Most folks that would purchase an FSX add-on know how FSX looks.  If add-on promo pics look "unlike" normal FSX, then it is clear to "beware" of the add-on's real look.  I take that as a signal to stay away.  BTW, I use the same guideline when most of the pics I see for an add-on are taken "at night."  

Some addons do not need any makeup. Why, because they don't need it. So it is a good idea to know who does and who does not.

Geez, when I got married my wifes makeup came off. OMG. Don't get me wrong. We do a lot together. We go out to dinner every week.

She goes on Wed. and I go on Thurs.

 

Bob

I never enhance.

I trust that most people know that when it comes to televised food / restaurant commercials, they practically never use real food in their shots.  Think of the lights / heat, etc.

 

Such things as clumps of mashed potato used in lieu of vanilla ice cream used to be so common as known to be accepted practice.

 

I've never needed to stuff socks in my pants, m'self.

Is using something like Photoshop a step too far?

 

From a business perspective, it's just marketing - business is rarely of moral content.  This isn't limited to 3rd party software for FSX, it's a global sales tool used by just about every company. 

 

For example, I use Photoshop CC to resize my FSX images and compress them for better file size -- technically I'm altering the image and whenever you downscale an image from a larger resolution to a lower resolution it will look better.  However, posting large images can make threads like this difficult to read for the average end user ... hence downscale the image so that most people will not have an issue viewing it.

 

For recording FSX videos I use Fraps and Adobe Premier Pro CC ... I use PP to arrange/organize clips of my source Fraps footage and adding transitions and text titles.  Then the export for use on YouTube keeping in mind that no matter what you do (even selecting "Original"), YouTube will compress your image even more than it already is - no control over this, just have to hope YouTube does a good job.

 

BUT, I could do A LOT of post processing using Photoshop CC, PP, After Affects, C4D, etc. etc. to make video/pics look better than they really are.  I don't because I'm not trying provide a false reality and no vested interest to do so and rarely do I have time put the effort into considerable post product work ... I stick to the basics and toss it up.  Do people "adjust" there images/videos for show in this site? ... Yes they do, easy to spot with a trained eye ... after a while one gets to know who does and who doesn't.

 

BUT, there is also the end user hardware and how that is setup which will also impact along with FSX.CFG settings, SweetFX ... I normally run a LOD 9.5 and either 2048 or 4096 textures ... but this will vary based on the Aircraft I'm flying.

 

But you also have to keep in mind that 3rd party vendors will adjust their products also (core product, not just sales images) ... that's just part of the product.  I've seen A LOT of FTX images and they don't seem "neutral" to me, more on the dark side -- now there could be many reason for making them less neutral and darker (work better in FSX haze layer or whatever).  Should the 3rd party developer aim for the most neutral texture possible?  I also see "blending" happening with 3rd party airports like FSDT and others, shaded blending at the base of a building or angled areas -- yet the sun light might be pointing directly at the surface but it's still shaded.  It's a false reality ... does it have a positive or negative impact, I personally like the "faked" affect myself but it's not "as real as it gets" - it overcomes a blending problem by making less visual contrasts between two surfaces and doesn't draw attention to itself.

 

For those of us that have done 3D modeling or even solid modeling will understand why "faking" it can and does work for a specific environment.  And don't take "faking it" as meaning it's bad ... it's really just a process of adjustments to optimize for best image quality within the confines of the target environment.

 

Things to look for in 3rd party and/or sales sites is the fine print on exactly how an image is created ... if you don't see the fine print, then you really don't know and should take the image with a grain of salt -- perhaps look for other's you trust that can provide you with an "as is" image (or as close to "as is" as one can get).

Yes, but the vast majority of products that we are talking about will be in the business of enhancing the images within FSX. Enhancing a product packaging, or something thats primary concern is not what it looks like is different. It's a difficult analogy to draw - you wouldn't expect preview shots from the latest Canon camera to be photoshopped, would you?

 

Yes I would. Look at the image of elephants and other images  from this Canon site.

  http://www.canon.co.uk/For_Home/Product_Finder/Cameras/Digital_Camera/bridge/index.aspx

Do y'all expect fashion models to not wear makeup and lipstick too?

I think it's OK to use that. Simple example: McDonalds. How often do you get big macs looking like ones you see on the sign board?

You are buying a burger for the taste not the looks. What is marketed here is visual appeal. It is, I'm my opinion ok to use enhancements as long as they are mentioned and available free of charge. Other than that they should stick to FSX out of the box.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk.

