Sometimes I have the impression that some runways in reality look different than in FS9, especially when it comes to their width.E.g. I recently saw a picture at the DAAD forum (http://www.dangerousairports.com/forum/index.php?t=msg&th=6&start=0&rid=0&S=431a192067e5fae445db579a4ab119e3) where the photo shows a much broader runway than the FS screenshot.That's only an example, I've seen numerous other photos where I couldn't find a match in the FS world.The first airport I have the feeling to more "be there" is FlyTampa's KSFO.Is this only my personal, subjective feeling? Not that I'm unhappy, but many runways look so narrow...Andreas

I agree, often the I see the wings of even small aircraft hang over the edges of small runways. My feeling is that models are not to scale, ie: planes, boats, etc are bigger than the size they should be. As an example I added several ferry's to the Puget Sound via RWY12 and they look huge in comparison to what they look like in real life.Neil

In the real world a lot of runways have about a metre strip of tarmac on either side of the white runway edge lines, but in flightsim i haven't seen this extra surface modelled.

Often your perspective on the runway plays tricks on you too though. One of the big optical illusions in flying has to do with runway dimentions and how they make you interperet them. The runways and aircraft seem to be to scale on my computer. Though I fly mainly to airports I have flown to in the real world. So my experience is a limited number of Airports in the Washington, Oregon, Idaho area. The same scale measurement you use to model the aircraft is used in the measurement of everything else to my knowledge. So runways should be to scale with the aircraft. Open them up in AFCAD and check the dimensions in comparison with real world data if you would like.----------------------------------------------------------------John MorganReal World: KGEG, UND Aerospace Spokane Satillite, Private ASEL 141.2 hrs, 314 landings, 46 inst. apprs.Virtual: MSFS 2004"There is a feeling about an airport that no other piece of ground can have. No matter what the name of the country on whose land it lies, an airport is a place you can see and touch that leads to a reality that can only be thought and felt." - The Bridge Across Forever: A Love Story by Richard Bach

I'd be a little careful trying to compare a real-life photo to the sim. Most of these photos are taken with a very long telephoto lens, and those lenses can really distort the 3D perspective.

It's definitely the 3D perspective that causes the runway in the photo to look so wide.

...as opposed to a "2D perspective"? ;-)

>It's definitely the 3D perspective that causes the runway in>the photo to look so wide.Yes, it is the zoom setting in FS that can give you distorted view. I once measured some important runways in FS9 (like LAX, SFO) and they were exactly like in real life.Michael J.WinXP-Home SP2,AMD64 3500+,Abit AV8,Radeon X800Pro,36GB Raptor,1GB PC3200,Audigy 2

It's not only the zoom setting in FS. You also have to consider the zoom setting/focal distance of the camera, with which the real world photo was taken. Maybe when you see this runway with your own eyes, it appears completely different?!CheersWolfgang

The perspective plays a lot too. The higher you are, the longer and narrower it appears, the lower you are, the shorter and wider it appears.----------------------------------------------------------------John MorganReal World: KGEG, UND Aerospace Spokane Satillite, Private ASEL 141.2 hrs, 314 landings, 46 inst. apprs.Virtual: MSFS 2004"There is a feeling about an airport that no other piece of ground can have. No matter what the name of the country on whose land it lies, an airport is a place you can see and touch that leads to a reality that can only be thought and felt." - The Bridge Across Forever: A Love Story by Richard Bach

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/024728/L/

Hi Andreas,I think the dimensions of the MSFS runways are very accurate with the real ones. I mostly fly in real life in the north-netherlands. Airports as EHGG, EDWF, EHAL, EHLE, EDWR match exactly with the real once. In the AFCAD file the dimensions are correct with the original Jeppesen airportcharts and also the "feel" approaching and landing on these airports is similar. So it might be that Microsoft has used the origional documents from Jeppesen to make their airports in the sim. But there might be some faults in it here and there?Herman

I have played around with different zoom settings in FS2004 and would say that a zoom setting between 1.20 and 1.25 equals the sight of a human eye.I know that many of us have set the zoom to 0.75 or similar values. This stting has its advatage in providing a better overview, but apart from this it is completely unrealistic IMO, whereas Zoom levels around 1.25 let runways appear wider (what the original poster liked to have) and provide better performance (more fps), especially on low end and mid range systems. I personally use 1.25 at take offs and landings, for the rest of the flight my zoom setting is 1.0.Wolfgang

>I have played around with different zoom settings in FS2004>and would say that a zoom setting between 1.20 and 1.25 equals>the sight of a human eye.>I know that many of us have set the zoom to 0.75 or similar>values. This stting has its advatage in providing a better>overview, but apart from this it is completely unrealistic>IMO, whereas Zoom levels around 1.25 let runways appear wider>(what the original poster liked to have) and provide better>performance (more fps), especially on low end and mid range>systems. I personally use 1.25 at take offs and landings, for>the rest of the flight my zoom setting is 1.0.>Losing peripheral vision at 1.25 is also unrealistic, and without additional monitors for side views, it's still a compromise. I'm personally usually content with 0.75. Otherwise I feel like I'm landing with "tunnel vision".L.Adamson