The massive problem with the x plane series is they hide distant objects with volumetric fog or have it popping up out of thin air (David Copperfield style mountains). The visibility model is a disgrace and I don't see that it has been sorted out from the screenshots. They have plenty of excuses for why they can't resolve the problem but very little in the way of solutions it seems...

I am sure you'll be able to program a solution o wise one.Is the auto-gen drawing in FSX any better?

Someone made some comparison shots between fsx and xp10 in the landscapes thread and it appears that they both have the same visual range. However the xp shots appeared darker ... but it's possible they didn't match the same time of day.

Someone made some comparison shots between fsx and xp10 in the landscapes thread and it appears that they both have the same visual range. However the xp shots appeared darker ... but it's possible they didn't match the same time of day.

Hi,That would be me! You can find them here:http://forum.avsim.net/topic/353100-xp-10-landscapes/page__view__findpost__p__2156101

I am sure you'll be able to program a solution o wise one.Is the auto-gen drawing in FSX any better?

Yes of course it is the job of the critic to make the work of art isn't it?FSx does not have pop up mountains.The auto gen issue is separate.

Hi,That would be me! You can find them here:http://forum.avsim.n...ost__p__2156101

Good work - the visibility problem is obvious in the first x plane 10 picture. Those mountains should not be hidden by volumetric fog like they are. Get up high with a fast plane at Innsbruck and the problem is horrendous.

Yes of course it is the job of the critic to make the work of art isn't it?FSx does not have pop up mountains.The auto gen issue is separate.Good work - the visibility problem is obvious in the first x plane 10 picture. Those mountains should not be hidden by volumetric fog like they are. Get up high with a fast plane at Innsbruck and the problem is horrendous.

Are you saying that mountains should not have fog (or cloud) ever?If so, I can safely say you are very wrong.

Yes of course it is the job of the critic to make the work of art isn't it?FSx does not have pop up mountains.The auto gen issue is separate.Good work - the visibility problem is obvious in the first x plane 10 picture. Those mountains should not be hidden by volumetric fog like they are. Get up high with a fast plane at Innsbruck and the problem is horrendous.

You know, I - yes, I took that screenshot - did set a visibility far below the - new - possible maximum. I WANTED to have some haze in my picture (which is not unheard of in real life). And for the "darker" pictures ... well, sun was not set too high (and I like the "more contrast" of X-Plane anyways).

Good work - the visibility problem is obvious in the first x plane 10 picture. Those mountains should not be hidden by volumetric fog like they are. Get up high with a fast plane at Innsbruck and the problem is horrendous.

Hi martyneale,Thanks for the comment. Personally, I feel those XP images look pretty accurate when it comes to visibility. On a clear day in the UK I rarely see 'unlimited' visibility on even the brightest of days. It tends to have a hazy look to them even at higher altitudes. I still hark after FS2004 where the representation of visibility looked superb. But FSX seemed to change that (Google it, i dont seem to be alone) Thank God for Pete Dowson's genius program FSUIPC where he has a visibility smoothing option. It's not perfect but it makes it feel more realistic. Couple this with REX and VFR photographic scenery and it looks extremely good. I think the XP10 shots could go someway to enhance that hazy effect. I like they way they have represented it. In XP9 I mostly fly low and slow (Carenado planes are suoerb for this) so perhaps I don't see the popup that you mention, I'll have to give it a try to see what you mean.cheersRhydian

You know, I - yes, I took that screenshot - did set a visibility far below the - new - possible maximum. I WANTED to have some haze in my picture (which is not unheard of in real life). And for the "darker" pictures ... well, sun was not set too high (and I like the "more contrast" of X-Plane anyways).

I hope you don't mind me making a comparison of your screenshots Andras! Speaking of contrast, if you look at Flight press shots it seems like they have gone down the same route. They seem generally darker with more neutral colours.

I hope you don't mind me making a comparison of your screenshots Andras! Speaking of contrast, if you look at Flight press shots it seems like they have gone down the same route. They seem generally darker with more neutral colours.

Well, yes I know their screenshots, and color vise they are going in a better (compared to FSX) direction. The FSX comparisons with my shots - well of course I am biased, but nevertheless - seem not soo great with their colors (at least for my taste).

Marty,How about the abrupt visibility changes at 10K where you go from the reported visibility to unlimited, in an instant?

The massive problem with the x plane series is they hide distant objects with volumetric fog or have it popping up out of thin air (David Copperfield style mountains). The visibility model is a disgrace and I don't see that it has been sorted out from the screenshots. They have plenty of excuses for why they can't resolve the problem but very little in the way of solutions it seems...

The screen shots look fine to me, what screenshots are you refering to ?

Gentlemen, may I please, respectfully refer you to a post made by an avsim moderator.Here is a part of his post.This is a forum meant for X-Plane users to discuss X-Plane NOT a forum for other (MSFS) simmers to criticise X-Plane and its users.

Hi,That would be me! You can find them here:http://forum.avsim.n...ost__p__2156101

Those shots are relatively low which will limit (as it should) visibility in both sims. How is XP10 visibility at higher altitudes? In FSX if you clear all clouds at maximum visibility you can see about 170nm. Try it climb up to 20000+ over Vancouver, and see if you can see Mt Rainier. XP9 you can only see 40nm (with clear sky plugin 25nm without). I'd like to see at least 100nm in XP10.

Hi martyneale,Thanks for the comment. Personally, I feel those XP images look pretty accurate when it comes to visibility. On a clear day in the UK I rarely see 'unlimited' visibility on even the brightest of days. It tends to have a hazy look to them even at higher altitudes. I still hark after FS2004 where the representation of visibility looked superb. But FSX seemed to change that (Google it, i dont seem to be alone) Thank God for Pete Dowson's genius program FSUIPC where he has a visibility smoothing option. It's not perfect but it makes it feel more realistic. Couple this with REX and VFR photographic scenery and it looks extremely good. I think the XP10 shots could go someway to enhance that hazy effect. I like they way they have represented it. In XP9 I mostly fly low and slow (Carenado planes are suoerb for this) so perhaps I don't see the popup that you mention, I'll have to give it a try to see what you mean.cheersRhydian

I'd agree with you about the UK..In the mountain west of the US it is not uncommon to have unlimited visibiity and to be able to see 100 miles with no Haze-I was just talking to one of my flying budies about navigating to a Western place I am planning on moving to. You simply point your airplane at the lone 11,000 mountain peak about 100-150 miles out-navigation is pretty simple.