X plane 10 visibility

[martyneale 0]

To be honest, and I say this with as much politeness as I can muster, but my financial status is none of your business. Actually, no. I'm so rich, I just threw a few hundreds in the fire just to keep warm.Have a great day.

rich people are better than poor right?anyway you concede i am correct?

[GoranM 3,764]

rich people are better than poor right?anyway you concede i am correct?

It's not a matter of who's correct. It's a matter of personal preference. I have been flying for 14 years and I have never had unlimited visibility. Even in CAVOK conditions, I still see a haze or fog on the horizon. So, for me, you are not correct. You obviously, it seems, want unlimited, crystal clear skies as far as the eye can see in a flight sim. That's your preference and more power to you. I want realism based on what I see outside a cockpit window. The "fog" is perfectly suited for what I want. Besides, I never heard of anyone flying VFR based on what they can see 100nm in front of them.Rich people are better than poor people?Marty, seriously, seek help.

[zachdecou 0]

Hello GoranAre you a Mennonite?

[GoranM 3,764]

Hello GoranAre you a Mennonite?

No but I play one on Avsim.

[David Roch 1,982]

rich people are better than poor right?anyway you concede i am correct?

My friend, take a week vacation from the forum and calm down.Inappropriate questions about financial status are not really welcome here.

[FloB 34]

Yes please, stop that painful "discussion" immediately.Thanks

[Geofa 108]

It's not a matter of who's correct. It's a matter of personal preference. I have been flying for 14 years and I have never had unlimited visibility. Even in CAVOK conditions, I still see a haze or fog on the horizon. So, for me, you are not correct. You obviously, it seems, want unlimited, crystal clear skies as far as the eye can see in a flight sim. That's your preference and more power to you. I want realism based on what I see outside a cockpit window. The "fog" is perfectly suited for what I want. Besides, I never heard of anyone flying VFR based on what they can see 100nm in front of them.Rich people are better than poor people?Marty, seriously, seek help.

Goran I find your quote on never experiencing unlimited visibility odd. I have experienced unlimited visibility many,many times in my 23 years of flying-and even the east coast of the US! Last week I was flying in kjxn-at 3000 ft. I could see 80 nm to the southern shores of Lake Erie, the downtown Detroit skyline, downtown Lansing-probably at least 100 nm. visibility at that height in all directions and no haze. Out in the mountain west of the US I have experienced much greater. Haze really is not the factor-visibility is.Now with all the interest in xplane10 I fired xplane9 up a few days ago-and have been simming in the mountains of California where I actually plan to move soon(O05). One of the cool things of flying there is Mt. Lassen (almost 11,000 ft.) can be seen on most unlimited visibility days for at least 100 miles out (and there are 300 or so days a year like this) . One can navigate while well over Nevada by just aiming the aircraft's nose to the peak.Now I decided to do a compare between fsx and xplane with the Carenado F33-one of my favorite sim planes and one I owned rw for 11 years so extremely familiar with it. With similar scenery settings xplane decided to put my visibility at 16 miles and I was getting 22 fps! (fsx with unlimited visibility I got in the 40's). Unfortunately with this setting-Mt. Lassen is gone-even with maximum xplane 9 visibility it is hazy and undefined as are most of the mountains that are landmarks in the area (should also be able to see Mt. Shasta way to the north from any altitude)-and this is as the local airport! If I set the xplane visibility to the max I get the warning that it will be reduced....So yes, I too am hoping this is not a limit on xplane 10. I think it is less about haze and more about distance and scenery one would see from the aircraft...I'd love to do a compare not only of screen shots but of the differences between the two sims with the same aircraft at this point in time but it seems that would be viewed as inflamatory rather than informational. What I'd really like to do is compare a video I have on youtube of landing there to both sims...To be clear-I am enjoying at the moment xplane with this limitation more than fsx for reasons that xplane excels (and I hadn't really experienced till trying this Carenado aircraft). This aircraft actually is the closest I have experienced to "feeling" like the real thing.Interestingly though-numbers are off in lots of respects meaning for now xplane gives me the best vfr experience (except in the visiblity department) and fsx the best ifr!

