100% coverage can already be done using a preset. That’s not what we’ve been talking about. What we’ve been talking about is being able to specify a precise ring of visibility that follows your plane through fog that extends to infinity, in other words, downgrade the current engine to technology from the 80s and 90s. I have not heard a single benefit to this vs keeping the current system and just being able to edit the grid that makes up the atmosphere to set up a low visibility scenario around the airport you’re training at, or being able to modify METAR reports and do it that way. You could set up any scenario you choose with far more control vs what you guys are requesting here…
You’re missing the point. I highly doubt the FAA commands that a volumetric atmosphere is not allowed and the simulator must use a ‘distance fog’ rendering method that creates a ring of visibility that follows your plane in an unrealistic way that doesn’t represent how it actually works in reality. Any sort of scenario that can be done with a non-volumetric atmosphere can be done far better and more precisely with a volumetric atmosphere… I don’t get how anyone can think otherwise…
It was a simple standard across most 3D engines, but not anymore. Just like a fixed function pipeline was the standard, realtime raytracing was unheard of, deferred rendering was not a thing, VR was only in movies (and virtual boy), and everyone would have laughed at the thought of AI-based upscaling or AI-based scenery generation. Things are constantly advancing in the world of software development and computer science in general. It’s up to the old simulators to keep up, not for new simulators to hold themselves back.
A ring of visibility that follows your plane would be a step backwards by the vary definition of the saying… It’s moving from modern technology to old technology for no other reason than “but that’s how it used to be!”.