On Sun, 7 Nov 2004 18:11:22 -0500, David wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Sun, 7 Nov 2004 17:14:44 +0100, Arnt Karlsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > ..eh, in RL, you often _can't_ see the ground at night, just lights. > > I'll confirm that. The runway and taxiway lights are aimed up and do > not illuminate the pavement at all (not even a tiny area around each > light). That's why you need landing (and often taxi) lights. Even > with a landing/taxi light, taxiing on a cloudy or moonless night is > enormously difficult -- you can hardly see the yellow line or the > turnoffs, and most of the time you're just rolling through a sea of > blackness. > > If anything, the ground in FlightGear is too bright at night. It's > appropriate for a well-lit urban area or a full moon on a clear night, > but the runway is far too bright for a cloudy night. > > > For example, do we properly model the impact on night vision > > from hypoxia? > > That's a surprisingly sneaky thing in real life. At night, descending > from (say) 6,000 ft enroute altitude to the airport, I have a couple > of times had a *lot* of trouble finding the airport at night. I don't > feel like I'm having trouble seeing; it's just that the lights don't > stand out. That's never a problem if I'm lined up with the runway on > an approach, because those lights are so bright and directional, but > even then judging the flare is a big challenge. ..this is with or without oxygen? -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;-) ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