[woweezowee 10]

hi Geofa. Well, for XP9 you are right, however, there are plenty of options in the rendering settings that you could use to further improve your FPS. It is not only about the visibility. For example, go down from "extreme res" to "very high" in order to gain lot's of FPS without sacrificing too much eye candy.When we're talking about the "FPS fog in XP9", then Goran is right: It is a matter of those settings, as x-plane always tries to keep up at least 19 FPS.When we're talking about XP10, we already heard that visivility was improved. From there we will have to wait what it finally looks like and "what it feels" like and how it affects FPS. But one thing will remain the same: It is a matter of finding out your personal preference in the rendering settings by "trial and error". Find the balance between what you like and performance.Remember the textfiles (render.ini) we fiddled with in Fly!? (***) Now at least (say anything about the UI what you want) X-plane gives extensive options do choose your performance settings directly in the sim menus.(***) I had a different username back then. But let me quote an Email I received from you in 2001:

As far as setting -I have everything all the way to the max (except shadows which I don't have). High detail, 60 miles visibility, highest setting for high and medium and 19 computer controlled aircraft. Getting 20-35 fps and almost never any stutters. Hope this helps, Geof

It was a great sim. I am waiting for X-plane to catch up in some aspects for a long time now. But I have a good feeling that version 10 will do it. :)

[carrotroot 77]

that is not the right solution. visibility in game needs to be fixed.

Well someone can always go back to tweaking configs in fsx in their quest remove those darn blurry textures. Tell me has your side happened upon the holy grail of configs yet? or are they still lost in the woods?

[GoranM 3,764]

Goran I find your quote on never experiencing unlimited visibility odd. I have experienced unlimited visibility many,many times in my 23 years of flying-and even the east coast of the US! Last week I was flying in kjxn-at 3000 ft. I could see 80 nm to the southern shores of Lake Erie, the downtown Detroit skyline, downtown Lansing-probably at least 100 nm. visibility at that height in all directions and no haze. Out in the mountain west of the US I have experienced much greater. Haze really is not the factor-visibility is.Now with all the interest in xplane10 I fired xplane9 up a few days ago-and have been simming in the mountains of California where I actually plan to move soon(O05). One of the cool things of flying there is Mt. Lassen (almost 11,000 ft.) can be seen on most unlimited visibility days for at least 100 miles out (and there are 300 or so days a year like this) . One can navigate while well over Nevada by just aiming the aircraft's nose to the peak.Now I decided to do a compare between fsx and xplane with the Carenado F33-one of my favorite sim planes and one I owned rw for 11 years so extremely familiar with it. With similar scenery settings xplane decided to put my visibility at 16 miles and I was getting 22 fps! (fsx with unlimited visibility I got in the 40's). Unfortunately with this setting-Mt. Lassen is gone-even with maximum xplane 9 visibility it is hazy and undefined as are most of the mountains that are landmarks in the area (should also be able to see Mt. Shasta way to the north from any altitude)-and this is as the local airport! If I set the xplane visibility to the max I get the warning that it will be reduced....So yes, I too am hoping this is not a limit on xplane 10. I think it is less about haze and more about distance and scenery one would see from the aircraft...I'd love to do a compare not only of screen shots but of the differences between the two sims with the same aircraft at this point in time but it seems that would be viewed as inflamatory rather than informational. What I'd really like to do is compare a video I have on youtube of landing there to both sims...To be clear-I am enjoying at the moment xplane with this limitation more than fsx for reasons that xplane excels (and I hadn't really experienced till trying this Carenado aircraft). This aircraft actually is the closest I have experienced to "feeling" like the real thing.Interestingly though-numbers are off in lots of respects meaning for now xplane gives me the best vfr experience (except in the visiblity department) and fsx the best ifr!

