>>1398310In a flight simulator we need to be able to see where the ridge really is and how high the ridge really is. We need to judge the VSI required to climb above it. We need to be able to decide when to reduce from obstacle avoidance (Rated or METO) power to only climb power. On approach we need to see where the airfield really is and we need to see the real glidepath to the runway.
I have included two screen shots to demonstrate the display errors which are present by default within FSX. Now is the time to study FSXcv.jpg
>>1398537 and FSXvc.jpg which demonstrate exactly how FSX distorts perspective, scenery placement and mesh height. This destroys the necessary relationship between time and distance and destroys the necessary relationship between where the gauges correctly show the scenery is in azimuth and elevation and where it is being projected in the rear window of the simulation. The example chosen is the FSX default Baron. The default Baron CV has uncorrected FS9 scenery projection variables. The ridge line is displayed several miles closer than it really is.
Now let’s turn that gross error of distance and climb slope around and think what it means for the approach case. During the approach the time and distance to go to the runway is much longer than it is displayed to be. FSX CV users see a zoomed ‘picture’ which causes them to descend far too soon or at a VSI which is excessive. Things that are 8 miles, and perhaps four minutes away, may be displayed as less than six miles and less than three minutes away. That may be ‘entertaining’ in a children’s video game, but it is useless for flight simulation.
*Using misprojected scenery is the worst mistake anyone interested in flight simulation can make.*
