers to find information where others are helpless.  Mwahahaha.  Look on ye mighty and despair!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Okta

Edited December 20, 2024 by MaxPower