My flying has been mostly limited to Sydney, Australia. Sydney is located right on the east coast of NSW with a Mountain range, roughly 1400 miles long to the west that runs from the southern end of Australia to pretty much the northern tip. So Sydney gets a good amount of moisture or fog most of the time from either the sea or the mountains with limited visibility, most of the time. I have flown out to Katoomba a couple of times and I have seen the city (about 80nm away) only once from there. That's why I said, for me, he wasn't correct. I have done some state wide flying, out to Mudgee, Goulburn, Lake Eyre, but once I get past the Blue Mountains, any chance of seeing the city is gone. So based on my own, statewide flying, my experience is as I said above. That's why he MIGHT be correct. But to generalize, and say there shouldn't be fog ANYWHERE, well, that's a bit much. Like you, I don't want to bring FSX into the equation, but let's just say, X Plane looks more realistic to me and my flying experience when it comes to fog or haze.Looking at the overall picture, it's agreeable that everyones sim of choice is purely subjective. Some prefer X Plane. Some prefer FSX. I don't think anyone is wrong for choosing either one. Although some people sure do think the opposite.Small edit: Check your shaders in the render settings. Shaders chew up framerates like a madman. Turn them all off, and then turn them back on one at a time and watch your framerates. Find the sweetspot and you're good to go. Without shaders, I can get 100+fps on just about any aircraft. With shaders all on and maxed, I drop to 30-50 depending on the aircraft.

[Geofa 108]

My flying has been mostly limited to Sydney, Australia. Sydney is located right on the east coast of NSW with a Mountain range, roughly 1400 miles long to the west that runs from the southern end of Australia to pretty much the northern tip. So Sydney gets a good amount of moisture or fog most of the time from either the sea or the mountains with limited visibility, most of the time. I have flown out to Katoomba a couple of times and I have seen the city (about 80nm away) only once from there. That's why I said, for me, he wasn't correct. I have done some state wide flying, out to Mudgee, Goulburn, Lake Eyre, but once I get past the Blue Mountains, any chance of seeing the city is gone. So based on my own, statewide flying, my experience is as I said above. That's why he MIGHT be correct. But to generalize, and say there shouldn't be fog ANYWHERE, well, that's a bit much. Like you, I don't want to bring FSX into the equation, but let's just say, X Plane looks more realistic to me and my flying experience when it comes to fog or haze.Looking at the overall picture, it's agreeable that everyones sim of choice is purely subjective. Some prefer X Plane. Some prefer FSX. I don't think anyone is wrong for choosing either one. Although some people sure do think the opposite.Small edit: Check your shaders in the render settings. Shaders chew up framerates like a madman. Turn them all off, and then turn them back on one at a time and watch your framerates. Find the sweetspot and you're good to go. Without shaders, I can get 100+fps on just about any aircraft. With shaders all on and maxed, I drop to 30-50 depending on the aircraft.

Thanks-turning the shaders off doubled my fps to 50. However, it doesn't look as nice and again I am trying to set both sims up with similar features to compare...

[alainneedle1 97]

Here, scroll down, this is from Guru3D about what's acceptable FPS wise in game play..http://www.guru3d.co...rmance-review/5Also, ca we have road, overcast, fog and visibility in XP-10 like in this game...just kidding

[GoranM 3,764]

Thanks-turning the shaders off doubled my fps to 50. However, it doesn't look as nice and again I am trying to set both sims up with similar features to compare...

You can turn the shaders on but set some to low. Example. Set the water to "default" effects. Experiment with the other settings. Turn down the AA and AF if they are up. Just as a test, turn on VRAM compression and see how that affects the fps. Some of these settings require a sim restart. See how you go and post back.

[WotanUK 289]

Here, scroll down, this is from Guru3D about what's acceptable FPS wise in game play..http://www.guru3d.co...rmance-review/5Also, ca we have road, overcast, fog and visibility in XP-10 like in this game...just kidding

From what i have read, that video shows pretty much the entire game, it's about 2 hrs worth of 'entertainment'

[flightime56 0]

I ran with the shaders off for a long time but they made the scenery too flat, i need the water shaders on even if they are on the lowest notch, i don't mind haze in the distance, that looks normal, clearskies slows down your system, so a trick i use is take a screenshot then throw them away after a session,Ben promised 50nm out from the current 25nm, but if the fog is still in there it will the same as....and yes I am saving too upgrade.