I had looked at some research papers at that time, which were about estimating visibility from other, measurable factors. I stopped when Thomas announced his solution. My original idea was a simple formula, based on the idea that:
- visibility is derived from humidity (high humidity -> low visibility due to water drops) - higher temperature decreases visibility (molecule movements) - higher wind speeds decrease visibility (more dust blown up) - higher AGL increases visibility (no dust) - smog was hard to estimate, as there was no reliable way to find out if there are bigger cities nearby (checking for distance of next airport with concrete runway of a certain minimum length might work); ground material might have an influence, but isn't very reliable All that would have to consider that METAR is weather at station level. This wouldn't have to be very accurate. Simple variability was already an improvement, while randomness was not acceptable (same weather should yield same visibility for MP or sync'ed machines). * Peter Brown -- Sunday 20 December 2009: > Of the other hand its a way to "weed out" the gamer... One of FlightGear's main goals is realism, not to weed out *any* kind of user. Maybe you are wrong here?! m. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Verizon Developer Community Take advantage of Verizon's best-in-class app development support A streamlined, 14 day to market process makes app distribution fast and easy Join now and get one step closer to millions of Verizon customers http://p.sf.net/sfu/verizon-dev2dev _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
