Men In Black Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 I know there are many factors involved and the issue is much more complex than this, but still, in general, on a clear day, which one of these 2 visibility settings (only) do you think best depicts reality (FL350), the 1st one or the 2nd one? Thank you! 1. http://i.imgbox.com/xWEZvyNO.jpg 2. http://i.imgbox.com/CsVyoXsJ.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CRJ_simpilot Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 Not sure, but is that Cessna at 35,000? I didn't know they can go that high. LOL OOM errors? Read this. What the squawk? An awesome weather website with oodles of Info. and options. Wile E. Coyote would be impressed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Men In Black Posted February 3, 2016 Author Share Posted February 3, 2016 It's a buffed up version of the Skyhawk, it's called Skyhawk Slew :p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dspaulding Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 On a clear day meaning less smog and moisture in the air, number 1. I've been able to see large cities over 100 miles away at that altitude. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSMR Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 Depends where you've been flying. I've just flown from one end of Australia to the other. Mid-summer. Lots of heat haze. So half that visibility at least from what I recall. :) https://fshub.io/airline/RUA/overview Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhantomTweak Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 I like #1. Just me. Is it realistic? I dunno, but I tell you what, get close to LA on a clear day, all you'll see is a dome of brown haze over the entire area. The Grapevine to San Diego. If you come in off the ocean to LAX, you may see the runway on short final... Point is, a lot of major cities these days are just a brown bubble, unless the surface winds are pretty decent, and blow the smog around... Just my 2 pennies worth. Pat☺ [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Had a thought...then there was the smell of something burning, and sparks, and then a big fire, and then the lights went out! I guess I better not do that again! Sgt, USMC, 10 years proud service, Inactive reserve now :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Men In Black Posted February 4, 2016 Author Share Posted February 4, 2016 Thank you all for you input! I guess I'll go for #1, I too have the impression you can see quite far away on a really clear day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSMR Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 You don't use a WX program? https://fshub.io/airline/RUA/overview Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old_wombat Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 You can indeed. In WWII, everyone wanted to fly with Chuck Yeager, because he could spot an Me 109 head on from more than fifty miles. From where I used to live before, on a farm (very clean air for hundreds of miles around), on a good day (no cloud, right time of day) I could follow the various Boeings and Airbuses for nearly 180 miles before they disappeared over the horizon. Steve from Murwilllumbah. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NMLW Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 I like #1 also. There is a FS9.cfg entry that can be added in the video driver section that will greatly reduce ground haze" [DISPLAY.Device.NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450.0] Mode=1920x1080x32 TableFog=0 //Reduces ground haze //TableFog=1 //Returns to normal ground haze MipBias=5 TriLinear=1 Larry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old_wombat Posted February 6, 2016 Share Posted February 6, 2016 To confound the question of "which one looks more realistic" ... Back in the "old" days of film, Ektachrome was considered one of the "best" films for colour accuracy. But ... it had a significant sensitivity to near ultra-violet, especially - and not surprisingly - the blue dye component. As a result, photos taken through aircraft windows are often too "blue", especially if taken at altitude (35,000 feet +). Even with triple plastic windows, sufficient near-UV would get through to make a difference. I undestand that digital cameras - both CCD and CMOS - have a similar issue, but have not investigated it. The moral of the story is that the colour balance of images taken at altitude needs to be "carefully interpreted". Steve from Murwilllumbah. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.