turbomax

Judgement, cross checks, natural intelligence, prayers. 😄 How do I know all of avsim posts are correct?

Chatgpt knows: Yes. It's true that many PAPI systems are intentionally not exactly coincident with the ILS glideslope. There are several reasons for this, and in many cases the difference is by design rather than an error. The main reasons are: Obstacle clearance The PAPI may be set at a slightly higher angle than the ILS (for example, PAPI at 3.2° while the ILS is 3.0°). This provides additional clearance over obstacles close to the runway threshold. It also helps protect aircraft with lower cockpit heights. Eye-to-wheel height An ILS guides the aircraft based on the glideslope antenna, which effectively provides guidance for the aircraft's flight path. A PAPI is designed so that the pilot's eyes see the correct indication. Since different aircraft have different distances between the pilot's eyes and the landing gear ("eye-to-wheel height"), a single PAPI angle cannot perfectly suit every aircraft. A slight offset helps ensure that the main landing gear crosses the threshold at an appropriate height. Large aircraft considerations Very large aircraft (e.g. wide-body jets) have much greater eye-to-wheel heights than small aircraft. If they flew a standard PAPI exactly "on slope," their wheels might be lower than intended at the threshold. Many operators of large aircraft therefore use procedures such as: follow the ILS until visual, then transition carefully to the visual aiming point, or, at some airports, use specific guidance in the aircraft operating manual. Independent design criteria The ILS and PAPI are designed under different international standards. The ILS glideslope is established by radio-navigation requirements. The PAPI is positioned and adjusted according to visual guidance standards, runway geometry, threshold crossing height, obstacle environment, and operational needs. Their design objectives overlap but are not identical. How big is the difference? Typically, the difference is small: ILS: 3.00° PAPI: 3.20° or ILS: 3.00° PAPI: 2.95° A difference of 0.1–0.3° is fairly common. While that sounds tiny, over several nautical miles it corresponds to tens of feet of altitude. Which should a pilot follow? In instrument meteorological conditions, pilots fly the ILS glideslope until reaching visual references at or below decision altitude. Once sufficient visual references are established, they transition to a normal visual landing, using cues such as the runway perspective and the PAPI. If the ILS and PAPI don't agree, this isn't necessarily a malfunction. Pilots generally continue to fly the published instrument procedure until visual, and then use judgment while respecting any airport-specific procedures or aircraft limitations. If the discrepancy is unusually large or unexpected, it should be treated cautiously and, if necessary, reported. In short, a PAPI and an ILS are not required to coincide exactly. They are separate guidance systems with different design criteria, and a small angular difference is often intentional to account for obstacle clearance, threshold crossing height, and the wide range of aircraft eye-to-wheel geometries.

"The jury concluded that each company’s negligence was a substantial factor in causing harm to the plaintiff, a 20-year-old woman who testified that her childhood use of social media created an addiction to the technology and aggravated her mental health problems. The multimillion-dollar award is expected to increase significantly," I have suffered from MSFS addiction since 1982. that will cost them a pretty bundle ....

your (and my) Pimax Crystal Light are not the latest, highest resolution VR sets that I was referring to.

nobody has yet a pc CPU/GPU powerful enough to drive the latest VR headsets at max resolution with max. MSFS2024 settings at constant 60 fps. so no bragging in the VR department yet, but hopefully sometime in the future. 😄

what's wrong with that? the whole MSFS sim world is "fake"

"In an email to the division, also published on the Xbox blog, Asha Sharma (Xbox CEO) paints a bleak picture of the Xbox division's state. She argues that the business model is unhealthy, with the company achieving margins three to ten times lower than its competitors and operating with a smaller hardware base and higher costs in the current console generation. Sharma considers the attempt to achieve growth through multi-platform titles and Game Pass to have failed."

this ongoing Hangar Chat discussion goes here:

I myself don't have SI, but I appreciate your analysis, efforts and feedback to the community! When you close that SI VR window, does SI still work? In other words, what is it for, is this perhaps some sort of copy protection, license check or can you still use SI with this window closed?

like for your girl friends, 1 for each category.😄

to 400 fps and 50-80 fps in VR

and I would have got a DreamAir by now, if it wasn't for the poor build quality and comfort troubles, as you mentioned already. so the wait goes on for me for the next "perfect" VR upgrade. a real shame Pimax can't get their act together.

