Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, Paraffin said:

Runways are buried in the hazy soup when they should be visible according to the METAR.

That's one of several irritating issues that are a symptom of insufficient quality in several aspects of X-Plane. Along with incorrect visibility distance, also incorrect ambient lighting at dusk/dawn comes to mind. And there are several others. Inaccuracies in the physics model, etc.

XP does some things very well, but it's irritating that several basic features like these are not considered. For some aspects, it's almost like it still retains part of its "amateurish" stance from past versions. Several of its features seem to have been simply made to be "just good enough" since most people won't care, and not how they should have been done.

This contrasts with other features of the sim that have been thought out and tackled in a much more professional manner, e.g. the new G1000, the scenery system, the airports gateway, etc.

It is this lack of quality in a few basic aspects that sometimes is disheartening for people like me or Jcomm, whereas the competition usually has a more consistent quality across its various features (although this doesn't mean that they're perfect either, far from it!).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

4 hours ago, Murmur said:

That's one of several irritating issues that are a symptom of insufficient quality in several aspects of X-Plane. Along with incorrect visibility distance, also incorrect ambient lighting at dusk/dawn comes to mind. And there are several others. Inaccuracies in the physics model, etc.

And let's not forget the radioactive glowing trees effect, which is still there. I don't know why it's taking so long to fix that. The sim does great tree shadows if you have a strong enough system to have that enabled, but they still haven't fixed that weird constant glowing backlight effect on trees. It's something new in the XP11 rendering engine, because I don't remember that with XP10. 

Still, even with the occasional weirdness, and in spite of a LONG history flying MSFS since the very first days of computer flight sims, this is my home. It's the simulation that ticks all the boxes I care about, starting with frame rate.

I've always valued frame rate over everything else in a flight sim, because I can't do a smooth landing if I don't have liquid smooth frames, and I can feel (or imagine I feel) the ground effect and the tires touching the runway after flaring on touchdown. X-Plane has always delivered that, from the very first version I tried. Even with older versions and less powerful computers than I fly with now.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/17/2018 at 3:56 PM, Paraffin said:

Another issue with the haze isn't just the aesthetics, but a practical matter of runway visibility.  

If the METAR says visibility is 10 miles, and the slider in X-Plane's weather menu is set to 10 miles, then I expect to see the runway when I'm 10 miles away (allowing for statute/nautical conversion and angle of height above ground). 

Last time I tested this, which wasn't recently, the haze doesn't correspond that way. Runways are buried in the hazy soup when they should be visible according to the METAR. Unless this has been changed recently, that's the main indicator that the haze effect is overdone. At least Laminar did finally expose the art dataref so we can adjust it with a LUA script, or several of the available anti-haze plugins available.

I recently did some trials setting up low RVR´s to test the visibility, and for the daylight conditions, found them to be very precise (i.e. at 500m RVR you can count about 10 edge lights).

For night conditions, the RVR is twice the indicated amount - which "somehow" is correct, because at night you can see high-intensity runway lights about twice as far through the fog than during the day.

Nevertheless, if the RVR at night is indicated as "500m" it SHOULD be 500m... not 1000m. RVR day = 0.5 * RVR night

This is for very low visibility conditions - for the OP´s problem (visibility in the range of 50+ miles) my opinion is also that XP11 has it "mostly right" for most everyday conditions - however there are some conditions in the real world, where visibility is MUCH better than the maximum you can set in X-Plane (several 100 kms), and that should be selectable in X-Plane, too. This is especially true for the thin, dry air at altitude.

Jan

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Janov said:

I recently did some trials setting up low RVR´s to test the visibility, and for the daylight conditions, found them to be very precise (i.e. at 500m RVR you can count about 10 edge lights).

For night conditions, the RVR is twice the indicated amount - which "somehow" is correct, because at night you can see high-intensity runway lights about twice as far through the fog than during the day.

Nevertheless, if the RVR at night is indicated as "500m" it SHOULD be 500m... not 1000m. RVR day = 0.5 * RVR night

This is for very low visibility conditions - for the OP´s problem (visibility in the range of 50+ miles) my opinion is also that XP11 has it "mostly right" for most everyday conditions - however there are some conditions in the real world, where visibility is MUCH better than the maximum you can set in X-Plane (several 100 kms), and that should be selectable in X-Plane, too. This is especially true for the thin, dry air at altitude.

Jan

 

Interesting post as always, thanks Jan! :-)

I think the easier thing to do would be to take out the RVR slider in the weather screen, and just leave the visibility slider. Otherwise, XP should translate the RVR value into a corresponding visibility factor depending on time of day, etc.

On the other hand, METARs can report RVR values instead of visibility, so not having this automatic translation from reported RVR to effective visibility, could produce incorrect RVR values when fetching METARs from live weather.

In any case, the problem explained by Paraffin seems to be present mainly for medium visibility values of a few miles.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now