You are buying a burger for the taste not the looks. What is marketed here is visual appeal. It is, I'm my opinion ok to use enhancements as long as they are mentioned and available free of charge. Other than that they should stick to FSX out of the box.

Clothes (especially women's) are also marketed on visual appeal but their images are invariably enhanced.

As several others have pointed out already - it's all part and parcel of modern marketing.

 

If as I suspect, the OP is aimed in particular at a certain antipodean developer, then it must be remembered that their meteoric rise in the FS addon industry is due in part to their extremely canny marketing.

Burgers are sold on their looks first time around. [stares up at colourful pictures of burgers. "Mmm, I'll have one of THOSE. :smile: ] As you experience more, you believe what you see..less. Or something. :unsure:

I don't know, I mean, I've never actually had the experience of having an addon not match the potential of the screenshots.  I'm not hearing lots of users complain about specific issues with any addons, not matching the posted shots.  people do complain when companies claim to be the "most realistic" and don't meet that simmers definition of realism, and also with scenery products there are complaints that the screenshots don't show the problem areas,  such as mesh conflicts etc...  I don't hear a groundswell of anger that  the screenies don't show a product properly though.  Mostly these complaints come from non-customers of those products.

 

again,  un-enhanced shots don't show me anything close to what I'm going to see in my sim, since I use a lot of addons,  I doubt if anyone's sim is the same as anyone else's,  it would be hard coming up with a workable standard,  and FSX default should definitely not be that standard, since most of us have worked long and hard at trying to eliminate anything default in our setups.  I also have a hard time thinking we need to be "protected".  do your homework when buying addons, buy only what you need or want,  don't be a sheep,  don't listen to excessive hype, or unfounded criticism,  be an adult.

Clothes (especially women's) are also marketed on visual appeal but their images are invariably enhanced.

True and that is wrong, vote with your dollar.

Just FYI - I made a conscious effort with the 777 promo shots we posted earlier in the year to not do this kind of thing.

 

I did use common FSX addons like REX, Opus, FTXG etc, but I very clearly stated what was used - example:

http://forum.avsim.net/topic/414814-sunset-descent/

 

I had people accuse me in PMs of faking that shot, but it's absolutely not edited at all.

 

There was no post-processing in Photoshop or anything like that other than cropping and putting the frame and company logo on the images. All the shots I made depict exactly how it really looked for me in FSX. I don't consider the use of scenery or sky textures that anyone else can go buy to be faking an image - it's definitely possible to get that exact look in the sim if you have those addons too. I also did not crank up the LOD, autogen density, AA levels etc or take any shots that misrepresent how I actually use the product myself. All of them were taken on real flights I was doing during testing that were running at acceptable framerates etc.

There was no post-processing in Photoshop or anything like that other than cropping and putting the frame and company logo on the images. All the shots I made depict exactly how it really looked for me in FSX. I don't consider the use of scenery or sky textures that anyone else can go buy to be faking an image - it's definitely possible to get that exact look in the sim if you have those addons too. I also did not crank up the LOD, autogen density, AA levels etc or take any shots that misrepresent how I actually use the product myself

Got it in one! As long as the screenshot depitcts your sim truthfully, it is absolutely legit IMO to use bloom and addons as it just shows what is possible! Nobody expects you to make the product look worse than what is possible - or find some imagined averaged quality!

 

We all want to achieve the best look in our sim after all, don't we?

 

Better to invest some effort into tweaking your sim than accusing other people of fiddling their screenshots!

 

Sascha

I don't know, I mean, I've never actually had the experience of having an addon not match the potential of the screenshots.  I'm not hearing lots of users complain about specific issues with any addons, not matching the posted shots.  people do complain when companies claim to be the "most realistic" and don't meet that simmers definition of realism, and also with scenery products there are complaints that the screenshots don't show the problem areas,  such as mesh conflicts etc...  I don't hear a groundswell of anger that  the screenies don't show a product properly though.  Mostly these complaints come from non-customers of those products.

 

again,  un-enhanced shots don't show me anything close to what I'm going to see in my sim, since I use a lot of addons,  I doubt if anyone's sim is the same as anyone else's,  it would be hard coming up with a workable standard,  and FSX default should definitely not be that standard, since most of us have worked long and hard at trying to eliminate anything default in our setups.  I also have a hard time thinking we need to be "protected".  do your homework when buying addons, buy only what you need or want,  don't be a sheep,  don't listen to excessive hype, or unfounded criticism,  be an adult.

+1