2reds2whites

I don't agree with that in the slightest. I have no idea why he would expect more turbulence in those approaches. The first landing in the 737 is into a 15kt headwind 20 degrees off the nose. That's a 5kt crosswind component, which in a 737 might as well literally be nothing. Why on earth would you expect much (if any) turbulence there? 🤨 The wet weather landing looks entirely appropriate. 21G33kt on a low pressure, ISA- day. Looks spot on. I think that people forget that 3/4 of the effect of turbulence is the physical feeling of it - which you can't replicate without visual 'tricks' which if anything completely exaggerate the effect.

For the love of god. That's because the camera is metering for.................. .........never mind.

You're not surprised that the person who created X-plane, who is the founder and owner of Laminar Research, is clueless about a basic graphics issue?

So your answer as to why we need to maintain the luminance ratio is to post a link in which it explicitly states that a constant luminance ratio is completely irrelevant in how we perceive the world. No - your own link says completely the opposite - YOU PERCEIVE THE WORLD SIMILARLY REGARDLESS OF THE HUGE CHANGES IN ILLUMINATION. I am genuinely dumbfounded at how you've managed to interpret that as 'eyes are insensitive to darkly lit cockpits.' It's the complete opposite. It's saying that even if there is a huge change in illumination you DON'T SEE IT THAT WAY. You simply have to be a troll, or lack the ability to read. It's your own link. You posted it, you go and read it. I also love the idea that as of XP12 it's now a physical impossibility to expose a digital scene correctly, as if every other flying/driving/farming/boating simulator in recorded history hasn't done it already.

Literally the third line of your explanatory link; So your answer as to why we need to maintain the luminance ratio is to post a link in which it explicitly states that a constant luminance ratio is completely irrelevant in how we perceive the world. This shortly after your post about how dark a 747 flight deck is actually proves it's as bright as an operating theatre.

Why? Is this the basis of your opinion? Why on earth would that relationship need to be 'maintained?'

Including XP11 and every other X-plane release. I legitimately have no idea what he's talking about.

This is too perfect. I must be reading that wrong. Is that 1000 lux? Did you just attempt to make a point of how dark a flight deck is, with the ambient light meter at the darkest part of the cockpit, with the lumisphere facing rearwards - showing an ambient illuminance of 1000lux? 1000 lux...........https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/light-level-rooms-d_708.html SURELY I must be misreading the value on that monitor, otherwise you've just obliterated your own argument lmao. 1000 lux is the lighting in an operating theatre. On a sunny day? The top one, by a massive margin. I've never flown the 747 but have spent plenty of time on the jumpseat. Even the sim isn't as dark as the lower image lol.

Absolutely hilarious. This is a classic mSparks moment of comedy up there with 'mach number has nothing to do with temperature.'

Except he's talking about the flight deck illumination, which is far closer to reality than what XP12 has to offer. Simple as that. Source: spend lots of time in a flight deck. If you'd have read his post then you'd have known that. He literally states it very explicity; Regrettably you don't have any valid arguments so you just fabricate one.

Is there a better example of the clown show on display in this thread than below? This is apparently an example of a beautifully bright and contrasty image, both inside the cockpit and out 🤣 https://imgur.com/6QBioS4 The

I honestly didn't even think I'd have to explain that the images are an analogue for how the sim manages shadows and 'contrast,' but I suppose I should have expected that it would go straight over your head. Literally everything else does.

What on earth are you talking about? Software tricks? It's literally a digital depiction. The entire image is software generated. That's literally the entire point of the whole lighting engine. Just to be clear - I have employed 'software tricks' to make the whole scene visible - so you think the world looks flatter and duller as a result? Correctly exposing all parts of an image has nothing to do with your monitors brightness. Image 1 - How Xplane deals with it - massively underexposes the shadows so as to expose the sky correctly - because that is at the 'centre' of the image. Image 2 - How your eyes behave, appropriately exposing the entire image, and how the vast majority of digital lighting engines behave; https://imgur.com/a/ue2EtAx It is legitimately bewildering that people are arguing that 1 is correct. It's honestly like a group delusion. Have you actually forgotten what real life looks like?

Triple posted - no idea why.

Why do you think you have some overarching authority which means you can dispel the opinions of others? You constantly whine when others present their views. If you don't like it then don't post. I personally think it's realistic because I have several thousand hours in that flight deck.

That is factually wrong. The dynamic range of a display has got absolutely nothing to do with the issue. On the basis that a monitor can aptly display almost anything between white and black with accurate colour rendition, it's completely possible (and simple) to replicate what the eye can see. The issue is that the sim is replicating what a camera can see, which is completely different.

I believe the opposite is true, and that dive and drive would be less fuel efficient., assuming that you end up in the same place at the same energy state. In any case I don't disagree with getting below the profile but I don't see why you'd want that to happen out of PATH. If that's your aim then just use FLCH - the entire point of PATH is to keep you on the path, so if you don't want that then use a basic mode. Regarding putting something in the descent forecast, you're just giving the FMC something to work with. If the winds are out of date/inaccurate or the drag factor is wrong then it's just garbage in garbage out.

That’s only because the airline hasn’t given it an appropriate drag factor or provides inaccurate winds. I don’t particularly understand why you’d want it to default to VNAV SPD and get below profile if you open the speed window and accelerate. In that instance you’ve just completely eliminated the entire purpose of VNAV PTH so there’s no reason for you to have been in it in the first place. The aircraft remaining in PTH and adding thrust for speed is exactly what you want it to do. In any case, prior to TOD go into your descent forecast and try putting your cruise alt in the TAT/ AI ON box at line select 1R, it’ll more accurately fly the speed profile as it’ll assume EAI on at TOD. In any case, @jarmstro VNAV just allows you to fly an 'idealised' descent profile which can adhere to speed and altitude restrictions without your further intervention. It's most useful during complicated STARS with various altitude constraints. In regard to ATC, yes they can pro-actively give clearance, but you don't just sit and wait for them. Often you request descent to satisfy your own profile. If you do get descended early or late, you can re-establish on the VNAV profile normally at your own discretion. Basic diagram below; https://imgur.com/a/CwW9ZDO

What on earth are you talking about?

assuming you are focused on the center of the screen. The mind truly boggles. If that's what you saw in real life whilst you were filming by the way, you have an extremely serious visual disability. You should see an ophthalmologist immediately.

Because the dynamic range between the human eye and a camera is vastly different. Your eyes adjust but maintain a HUGELY more detail in shadow and brightness simultaneously than any camera ever could. Pilots wear sunglasses and use sun shades because the external brightness exceeds the eye's tolerance - not to mitigate differential exposure - as any dark objects in the cabin are made equally darker by the sunglasses which keeps the difference constant. I literally can't believe I'm having to explain how eyes work. But then again I have to consider that there are those who genuinly believe that if you're sat in an aircraft (or indeed any scenario) that your eyes will see this; https://imgur.com/a/2PFi4uc

What lmao? No it's not. It's only realistic if your eyes were made of cameras and their associated dynamic range. To say it's 100% realistic is absolutely laughable.

Edit: You seem to have liked this post.......I think there's a risk you might be thinking that the facepalm is aimed at someone else than you......

I appreciate your persistence, but you're trying to talk to someone who very clearly doesn't even understand what true airspeed is.

I'm just going to quote all of this so it can't be edited away. Will be a good reference next time you start talking about the accuracy of flight models. This is like watching a squirrel do algebra.