Hi, I was just wondering how they produce such life like scenery for a real flight simulator? I saw some pictures on airliners.net and it looks real.Thanks, Dave S

Hi, I was just wondering how they produce such life like scenery for a real flight simulator? I saw some pictures on airliners.net and it looks real.Thanks, Dave S

Hmmm!....according to me, there

Hmmm!....according to me, there

The visuals in full flight sims are way behind FSX, I was hoping that might change if ESP went ahead but sadly not.They capture the feel of the aeroplane due to their full size flight deck and full motion,but FSX with scenery add ons captures the feel of specific airports much better. A lot of places in the full motion sims are just generic airports. Its a shame the 2 cant,or haven`t been fused,at least in the airline side of things.I think some military and corporate jet sims have better visuals.CheersJon

however it looks much more real due to the Fresnal lense and depth perception.

If you can, please elaborate. I have flown a few full flight sims in the past and I always had the impression that, although as you all correctly mentioned the scenery itself was not neccessarily beautiful, the outside view had a surprisingly realistic appereance in terms of 3d looks and, as you say, depth perception. I always wondered if that's the result of only a few projectors up there or if there is something else to it. Something special, like a fresnel lens... Is it used in this kind of simulators? I have no idea, but would love to know. The only thing I remember is some had bad refresh rate... lol *flicker* :(

aparently the airport scenery for a full level d sim can cost up to 10,000 dollars per airport! Fsbreak interviewd a gentleman who built his own 737 sim. Matt Ford. fsbreak episode 24.

Hi, I was just wondering how they produce such life like scenery for a real flight simulator? I saw some pictures on airliners.net and it looks real.Thanks, Dave S

The first DC-10 sim I flew had a scenery board with a runway on it. As the airplane flew a camera moved along the scenery. It worked ok. The B727 sim only had night scenery. Of course there was the link trainer that had no scenery. :).Bill

The first DC-10 sim I flew had a scenery board with a runway on it. As the airplane flew a camera moved along the scenery. It worked ok. The B727 sim only had night scenery. Of course there was the link trainer that had no scenery. :).Bill

Here is one I flew at Oshkosh a few weeks ago running esp (fsx)....

Only about 65K if you want one for your basement (and I do...).

A number of simulators for smaller general aviation aircraft use Microsoft ESP, XPlane or their own proprietary system (Elite for example) for generating the visual display. Many simulator manufacturers take the view that visuals are not too important as the simulator (or 'Flight Training Device') will generally be used for instrument training, and so all you would see out the window is a grey sky in any case! Not sure I agree with this, but there is an argument there if you can make significant cost savings by not having to develop an elaborate display system.Higher-end sims have a collimated display, which means that the angles you see out of the window look correct. Let's say you had a fairly simple display consisting of a bunch of wrap-around LCD monitors. You're looking at the far end of the runway whilst flaring to land. If you move your head to the right, it will look like the end of the runway has moved to the left i.e. the angle between your eyes and the end of the runway has changed significantly.If you were in the real aircraft then moving your head to the right will have minimal effect on the view out the window for further away objects - it's like looking out of your car window at a radio mast on the horizon - it hardly moves. The higher end systems, with a collimated display, mirror what you'd get in reality.James