C/H/O/N-binding molecules and the formation of hydrocarbon hazes under the effect of the host star’s radiation. Section \[s:twocloud\] presents the comparison between the models applied here leading to mineral particles and hydrocarbon haze, and Sect. \[aA\] addresses the challenge of systematic errors within cloud property comparisons from different model approaches. Section 8 concludes the paper.

![Positions of the 1D profiles taken from the GCM (left: dayside; right: nightside), with the points $(\phi, \theta)=(0\degree,0\degree)$ and $(\phi, \theta)=(180\degree,0\degree)$ being the sub-stellar (phase=0.5) and anti-stellar points, respectively ($(\phi, \theta)$ = (longitudes, latitudes)). 1D profiles that sample the dayside (red), nightside (blue), morning and evening terminator (both grey) are indicated. The green lines show the locations of slices used in subsequent maps along the equator ($\theta = 0\degree$) and the terminator (longitudes $\phi = 90\degree$ – evening terminator, $\phi = 270\degree$ – morning terminator)[]{data-label="ThetaPhi"}](images/Basemap_grey_term.pdf "fig:"){width="1\linewidth"}\

Approach {#s:ap}
========

We adopt a hierarchical three-model approach in order to examine the cloud structure on WASP-43b similar to works on the hot Jupiters HD189733b and HD209458b (@Lee2015 [@2016MNRAS.460..855H]), and the ultra-hot Jupiters WASP-18b (@2019arXiv190108640H) and HAT-P-7b (@2019arXiv190608127H [@Mol2019]): The first modelling step produces pre-calculated, cloud-free 3D GCM results. These results are used as input for the second 