New FSX screenshots

[Bruce Nicholson KMFR 20]

>> Tell Mr Gates or whomever calls the shots over there, that I will even pay

[Guest Fjorko]

Hi Thanks for the Ideas, but I have both ( see my avatar on bottom ?), and many other can vouch that neither makes a real difference to the 9.99sm visibility issue ( as it is called )As Mike has said, they do not have access to weather station data of more than 10sm, and therefore do not know what to depict ( within FS9) if visibility goes to more than that, hence the sudden change to your max visibility as set in FS9It's a core sim issue that will need to be addressed or worked around to get this working properly....hence my willingness to basically pay what they ask for FSX if this can be fixed/worked around convincingly. This is the ONE main feature that makes REAL IFR flight realistic and immersive IMHO.Cheers

[Guest]

I would pay 300 bucks for the cloud shadows (with DX10) :9

[Guest Fjorko]

Rest easy mate, an update for FSX will be released soon after it's release and apparently that release will enable DX10 within the game, but as it ships, it will come with support for DX9. I said it before and I say it again - the REAL concern for me is that visibility bug mate ! It's just "bugging" me alot !!! I fear I ( and many others like me ) are going to be bitterly disappointed when we find out that this ONE issue will still be there in FSX, and I kind of do understand why it MAY not be fixed ( lack of data ), but mate, I can only hope and pray - hope and pray I tell you !!!!:-doh BTW have any of you guys seen this screenshot ? It's amazing !!!!**Notice the trees planted neatly along the roadside**(Sorry to link to another FS forum)http://forums.simflight.com/files/simfligh...e01_fsx_338.jpg

[michal 44]

>I said it before and I say it again - the REAL concern for me>is that visibility bug mate ! It's just "bugging" me alot !!!Me too ;)>why it MAY not be fixed ( lack of data ),not sure what data has to do with it :-hmmmSurely software could make up for lack of data. Also, if you set the weather manually using FS9's weather menu clearly there is no issue with having "no" data. FS9 generates its own data in this case but it still can't cope with the visibility transition.>BTW have any of you guys seen this screenshot ? Very nice. I always worry about scenery creators parting with reality and giving us cartoonish, "Disneyland" scenery with over saturated colors (happens a lot with current add-ons). This one is perfectly balanced. :-)Michael J.http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/pmdg_744F.jpghttp://sales.hifisim.com/pub-download/asv6-banner-beta.jpg

[slashed2 53]

Sudden changes in visibility are a huge distraction from immersion, I wonder how to fix it though and it seems you'd have to make the air itself like a cloud if you will, I think AS6 attempts this to generate a lower visibilty, making visibility an object in itself. Question is how much of the weather engine would need to be changed to create a more realistic atmosphere with atmospheric conditions dictating visibility values that change over time and location.Would be interesting to see how if and how this is handled in X.Ian.

[michal 44]

>I wonder how to fix it though and it seems you'd>have to make the air itself like a cloud if you will,It ain't going to be easy, that's for sure. They certainly can't simulate every molecule of water/dust suspended in the air. But if I were working for MSFS I would accept this challenge ;)Michael J.

[Guest Fjorko]

>Sudden changes in visibility are a huge distraction from>immersion, I wonder how to fix it though and it seems you'd>have to make the air itself like a cloud if you will, I think>AS6 attempts this to generate a lower visibilty, making>visibility an object in itself. >>Question is how much of the weather engine would need to be>changed to create a more realistic atmosphere with atmospheric>conditions dictating visibility values that change over time>and location.>>Would be interesting to see how if and how this is handled in>X.>>Ian.Hi Iantdragger already spoke about it, and from what I can gather he said that the problem is that they as dev's only have access to/can obtain/can extract (fill in own verb) weather visibility data up to 10 miles....so...... when visibility has changed from one station to the next and it suddenly goes ABOVE 10 miles, they have no concrete way of depicting this visibility ( don't know why though! ) so - what happens is that visibility JUMPS to the setting you have set in FS9 as Maximum visibility ( mine is usually set to 59 miles via ASV6) - hence the SUDDEN jump to max visibility and vice versa.....Reading between the lines of that comment from tdragger, it's going to be hard to "change" this behaviour, so that is why i've said we may be disappointed....but MAYBE just MAYBE they can come up with a nice trick or 2 to "work around" this somehow - well let's hope so !Cheers

[michal 44]

