You can see it pop up because it's close enough to the range of the glide slope. If you still can't see it after this distance, it's even more abnormal. The question discussed is whether these seven nautical miles are realistic. If you are far away, such as 10 nautical miles away, and the things you want to see have been loaded, you won't see the "sudden appearance", which is not difficult to understand
Posts by Gravitational lensing
-
-
-
Have you done it? there is a world of other stuff out there, you are trying to recognise 'your snowball'.
In the early days of GPS I got into perfect alignment with a 9,000 foot runway from 15 miles out on a clear day, I could not recognise the field because the runway was end on and it was a perfect geometric rectangle looking just like an ordinary distant grey shed!
15 nautical miles is very difficult. Do you think the distance of 8 nautical miles or 9 nautical miles is enough, or is the setting of 7 nautical miles correct? In fact, it is not fixedly loaded. Sometimes when driving a Boeing 747, you need 6.3 nautical miles to "suddenly appear" on the runway
-
-
-
I think the problem lies in the sudden loading link. If the real situation is better simulated, the human eye can see more details through the reduction of the receiving distance. For example, I first see the main terminal. With the reduction of the distance, I see the runway I want to land, and even the terminal building, um, satellite hall. Because there are few options to refer to at present, it is not a bad thing to enlarge the visual distance, of course, unless it can better "gradually load details"
-
-
It is usually not realistic to see sharply defined runways and airport buildings at much greater distances in daylight, they are actually lost in clutter and atmospheric haze. Perhaps with lights on and at night the distance could be greater? but at night in real life there is an enormous amount of competing lights, confusion that the sim cannot replicate.
In real life you need to identify nearby features on the long approach to a runway to be reasonably well lined up when the runway does come into in sight. Not making it too easy adds authenticity to the simulation. Having a chart or a SkyVector.com type e-chart at hand (say on a separate device) makes a big difference.
The problem is that without these parameters to study, even in the case of excellent weather, you can only see the airport about 12km. This value is a fixed value rather than a variable,
-
-
-
This possibility is not ruled out,After loading the data again, the data is normal
-
Above is an airport, which overlaps with the airport below
-
Going to investigate
-
It doesn't just need to make an empty shell, so I think we can add up to three different brands of aircraft, because the engineering quantity is relatively large
-
The 777 doesn't sound like the GE90
-
I'm not sure when. Look at this excellent saying. Four months ago, they described a delicious cake to PC players. Four months later, PC players are still facing the delicious fantasy. After a whole year, players get a basically completed map, and then others tell me: we're not sure when to fix batch errors. Uncertainty will give people an imagination and expectation. It's not fun to use it frequently as a excuse
-
They will not answer this question. A game manufacturer running three platforms at the same time has too many uncertainties and will not easily promise anything and wait quietly
-
I don't know why not update Florida. Doesn't it belong to the United States?
-
When can we see the perfect lights of Miami Airport, the bustling buildings and the southern island chain and the blue sea again,And the restored tower Thanks
-