2 hours ago, UrgentSiesta said:

IMHO it’s generally too hazy. I’ve lived/live in areas that regularly experience “severe clear” weather and that is never accurately reflected in the sim. 

Yep, flying out of Islip on a clear day I can see Manhattan, something that would never happen in the sim.

8 hours ago, UrgentSiesta said:

IMHO it’s generally too hazy. I’ve lived/live in areas that regularly experience “severe clear” weather and that is never accurately reflected in the sim. 

The haze is consistent with the METAR visibility distance in most situations.  It is what it is.

5 hours ago, mldavis2 said:

The haze is consistent with the METAR visibility distance in most situations.  It is what it is.

Visibility distance in XP12 regardless of clear weather conditions only goes out to 40 miles! Never seen it go above that unless we set the conditions manually! I would imagine that is where L/R's 3D graphic ring ends and their distant urban tiles pick up the view.

If you have an ICAO that has a visibility that goes above 40, I'd like to see that airport on my end. Maybe I've just picked bad weather conditions all these years.

Edited March 15Mar 15 by Mike_CFII_MEL

5 hours ago, mldavis2 said:

The haze is consistent with the METAR visibility distance in most situations.  It is what it is.

Well, we’re simulating reality, following First Principles physics. And what’s being presented is visually inaccurate compared to what we see with our own eyes. 

In X-Plane, I feel like I’m always in LAX or DEN on smog days. 

it’s not a tragedy, but it is something that needs attention. 

14 minutes ago, UrgentSiesta said:

Well, we’re simulating reality, following First Principles physics. And what’s being presented is visually inaccurate compared to what we see with our own eyes. 

In X-Plane, I feel like I’m always in LAX or DEN on smog days. 

it’s not a tragedy, but it is something that needs attention. 

Yep, having the correct numbers based on real world conditions are one thing, getting that data to display correctly within the sim is another.

I believe it also has someting to do with limiting object draw to keep performance up. I suppose if you prefer tsnking frames.

1 hour ago, mjrhealth said:

I believe it also has someting to do with limiting object draw to keep performance up. I suppose if you prefer tsnking frames.

With multi-treading now available in XP12 and the use of high end video boards, it would be nice if L/R increased these limits and allowed the end user to decide how far they want their frames to sink. I get acceptable performance at 30Hz/30fps, so I would enjoy the extra graphics and lose the 20 odd frames I'm not using (usually hovers in the 50s) while locked at 30. My monitor is ten years old doesn't have the ability to take advantage of adaptive vsync.

5 hours ago, mjrhealth said:

I believe it also has someting to do with limiting object draw to keep performance up. I suppose if you prefer tsnking frames.

Fair, but...

I frequently will let Live Weather download, but then I'll knock out everything but the winds and set max visibility. I have yet to see a noticeable drop in frames.

And as said above, 12.4 has given me such a tremendous boost in frames that I'd take it at this point even if it did happen 🙂

 

Edited March 16Mar 16 by UrgentSiesta

39 minutes ago, UrgentSiesta said:

Fair, but...

I frequently will let Live Weather download, but then I'll knock out everything but the winds and set max visibility. I have yet to see a noticeable drop in frames.

And as said above, 12.4 has given me such a tremendous boost in frames that I'd take it at this point even if it did happen 🙂

 

No noticeable change in performance upping the visibility to max because at a certain point XP12 introduces urban far (dds) tiles that replace the 3D stuff.

12 hours ago, Mike_CFII_MEL said:

If you have an ICAO that has a visibility that goes above 40, I'd like to see that airport on my end. Maybe I've just picked bad weather conditions all these years.

KPHX right now, vis 50.499sm. 

Sorry, can´t post a screenshot due to the ancient forum technology used stubbornly here.

41 minutes ago, Litjan said:

KPHX right now, vis 50.499sm. 

Sorry, can´t post a screenshot due to the ancient forum technology used stubbornly here.

Let me crank up the computer and have a look, thanks. Did a flight earlier, but it didn't break 40.

UPDATE: It's above 40, Sweet!

We just need L/R to up the graphics ring.

Edited March 16Mar 16 by Mike_CFII_MEL

1 hour ago, Mike_CFII_MEL said:

We just need L/R to up the graphics ring.

Doubt that will happen until they get the extra performance they need, Being a long road but finally seeing some good things in that regard.

7 hours ago, Mike_CFII_MEL said:

We just need L/R to up the graphics ring.

With Next Gen Scenery(TM) maybe, but 120% not with the scenery rendering that is used at the moment.

Beta1 did break both the Sparky744 and AutoATC (along with many other plugins)

New releases with fixes for both went up yesterday.

Edited March 16Mar 16 by mSparks

On 3/14/2026 at 9:41 AM, Litjan said:

The reshade crowd falls into two groups, one is the "tinkerer" that can never be happy with anything "default".
The other is the "postcard world guy", who wants his X-Plane to look "nicer than the real world, more vibrant, shining,...". 

I agree, but it depends on the simulator you're using.
XP11, for example, has never been realistic in its imitation of reality.
This sim's graphical flaws were so numerous that the use of Reshade was practically mandatory.
Here's an example of the benefits Reshade introduced in XP11.

The first image (XP11 without Reshade) looks like it was captured by a "pocket Polaroid camera".
The scene appears very flat, lacking dynamics, with little sense of depth, and the colors aren't beautiful.

The second image (XP11 with Reshade) looks like it was captured by a "professional Canon camera".
The scene appears alive, dynamic, with a greater sense of three-dimensional depth, and the colors are very similar to how the human eye would see them.

So, Reshade is an excellent tool if used with good taste.
I've always used it in XP10 and XP11, reaping enormous graphical advantages from both simulators.

With XP12, however, I don't use it because XP12's overall graphics are already good and don't necessarily require any further processing.
The graphics can certainly be improved even further (Laminar knows this) and will improve them in the future, but personally, I think XP12 is already very well-balanced in terms of overall graphics even without using Reshade.