I asked chatgpt to compare the Pimax Dream Air SE to my Pimax Crystal Light: Pixel count comparisonDream Air SE: 6.55 million pixels per eye Crystal Light: 8.29 million pixels per eye So the Crystal Light has about 26% more pixels per eye than the Dream Air SE. Why many people still find the Dream Air SE attractiveThe Dream Air SE uses Micro-OLED panels, which provide: much deeper blacks, higher perceived contrast, a dramatically smaller and lighter headset. The Crystal Light counters with: higher native resolution, glass aspheric lenses, potentially more detail in flight sims and racing sims when driven by a powerful GPU. For sim racing / flight simulationIf your priority is maximum detail and instrument readability, the Crystal Light still has the resolution advantage. If your priority is comfort, weight, and OLED image quality, the Dream Air SE is compelling despite the lower resolution. .................... then I asked for the different lenses of both headsets: Dream Air SE lensesPimax describes the Dream Air SE as using ConcaveView pancake lenses optimized for Micro-OLED displays, with a large sweet spot and edge-to-edge clarity. The company specifically highlights wide stereo overlap and reduced glare compared with earlier designs. The advantage of pancake optics is that they allow the headset to be incredibly small and light (under 140 g headset-only). The downside is the same trade-off seen in most pancake headsets (Quest 3, Beyond, etc.): some level of internal reflections and glare, especially against bright objects on dark backgrounds. Community discussions around the Dream Air series suggest this remains a concern, although final production impressions are still limited. Crystal Light lensesThe Crystal Light inherits the Crystal family's glass aspheric lenses, which are one of its strongest features. Pimax has repeatedly emphasized these lenses for their clarity and low distortion. Compared with pancake lenses, glass aspherics generally provide: less glare and fewer reflections, higher light transmission, a very crisp central image, better perceived contrast in bright scenes. The trade-off is size and weight: the optical stack is much bulkier than a pancake design. Which is likely better?For flight simulation and sim racing, I'd still give the optical edge to the Crystal Light today because: It has higher native resolution (2880×2880 vs. 2560×2560 per eye). Glass aspheric lenses have an excellent reputation for cockpit readability. They avoid much of the glare associated with pancake optics. For comfort, portability, and long VR sessions, the Dream Air SE is in a different class. At under 140 g, it is dramatically lighter than the Crystal Light while still offering modern pancake optics and Micro-OLED image quality. Here’s how the **Pimax Dream Air SE vs Pimax Crystal Light lenses behave specifically in flight and racing sims like MSFS, DCS, X-Plane, and iRacing—focused on what you actually notice in the cockpit. Cockpit readability (gauges, MFDs, HUD text)Crystal Light (glass aspheric) Sharper “true center” clarity for small text Very stable focus when looking straight at instruments Slight falloff toward edges, but cockpit centers stay extremely crisp Better for reading distant instruments in MSFS / DCS Dream Air SE (pancake) More uniform sharpness across the view Slightly softer micro-detail compared to Crystal Light due to lower resolution + OLED subpixel structure Still very readable, but fine text (tiny MFD labels, distant runway signs) won’t be as crisp 👉 Winner for pure instrument clarity: Crystal Light 👁️ Sweet spot (where the image is sharp)Crystal Light Larger “perfect center zone” Edge clarity depends more on eye alignment You may naturally “look with your head” more in sims Dream Air SE Pancake lenses give a more even clarity across the lens Less need to hunt for the perfect eye position More “glasses-like” viewing experience 👉 Winner for ease of use: Dream Air SE 🔭 Stereo overlap (3D depth feeling in cockpits)Crystal Light Strong depth perception in cockpit layouts Slightly more pronounced “screen window” effect in high contrast scenes Dream Air SE Pancake optics + OLED give a more seamless “floating world” feeling Slightly more natural edge blending 👉 Winner for immersion feel: slight edge Dream Air SE 🌞 Glare, reflections, and night flyingCrystal Light Very low glare (big advantage of glass aspheric lenses) Excellent for: night approaches dark cockpits (DCS aircraft, space sims) Dream Air SE Pancake lenses introduce: mild internal reflections (“god rays”-like artifacts in some conditions) more noticeable in high-contrast HUD + dark sky scenes 👉 Winner for clean optics: Crystal Light ✈️ Simulator-specific behaviorMSFS (civil aviation, long-distance flying)Crystal Light: better runway signs, distant detail Dream Air SE: more comfortable for long sessions

thanks Transponder, not sure if that would improve my experience using a Pimax Crystal Light and NVidia SmoothMotion or if this mostly for Quest 3 users

ok, that wasnˋt clear to me from your 4000x4000 post. how do you benefit from 2 x render resolution when your Quest 3 can not display more than 2000x2000?