Generic PTA testing scenario - suggestions please!

[sightseer 895]

here are mine for what its worth:

 

You both have more than I but it appears to me that both Adam and I have the x64 2008 9.0.30729.17 and , Mike, you don't. double check me on that. EDIT: also the 2015 runtimes. ackk!

 

The only reason I brought this up is because of a video editor I have as freeware that worked on one computer but then wouldn't work on a new computer and I tracked it down to a 2008 C++ runtime that had been installed by Test Drive Unlimited2. I installed that and the editor worked again. things like that do happen.

 

This may all be a distraction and if it is then I apologize.

 

I just have no idea why the same textures with same settings would produce such different results.

Unless the saved settings file doesn't actually save all needed settings - like when you save graphics settings in P3D, it doesn't save everything in the P3D.cfg related to graphics.

[Cruachan 705]

Hi Dave,

 

It's a shame that nobody else has felt inclined to pitch in by submitting images using Adam's testing scenarios, especially 'pta_generic_test_02_adam'. It would certainly help to clarify the extent of the 'problem' if, indeed, a problem, in the strict sense, truly exists. We only have one submission so far which is hardly significant as I may be the only one affected. Alternatively, and as Adam freely admits, he could be the only soldier out of step. However, I do have to say that all his posted fabulous images to date strongly suggest that this is very unlikely to be the true position. Without more data there is just no way of knowing who occupies the high ground.

 

No one doubts the dramatically positive results achieved in P3D by using Adam's Presets, least of all me. Indeed, I was, and still am more than happy with what I am seeing on my monitor screen. I suspect others feel the same way. In the end it may be that such differences can be safely regarded as being largely irrelevant since true beauty, as always, will lie in the eyes of the beholder.

 

Still, as an intellectual exercise, it would be good to know what is responsible for these differences.

 

Regards,

Mike

[sightseer 895]

 

Mike - I'm in this solely for the intellectual exercise as I don't use PTA. I enjoy the challenge of making my own sky and clouds to suit my needs and I like to keep things as simple as possible which means as close to default as possible.

 

I really thought I was onto something with the tree shadows and time of day discrepancy but I guess not. I don't know what else it could be.

[Cruachan 705]

it appears to me that both Adam and I have the x64 2008 9.0.30729.17 and , Mike, you don't. double check me on that. EDIT: also the 2015 runtimes. ackk!

Hi Dave,

 

Okay, I should follow this up by installing 2008 - x64 9.0.30729.17 and try again. Likely it won't make any difference, but I should eliminate this possibility nevertheless. As for the 2015 runtimes, these may not be relevant as they are missing from Adam's installation, not mine.

 

Edit: Surely these installed components are a reflection of what dependent Applications are installed at a particular point in time on our respective systems?

 

Regards,

Mike

[Cruachan 705]

Hi Readers!

Okay, I believe we can now rule out the Visual C++ runtime libraries as being the causative factor behind this puzzle.

I ran the appropriate installers and ended up with:


Summary of what actually installed:
Microsoft Visual C++ 2005 Redistributable (x64) -----> Installed
Microsoft Visual C++ 2008 Redistributable
(x64) 9.0.21022 ----------------------------------Did not install from the package
(x64) 9.0.30729.17 ----------------------------------------> Installed
(x64) 9.0.30729.4148 -------------------------- Did not install from the package
Microsoft Visual C++ 2012 Redistributable
(x64) 11.0.60610 --------------------------------Did not install from the package (Installer asked to Repair/Modify/Uninstall 11.0.61030)
(x86) 11.0.60610 --------------------------------Did not install from the package (Installer asked to Repair/Modify/Uninstall 11.0.61030)

My computer was rebooted and PTA v2.10 reloaded.
Original Shaders were Restored and I Set inital parameters for all tweaks.
Adam's PTA 20_10 Preset was then Opened again and Applied using PTA v2.10.

Here are the results. First, Adam's image again for ease of comparison:

pta_generic_test_02_adam (Preset 20_10 Brightness 0.70, Bloom 0.20, Saturation 0.85)


My Image using the same HDR settings (Brightness 0.70, Bloom 0.20, Saturation 0.85)


My Image using adjusted HDR settings (Brightness 0.95, Bloom 0.20, Saturation 1.20)


Lastly, and simply out of curiosity, I reinstalled the ENVTEX Sky textures and captured another image again using Adam's 20_10 Preset recommended HDR settings (Brightness 0.70, Bloom 0.20, Saturation 0.85)


This image appears marginally lighter when compared with the second image above.

Regards,
Mike

[Cruachan 705]

Since commenting about the appearance of that last image I've now compared the two on my iPad with the brightness slider setting at maximum. Contrary to my earlier remark I think they are, in fact, very close to being identical.

 

REX TD Dawn (Set 22 Chill) / Day (Set 14 Fair) / Dusk (Set 03 Dust) Sky texture selection were in use for the top 3 images in post #35.

 

Mike

[Adamski_NZ 948]

Thanks for your perseverance, Mike! I'm beginning to go for the idea that video cards themselves introduce differences in contrast/colouring.

 

BTW - I found a good way of comparing the images: place them all in one location, then view them in Windows Photo Viewer (or Preveiw, whatever it is). It has really handy forwards/backwards controls (also via cursor keys). You can quickly flip back and forth.

 

Adam.

[Cruachan 705]

'm beginning to go for the idea that video cards themselves introduce differences in contrast/colouring.

 

Hi Adam,

 

I think you might be right - mine are 2xGTX 980ti's, what's yours? You did refer to the GTX 970 in an earlier post although it was not clear whether that was your card. If manufacturers have to adhere to reference designs for the circuitry and board components then one would expect results to be similar if not exactly the same at stock.