>changed from one station to the next and it suddenly goes>ABOVE 10 miles, they have no concrete way of depicting this>visibility so - what happens is that visibility JUMPS to the>seting you have set in FS9 as Maximum visibility ( mine is>usually set to 59 miles via ASV6 - hence the SUDDEN jump to>max visibility and vice versa.....Again, when you don't use real weather there are NO weather stations of any kind (you set weather as 'global') and the problem is still there. Also the problem is gone when you set maximum visibility at 29 miles. I suspect there is much more to it than tdragger's comments. Michael J.http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/pmdg_744F.jpghttp://sales.hifisim.com/pub-download/asv6-banner-beta.jpg

[Guest Fjorko]

Tdragger - care to comment ? Coz i don't know the answer to this one ?BTW no matter what max setting i set mine to, i always have this problem..... so have many others... so i don't think setting max viibility to even 29 miles has anything to do with it either...

[michal 44]

>setting max viibility to even 29 miles has anything to do with>it either...In ASV6 set maximum visibility at 29, and make sure you uncheck "depict FS9 haze layer". This combination guarantees (I don't provide compensations if it doesn't work for you) you will no longer have sudden visibility transitions. BTW, I did not find it, other smart people found it through trial and error - there are a few threads on this subject on the ASV6 forum. Oh, I also set cloud draw distance at 30, not sure if it is related though.EDIT: It is possible we are talking about 2 different problems. I am talking about sudden, discontinuous visibility transitions when passing for example 10,000 ft when you suddenly go for example from "haze" to "unlimited". At this point I don't recall if "10,000" is the only such place when this discontinuity occurs or there are other places.Michael J.http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/pmdg_744F.jpghttp://sales.hifisim.com/pub-download/asv6-banner-beta.jpg

[slashed2 53]

I think a whole new approach is needed to the weather engine. Not quite sure how it would be done especially using downloaded metars which resets the weather in a sense. A more gradual transition with new metars would be a good way to do it say if visibility is 10 miles then drops to 7 miles, have a graduated system, though it would have to be very gradual, unoticeable to the eye.But I agree, modelling every air molecule would be impractical, but the causes of visibility are fairly simple; fog, air quality, humidity and smoke all cause low visibility, but to model these would require them as an object, very much like the clouds we see. Haze, fog, humidity are 3 things I can think off that can be modelled, each with a different look or effect. Problem is how to implement these between reporting stations? Transitions between metars could be averaged in a certain area with accurate readings around the airport then averaging it out as you leave that station. I think AS6 does this within a certain area so maby something along those lines.Sorry for rambling, but just thinking aloud, but overall, changing the way visibility is modelled by implementing it as it's own object like a cloud could be one way to do it.Ian.

[Guest Fjorko]

yeah me too..but 29 miles is a bit low isn't it....you will fly in constant haze not true ?

[michal 44]

>but 29 miles is a bit low isn't it....you will fly in constant>haze not true ?I would not call 29 miles a haze, but it is a compromise. Some people think the price is too much to pay. I am happy with this solution - having visibility of 30 miles at FL350 is not such a rare event as you may believe. It depends on you - what you pick as lesser of two eveils.Michael J.http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/pmdg_744F.jpghttp://sales.hifisim.com/pub-download/asv6-banner-beta.jpg

[Guest Fjorko]

>I think a whole new approach is needed to the weather engine.> Not quite sure how it would be done especially using>downloaded metars which resets the weather in a sense. A more>gradual transition with new metars would be a good way to do>it say if visibility is 10 miles then drops to 7 miles, have a>graduated system, though it would have to be very gradual,>unoticeable to the eye.>>But I agree, modelling every air molecule would be>impractical, but the causes of visibility are fairly simple; >fog, air quality, humidity and smoke all cause low visibility,>but to model these would require them as an object, very much>like the clouds we see. Haze, fog, humidity are 3 things I can>think off that can be modelled, each with a different look or>effect. >>Problem is how to implement these between reporting stations? >Transitions between metars could be averaged in a certain area>with accurate readings around the airport then averaging it>out as you leave that station. I think AS6 does this within a>certain area so maby something along those lines.>>Sorry for rambling, but just thinking aloud, but overall,>changing the way visibility is modelled by implementing it as>it's own object like a cloud could be one way to do it.>>Ian.Yeah - that makes good sense....but i guess they are too far in development to implement something like this now....or maybe they have another trick up their sleeves that we are not aware of yet ( again lets hope so :-))...