On 8/4/2023 at 2:43 PM, Bobsk8 said:

At least the scenery isn't cartoonish/ 

To me a lot of the scenery is very cartoonish and that is over 2 entirely different systems (including GPU and monitor)

Grass strips especially look completely unrealistic. Im not complaining about it as its still the best sim out there as far as I can see and sometimes looks incredibly realistic, but then other times not at all

4 hours ago, Christopher Low said:

When I say "centreline", I mean perfectly aligned with the glideslope. Surely that has everything to do with it?

The runway centerline is the horizontal axis along the middle of the runway, aka the white stripes. That's what the localizer is for. That has nothing to do with the glideslope which is the vertical path to the runway.

There should be an addon which improves PAPI lights visibility at MSFS which is very bad

11 hours ago, Lonesome Cowboy Burt said:

To me a lot of the scenery is very cartoonish and that is over 2 entirely different systems (including GPU and monitor)

Grass strips especially look completely unrealistic. Im not complaining about it as its still the best sim out there as far as I can see and sometimes looks incredibly realistic, but then other times not at all

For me it's pavement that always looks uncanny. In reality pavement is faded, and often doesn't contrast that much with the surrounding terrain. In video games, MSFS included, they stand out so much it looks immediately fake.

Though this might have more to do with how light works in video games. I dunno. It's just funny seeing pictures of new release airports where the airport apron sticks out so clearly from the surrounding city.

On 1/5/2024 at 10:05 AM, mryan75 said:

Define "needed". PAPIs are an excellent tool and should be used if the airport has them.

You can easily land without them.  If they were needed landings on runways without them would be prohibited.  I’m talking in real life as that was the original question.

55 minutes ago, jspilot said:

You can easily land without them.  If they were needed landings on runways without them would be prohibited.  I’m talking in real life as that was the original question.

While true, if a runway is going to have them then they need to be accurate lest they do more harm than good. 😉

 

1 hour ago, jspilot said:

You can easily land without them.  If they were needed landings on runways without them would be prohibited.  I’m talking in real life as that was the original question.

"Easily" meaning what? VFR CAVU day in a 182 sure. They are a real help in poor weather and great reference. Certain landings are in fact prohibited (IFR MINS) when lights are out of service.

Edited January 6, 20242 yr by Flyfaster_MTN002

14 hours ago, jspilot said:

You can easily land without them.  If they were needed landings on runways without them would be prohibited.  I’m talking in real life as that was the original question.

Of course you can land without them. They’re also an excellent tool as I said. 

13 hours ago, Flyfaster_MTN002 said:

Certain landings are in fact prohibited (IFR MINS) when lights are out of service.

Are the approaches prohibited or are higher minimums required? The latter is quite common when parts of the lighting system are out of service, but I was unaware of approaches that were actually prohibited without one or another of the lighting systems.

Thanks.

On 8/4/2023 at 7:22 AM, cianpars said:

PAPI lights are not visible from a distance at all.  You should be able to see them from much further away as in real life.

Agree with your "real life" comment.

Many years ago when I did a lot of Cdn arctic flying, on approach at night in ice fog the papi/vasi were the first lights you'd see. As we did a lot of this we were familiar with what side of the runway they were on which could be different depending on local requirements.

Edited January 7, 20242 yr by dbw1