less haze ?

[anitelite 41]

Earlier in the beta releases there was a DataRef editor that let us reduce the haze.  I used it with some pleasant results.  But now, when i call up the "fog" selection and try to change it, there's no way to save the change.  Am I missing something, or has Xplane pulled the ability to make changes ?

 

[Murmur 3,941]

Unfortunately that dataref is no longer editable.

[anitelite 41]

too bad....other than third party apps, is there any way to hack or edit the haze?

[propsfan 52]

I know it's not what you are looking for but if the haze really bugs me after I have downloaded real weather I just switch to manually configured and adjust the visibility slider keeping all the rest. Not ideal but allows for the sort of flight I might be looking for that day.

[Colonel X 1,430]

The haze is just fine. Get over it.

[Murmur 3,941]

4 minutes ago, frontendrob said:

The haze is just fine. Get over it.

Uhm, no it isn't. The actual visibility in the sim is always less than reported.

[rototom 198]

I don't see the problem either. It's about time we started seeing smog in flight simulators. Try reducing the number of cars and see if that helps.

[Paraffin 2,197]

26 minutes ago, rototom said:

I don't see the problem either. It's about time we started seeing smog in flight simulators. Try reducing the number of cars and see if that helps.

I don't have a problem with an attempt at realism for haze, and we can all disagree about what should an average level representing the entire world Personally, I think it's overdone (and as a retired commercial aerial photographer I have some experience to back that up). But that's not the problem.

Here's the problem. The haze is tied to the visibility slider. The visibility slider is set from a METAR when using real-world weather injection. When the visibility slider is set to 10 miles, you can't see the runway at 10 mile final approach because the haze is so thick.

Just try it. Set up a flight with the plane starting at 10 miles (use the setting option for loading an airport), and set the visibility slider to 10 miles. Tell me if you can see the runway. 

I don't know if this is a result of a too-thick haze that Laminar chose as the normal amount, or just a wrong calibration of the visibility slider. But the term "visibility" means something in aviation, which is why it's part of a METAR report. And it isn't working right in XP11.

[Murmur 3,941]

35 minutes ago, Paraffin said:

Just try it. Set up a flight with the plane starting at 10 miles (use the setting option for loading an airport), and set the visibility slider to 10 miles. Tell me if you can see the runway.

Actually, in that case you should set the visibility slider to 11.5 sm (= 10.0 nm that X-Plane uses to set an aircraft on final).  But the runway won't be visible neverthless.

[Paraffin 2,197]

42 minutes ago, Murmur said:

Actually, in that case you should set the visibility slider to 11.5 sm (= 10.0 nm that X-Plane uses to set an aircraft on final).  But the runway won't be visible neverthless.

Well, if we're going to be picky,   there is also a "slant range" difference.

A GPS (and presumably X-Plane) measures distance to an airport location as a ground track, while the pilot's actual view to the ground is line-of-sight from a higher altitude. So there is a slant range difference (Wiki link).

At 10 nm distance you'd be at roughly 3,000 ft. on a 3 degree glide path. I haven't run the math, but I think that puts you a little closer than the ground track. Maybe not relevant though, since the automated sensors at airports report horizontal surface visibility in the METAR.

And yeah, the runway won't be visible in XP11 even if you're a bit closer.

[rototom 198]

6 minutes ago, Paraffin said:

Well, if we're going to be picky,   there is also a "slant range" difference.

A GPS (and presumably X-Plane) measures distance to an airport location as a ground track, while the pilot's actual view to the ground is line-of-sight from a higher altitude. So there is a slant range difference (Wiki link).

At 10 nm distance you'd be at roughly 3,000 ft. on a 3 degree glide path. I haven't run the math, but I think that puts you a little closer than the ground track. Maybe not relevant though, since the automated sensors at airports report horizontal surface visibility in the METAR.

And yeah, the runway won't be visible in XP11 even if you're a bit closer.

Not picky at all. I think the visibility slider in X-plane will use statute miles. And we know that a METAR reports visibility in statute miles so that makes sense. You've positioned your plane 10 nautical miles from the runway? with 8.7 nautical miles of visibility. I think you should not see the runway until you're at 8.7 nautical miles from it. You definitely have to be using the same units in your tests, otherwise you have a sizable gap.

[Murmur 3,941]

14 minutes ago, rototom said:

Not picky at all. I think the visibility slider in X-plane will use statute miles. And we know that a METAR reports visibility in statute miles so that makes sense. You've positioned your plane 10 nautical miles from the runway? with 8.7 nautical miles of visibility. I think you should not see the runway until you're at 8.7 nautical miles from it. You definitely have to be using the same units in your tests, otherwise you have a sizable gap.

As I explained in the previous post, the runway will remain not visible even accounting for this discrepancy (i.e. setting visibility at 11.5 sm = 10 nm, when the aircraft is set on a 10 nm final). So the visibility in X-Plane is indeed not well tuned.

[rototom 198]

What's the latest word from LR?

[efis007 884]

My new background template 

[Pugilist2 878]

Nice!