Few things about this statement.
-
I’m not sure you properly understand what “volumetric” means.
-
Yes, the FAA does “command” that a “distance fog” rendering method is used, in the sense that they’re dictating precisely what distance you’ll be able to see when below the ceiling. Until minimums, you get a visibility of exactly zero. It does not vary from zero until you reach your decision altitude. At that point, it fades into whatever visibility you’ve specified will exist below the ceiling. With no variability. Because this is how a training scenario of an approach to mins has to work.
-
Have you flown many instrument approaches in low vis in a real airplane? You just… don’t see anything, until you break out. I mean, nothing. All your windows are painted white, opaque. If you find a digital rendition of that boring because it doesn’t leverage all the newest rendering technologies, well, I don’t know what to tell you. But that IS realistic.
Now, like Nijntje91 says, I don’t care how this is accomplished. If Asobo wants to let me specify the weather for a 50nm ring around a given airport, in which I can specify every parameter and they’ll all be rendered precisely and with zero variability… that’s fine. If these conditions are just rendered globally the way they are in level D sims, that’s fine. If my weather is a bubble that follows my plane, that’s fine too. I’ll experience all three of those scenarios the same way, so to me it makes sense to just take the easiest / lowest coding workload approach.
But we need to be able to precisely specify a visibility distance that then needs to render precisely, with 100% coverage and with no variability. This is a given requirement for any simulator training.