>There is something seriously wrong with your logic. How far is>from downtown Seattle to the mountain: 30-40 miles. How then>can it be visible with visibility 15-20 miles? The answer: it>can't, lets not kid ourselves.Have you ever been to Seattle? If you don't believe me, I've got plenty of pictures to prove it. Actually, I've got quite a lot of pictures taken from Tacoma which is the same distance from Mt. Rainier as downtown Seattle.

Now thats what I call using the full length of the runway.Great shot GeoffRoger - EGPF

Unless I'm totally wrong - visibility is reported as lateral distance at airport ground level. The element missing from your statement of visibility is the ceiling or top of the reduced visibility layer.I haven't spent much time in Seattle, but have spent a lot of time in Japan.I've seen many a day on the golf course at Atsugi when the airport was IFR due to visibility less than 1 nm, where I could see the top of Mount Fuji rising out of the haze / fog layer.Is that the effect you are looking for?A lowered visibility layer close to the ground and the top of the mountain extending in the clear air above?Now I would not call it a bug because FS does not do that - more a limitation of trying to convert a 3D concept into a 2D image.If you set visibility to 20NM, the program is simply not going to try and draw something over 20nm away.Implementing reduced visibility is one of the hardest things FS tries to do - and does a very good job. But it is far from realistic - it is simply "As real as it gets" meaning - the program / computer cannot produce anything more realistic.

>I've>got plenty of pictures to prove it.To prove exactly what ??Yes, such pictures would only prove that in a given moment visibility must have been 30+ miles. *:-* Michael J.

Uh, no...