ASOBO stated sometime ago that the visibility settings will come with a future update.

In the initial release they included that "aerosol density" that could be used to somehow modulate visibility, but it's not the same thing.

Situations where aerosol density could be useful are those reported, for instance, as "9 octas". HumtyDumpty knows only too well what that means :-)

12 minutes ago, Murmur said:

But nothing as precise as you could do with a visibility slider.

Of course a slider with the same functionality, when named differently, cannot work as precise as the slider with another name.

The workaround with the cloud layer on ground level kind of works, but there's a major flaw: it restricts the visibility to *only* short distances. On the other hand, the humidity slider restricts the visibility only for long distances. So there is a kind of gap in between, nothing to adjust the visibility in the middle range.

That being said, progress on the weather depiction is made on a regular basis by the devs, so there's good hope that in the near future they finally provide some more appropriate settings, like in XP or like in every older generations of FS...

49 minutes ago, rka said:

Of course a slider with the same functionality, when named differently, cannot work as precise as the slider with another name.

Hehe...*coughs in logarithm*...he

6 hours ago, mSparks said:

Hmm,

I think its safe to say it will be.

What we have now is mostly still predomintly XP11 with very early use of the new vegatation engine and not spoilt by the broken lighting in XP11.

XP, tuned up, is now consistently good, its a pleasure, but I'm not convinced the scenery available quite passes a "always better than msfs" bar just yet. That wasn't even a goal of the releases so far...

 

As I said - imho.  I fully understand others preferring the way MSFS looks.  I have 1700 hours in MSFS, so you won't find me criticising it, but XP12 has made a big leap forward as far as I concerned.  As I keep saying, it is great to have a choice between two very good simulators.

7 hours ago, rka said:

Rule of thumb: Doesn't matter, XP better.

This board is not about fairness in comparisons, it's about repeating how advanced in basically every aspect XP is.

XP has always issues with lighting. I think just comparing the last three screenshots on this page is telling enough. But keep the rule of thumb in mind.

In my opinion, XP12 is doing a great job with the atmosphere.  MSFS is also doing a great job with the atmosphere.  I use both sims, but having an opinion XP12 is doing a better job with the atmosphere does not change my opinion MSFS is a great sim.

Perhaps you could take a balanced view too?  If not, why are you even viewing an XP forum?

2 hours ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

Perhaps you could take a balanced view too?  If not, why are you even viewing an XP forum?

I believe I do, if with balanced you mean objective or as objective as possible. What do you consider "balanced"?

 

12 hours ago, rka said:

XP has always issues with lighting. I think just comparing the last three screenshots on this page is telling enough.

+

7 hours ago, rka said:

Of course a slider with the same functionality, when named differently, cannot work as precise as the slider with another name.

is not equal to this

1 hour ago, rka said:

I believe I do, if with balanced you mean objective or as objective as possible.

 

Always lighting issues? Aside from Beta8? What is telling enough? Lack of justification here is also lack of objectivity/balance.

The slider statement is incorrect but might just be a misunderstanding of how these sliders work. Either way, it's not backed up by any justification or evidence and is therefore subjective and to some, proactively mocking.

Edited October 23, 20223 yr by blingthinger

2 hours ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

I have 1700 hours in MSFS

MSFS was the first application in more than a decade that got close to getting me to install windows.  XP12 dropped before I made the effort.

2 hours ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

the way MSFS looks. 

Is, and always was, imho, greatly exaggerated.... Also quite possibly a cope for all the things it is still lacking everywhere else.

The Tech, Artists, the people and their skills are what I find important to analyse in that respect. 

I just recently lost all hope for their helicopters upon learning the MS lead for helicopters is just now learning to fly one so he can do a good job of it.... ******* wept.

So far LR have really exceeded all my expectations, I was genuinely concerned that a significant leap from XP11 was going to be impossible, and while there is the odd "XP12 is just XP11 with some tweeked colors and a new start menu" comments floating around on say the steam reviews, its a massive relief that it is so much more - and on balance people seem to be recognising its strengths.

3 hours ago, rka said:

I believe I do, if with balanced you mean objective or as objective as possible. What do you consider "balanced"?

The opposite of the post you made that I replied to.

4 hours ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

The opposite of the post you made that I replied to.

Let's just agree that XP is bestest no matter what. I feel that is a very balanced view.

7 hours ago, mSparks said:

I just recently lost all hope for their helicopters upon learning the MS lead for helicopters is just now learning to fly one so he can do a good job of it.... ******* wept.

The vast majority of people who design aircraft in the real world are not pilots.  The people who design rockets are not astronauts.

They don't need to be, it's about science, math, aerodynamics and hitting the numbers.

So you shouldn't "weep" over the fact software engineers, who are also very good at aerodynamics, might not be certified to fly the actual aircraft.

Besides, they are developing for all helicopters, it's a (highly complex) flight model.  Which one would you prefer they get certified in first?  Bell 208?  Boeing CH-47 Chinook?

The fact they are taking the time to take lessons at all is impressive.

39 minutes ago, Gulfstream said:

The vast majority of people who design aircraft in the real world are not pilots. 

yeah, like that Igor Sikorsky fellow right, never got near a helicopter cockpit. I suppose you think he did all the design from his windows laptop and dealt with suppliers via teams.

Edited October 24, 20223 yr by mSparks

1 hour ago, mSparks said:

yeah, like that Igor Sikorsky fellow right, never got near a helicopter cockpit. I suppose you think he did all the design from his windows laptop and dealt with suppliers via teams.

That's not how a rebuttal to a statement that doesn't encompass everyone works. 

31 minutes ago, Sethos said:

That's not how a rebuttal to a statement that doesn't encompass everyone works. 

He pretty much is "everyone" when it comes to Helicopters or piston engine planes in use today.

Which anyone who knows anything about aircraft designers - let alone claiming to know "the vast majority" would know... obviously...

Edited October 24, 20223 yr by mSparks