I noticed that on the real 737NG, the standby gauges are completely backlit.http://i1101.photobucket.com/albums/g429/halcyon201/1784549.jpgBut in the NGX, just the lettering/numbers and the needles are illuminated.http://www.precision...mdg_ngx_vc2.jpgAny way to change that?

Both pictures cannot taken in count, the NGX one is edited and however not by night, the other one is not fully true regarding the lights/colors (this is due of the camera settings)The "truth" is in the middle, I loaded FSX and tried it, and I seen that in the analog gauges only the letters, numbers, pointers and the ball are lighted. However the light is a bulb in the case wich illuminates the entire instrument inside the case.So it is normal to have also the black parts of the case lite.Below is how it appears on the NGX, as you can see you cannot easily see the stby horizon lines above the "ball"How to change? I don't know, but I think it is something coded internally to the gauge.

Both pictures cannot taken in count, the NGX one is edited and however not by night, the other one is not fully true regarding the lights/colors (this is due of the camera settings)

How do you know the camera adds all that extra light in the gauge?I've seen many pics online of gauges that have that kind of lighting, and not just a 737.I could be wrong, but I just can't see a camera "adding" extra light inside a gauge like that inside a picture. I know the color isn't the same, but the amount of light shouldn't be that different, imo.

I agree - some instruments really do light up the way the photo shows.I'd say the camera exaggerates the effect, but for it to be totally abscent is wrong, as the lighting really does illuminate the bezel of the instrument and is REFLECTED off the instrument; they are not backlit in the sense that the light is INSIDE the instrument shining outwards.Best regards,Robin.

How do you know the camera adds all that extra light in the gauge?I've seen many pics online of gauges that have that kind of lighting, and not just a 737.I could be wrong, but I just can't see a camera "adding" extra light inside a gauge like that inside a picture. I know the color isn't the same, but the amount of light shouldn't be that different, imo.

You seen a lot of aircraft pictures, I seen a lot of aircrafts myself, so as I told the truth is in the middle.Robin analized it correctly, and also added that the effect is exagerated in the pictures.The internal case (what you see from the glass, and the glass itself) is illuminated by bulb/s, there is no backlight for the digits.So, pmdg is "wrong" but the picture is also not exact, a mid way between them is correct (a bit close to the picture)

Same aircraft, pictures taken without flash, camera in auto mode, same camera, same aircraft illumination, different angles:

I hate that people put so much trust in what a camera "sees."Granted, I know not everyone is a professional photographer, but cameras are not the end-all-be-all answer to what was actually seen at that time. Anyone take a no-flash picture indoors and note that it's underexposed? This can be because the camera is set with a high f-stop (the aperture - or "hole" - is too small), the shutter speed is too fast (didn't give the camera enough time to 'see' the picture), or the film speed is too slow. Any one of those can underexpose a picture.On the flip side, and addressing the actual issue here, the camera that got the linked picture is battling to extremes here: the dark cockpit, and the bright gauges (to a camera, the screens are ridiculously bright - specifically the left side CDU). In cases like this, you have to sacrifice the extremes. In order to get the darker areas to show properly, you have to risk over-exposing the brighter elements. The opposite goes for the brighter spots. HDR Imaging negates most of that issue, but that's not the case here. This photograph was taken such that it's partially in the middle, which you can see in that there's a lot of black where there's detail lost (the captains hip area, though you can infer where it is, there's no distinct detail), and there are spots that are overexposed (standby ALT gauge is hard to read because the light is washing the black/grey background).Your eyes, though, operate on a good degree of the HDR principle. Granted, your eyes also have a range as well, but your rods/cones can essentially reprogram in clusters to adapt to the light range seen. The separate rod and cone structures prove that, in that the rods are engineered for low light levels and the cones for high light levels (that's the primary difference, although the cones also perceive color, as most know). Within the cones, there are also different types of cones that perceive various light levels as well. The point in mentioning all of this is that your eyes can very easily adapt to scenarios where the lighting varies widely, so what you'd see in the plane at dusk/night varies completely from what you'd see in a camera image.Cameras are good with a narrow light rage. Eyes are good with a wide light range.Ergo, the exaggerated lighting in the photo (darks and lights) is not what your eyes would see because of their light-sensing capability.I would agree with Andrea, though, that the lighting is somewhat off.

I guess that makes sense.So there probably isn't a way for the gauges to look as they really do? I wonder if it's possible to create a custom texture map for dusk/night on the gauges.*edit*

I hate that people put so much trust in what a camera "sees."Granted, I know not everyone is a professional photographer, but cameras are not the end-all-be-all answer to what was actually seen at that time.

If I've never seen the gauges for real, then pictures are the only reference I have...which is why I asked about it here as a question and not a "this is how it is in the real world because the pictures says so" statement.Why so critical of questions in forums?

Edited February 9, 201214 yr by trip7cap

In the last picture I posted it can be seen part of the source of the light for each gauge, the pictures are also taken with dome lights and background lights (fluorescent lights) turned on, the effect without them will be more evident than seen in your picture.Maybe IMO a good reasonable internal lighting could be the one shown in the first picture I posted, obviously only for the case part that in pmdg is missing, the ball part of the picture is too bright.I have not checked the textures of the panels, so I cannot tell you if the illumination is part of textures or if it is part of the gauges.If it is part of the gauges (or 3d model), only PMDG can do a modification.Time ago I did texture and gauge modifications for the 737 PIC V1 by feelthere, for a better looking VC with a lot of corrections of the night textures.If I find them I'll post.I also published on AVSIM the modified textures for the virtual cockpit, but as for the EULA I was unable to publish/share the corrected VC gauges.In the PMDG I think it is more difficult to do it as the lights are not only ON/OFF.

Found the shots of my old and log work on the old fs2004 737 classic:This with original gauges (edited and customized textures):This with edited gauges:

If I've never seen the gauges for real, then pictures are the only reference I have...which is why I asked about it here as a question and not a "this is how it is in the real world because the pictures says so" statement.Why so critical of questions in forums?

It wasn't aimed at you, and I'm not critical of questions, I'm critical of over-reliance on what some deem evidence. Sure, pictures are great evidence, to a certain degree, but there are so many posts that say "this is too bright/dark/yellow/green/purple/whatever" and all they provide is one image, or a couple. Still, camera photos will never have it 100% right, and to be honest, neither will the human eye (though it's closer). As an example, my right eye sees colors slightly warmer than my left (slightly redder).Most of the people who use photos as evidence are those who don't have access, and I understand that photos are the closest they'll get, so it makes sense to rely on them. My issue is that people don't understand photographs' limitations, yet accept them as truth. That's all. To be honest, a photograph is a lot better than "well I was in the plane the other day and I thought it looked different" in some cases, but it's not 100% accurate, as some here would like to suggest.Question all you want. I'm all for it. Just know that certain evidence is better than others.

Edited February 9, 201214 yr by scandinavian13

Also the monitors are not the same.If we sum them all:Aircrafrts are not the same, the internal lights are subject to change a bit with the bulbs/dimmer ageHuman eyes are not the same, and I used IMO when I told what light was closest to the real between the posted onesCamera lens, sensors, film, settings, are not the same,Angle of the picture, distance...General illumination in the cabin when picture is taken could be different from each otherExternal illumination night, dunsk, day, are different from minute to minute, from air to ground, depending on wheater, season and so on, heading...Maybe more and more...