 

However, if nobody else contributes to this exercise including details of their hardware we will remain forever stumbling in the dark ☹️

 

Concerning comparison of images, yes, I made the same discovery, only I have been using Picasa Photo Viewer which does the same. Very handy!

 

Regards,

Mike

[Adamski_NZ 948]

I think you might be right - mine are 2xGTX 980ti's, what's yours? You did refer to the GTX 970 in an earlier post although it was not clear whether that was your card. If manufacturers have to adhere to reference designs for the circuitry and board components then one would expect results to be similar if not exactly the same at stock.

 

 

It is, in fact, a 4Gb nVidia GTX 970 (sub-vendor: Gigabyte) - fairly middle range, I suspect.

 

I was going through my prepar3d.cfg and noticed a few things that might make a difference:

 

1) HDR_BLOOM_THRESHOLD=3.000000

2) HDR_BLOOM_BLUR_SIGMA=0.800000

3) DAWN_DUSK_SMOOTHING=1

 

I've no idea how the values for 1] and 2] are arrived at. I certainly haven't fiddled with them.

 

Adam.

[KNOSSOS 122]

Hi Adam!

There are the fine tune parameters for lighting and HDR.

http://www.prepar3d.com/SDKv3/LearningCenter/settings/display/lighting_settings.html

Some of them impact the scene pretty much.

[Adamski_NZ 948]

Thanks, Yuri - I looked at that page (advanced settings) ... I hope you understand some of it, because I don't LOL!

 

It's a shame page doesn't tell you what the *default* values are (though it gives the range).

 

Adam.

[Cruachan 705]

1) HDR_BLOOM_THRESHOLD=3.000000

2) HDR_BLOOM_BLUR_SIGMA=0.800000

3) DAWN_DUSK_SMOOTHING=1

Hi Adam,

 

Mine are the same. Even if adjustment of these values produced worthwhile improvements they would only be seen on the end user's monitor, just as would any Calibration modifications made using NVIDIA's utilities (see post #18). Also, the latter would produce changes impacting all Applications and Games which would probably be undesirable. Fine if your rig is for the exclusive running of P3D, but I suspect most of us cannot afford that luxury.

 

Regrettably, I suspect we are on a hiding to nothing with this one. I believe we should start by acknowledging that Developers of Games or Simulators will likely be working their creations on accurately calibrated monitors and this may not apply here. That way they can be assured that their customers will, in the majority of instances, get a good, if not perfect experience with their default setups. Those that do not will have some 'free' tools (apart from those provided on the monitor) at their disposal to improve matters. These will come in the form of limited adjustments like Brightness and Contrast embedded in the Application or, if you are feeling more adventurous, additional Calibration tools and controls as are provided by Windows and NVIDIA.

 

I think the only way to ensure uniformity of results is for each of us to bite the bullet and endeavour to achieve accurate Calibration of our monitors. That way we can be reasonably sure that we do see stuff as the Developer intended. Provision of a generic test image could be helpful, but unless we can match what we see by making changes solely from within the simulator and without adversely affecting the lighting of other scenery elements like clouds then, like monitor Calibration, the effects will be witnessed system-wide.

 

Regards,

Mike

[onebob 125]

Have been following the thread and as I haven't had FTX nz on for awhile so I decided to give it ago.

Monitor iiyama 27" 2560x1440.

Nvidia driver 378.49 and  colour settings same as yours Mike,

GTX 980Ti

[Cruachan 705]

Hi Bob,

 

Thanks, that could be very helpful. At first glance your image appears much closer in appearance to Adam's than it is to mine.

 

Can I ask you to clarify a few points:

1. Did you use Adam's flight situation flight files as provided in his TEST scenario 02 (see post #14)?

2. Could you confirm the sim is Paused and your Scenery sliders are all far right and all Cast and Receive shadow boxes are checked?

3. Are you using EZDok or ChasePlane? I find it is easier to set up the image before capture by disabling ChasePlane and then selecting Cockpit view - the Cub's cockpit should then disappear.

4. Please check Season and Time of day - should be Summer and 7.00am respectively.

5. Are you applying Adam's 20_10 Preset with PTA 2.10 and using his recommended HDR settings (not my 'adjusted' settings) - they should be applied automatically when the Preset is applied, but might be worth checking just in case.

6. Is Wideview checked in the sim?

 

Would it be possible for you to recapture your image by recomposing to match Adam's image and Scenery content?

 

Edit: Also, capture your images as TIFF files (I think, if I recall correctly you will find you can configure that under P3D 'General Settings') by hitting the <V> key. Load the file into Windows 'Paint' and resize to 1280x720. Then save as a JPEG image for uploading to the forum.

 

Thanks again.

Regards,

Mike

[Adamski_NZ 948]

Hi Bob! Thanks for test shot. Great to have another one to compare with!! However ... it does seem to look like you have a different time of day <?>.

 

I find the easiest way of doing it is to set SLEW *and* PAUSE then use the P3D menu to "Reset the Scenario". That should take you back to where the shots should be taken and in pause/slew mode so you can take your time taking the shot.

 

You have the same card as Mike, so I'm really keen to see what yours looks like!

 

Adam.

3. Are you using EZDok or ChasePlane? I find it is easier to set up the image before capture by disabling ChasePlane and then selecting Cockpit view - the Cub's cockpit should then disappear.

 

Mike/Bob: I use OPUS Live Camera Views, but took care to NOT to use them for the test shots. It should be a standard P3D forward view (but, as Mike says,with the cockpit turned off) and at standard zoom (hit Backspace).

 

Adam.