Don't like it. Just give me the truth, I'm a big boy and I can handle it.

 

As the old saying goes: You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig!

All advertising images are "enhanced" to give the best impression. Why should FS advertising be different?.

 

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?

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?

lol I just had a big mac for  the first time in years, love the  analogy.

Very happy to see this topic brought up here.

 

We have been pushing for developers to first, not edit their screenshots in any way.  Just show the product as it appears in the simulation.  This includes contrast and even brightness.  We put text in our screenshots stating "unedited screenshot from Microsoft FSX."

 

Also, if a developer is to use any other 3rd party program that can be seen in that screenshots, shading, clouds, scenery, etc., that product should be written somewhere in that screenshot to give credit where credit is due.

 

Scott.

Which is exactly how it should be, and you should be commended for this!

Mind you that Scott is talking as a plane dev, the scenery folks may have to climb some more (FSX) hurdles when it comes to the surrounding whereas the planes would actually suffer from using some modifications. But I agree, the companies performing the honest move of either leaving the mods and edits out or at least naming them clearly should be praised. As all good examples should be. :smile:

 

Interesting OP indeed and I think it even shows how used we are, as consumers, on being persuaded by fictional impressions. Of course I do still realise that the sporty lady eating the chocolate or the huge banner showing the delicious burger are fake. And no, I don't applaud to it and I don't think that just because bad examples already reached the status of being 'normal', this normal now is good. Fake industry.

 

However, there is a freedom element involved when the one dev picks the nice pictures or even the shopped ones over the true image. And I hate to limit any freedom. But I would introduce mine, the one on the choice for the better product which will be the one which looks and works best on my system.

 

By this, there might even be a safeguard in place. Even the dev with the rain effects in his videos or the super nice sunset pictures will have to face upset or at least spoiled customers when they find out. So there's the difference between the ones staying and, therefore, buying again or the ones leaving after the first shot. Seems like the cosmetic industry faces similar risks. :biggrin:

On the flip side, there are some developers that at least used to show screenies of their products that looked absolutely awful! Might have been UK2000 or TropicalSim, but the product looked 100 times better once loaded in the sim! :lol:

 

Yeah it's really amusing actually. Gary's wonderful UK2000 scenerys looks terrible at his product site, but they are among the best inside the sim. No false advertising from that yard.

So, by implication, the developers of such products should not have to supply any support to any customer that has a non-standard installation..?

 

Wickedness goes both ways. 

 

It's nice if they admit to the enhancements, but aren't we all using enhancements in combinations?

I agree, shader/enhancement products like SweetFX, ENB, and Shade should not be used in promos. Neither should photoshop editing outside of contrast and/or sharpen. One issue i see is that when i look at a promo for something in real life, i know it is a promo and in most cases it is marketing and mostly deceiving, we are used to that. When I look at a FS promo image, i don't think of it is those terms, rather that it is a great shot from inside the sim. I purchase and then reality kicks in, why doesn't it look like that in my sim. I also agree on the performance issue as well. It is one thing to have everything cranked up for a great screenshot, but quite another to actually fly around the product (I discovered this with ORBX NA in the beginning)

I think it is ok to use ENB, Rex and so on as long as the shots are unedited from the sim and you CLEARLY STATE which addons were used. After all, who uses a sim out-of-the-box these days?

 

But I would definitely draw the line at enhancing the image with Photoshop or such. The only thing I'd accept is sharpening the image as screenshots inevitably lose definition.

 

The promotional screenshots should be a truthful rendering of the graphics seen in the sim itself IMO.

 

Sascha

It's nice if they admit to the enhancements, but aren't we all using enhancements in combinations?

 

 

Not all, we in the forums are the minority of users and probably the biggest users of addons. i don't run most of the enhancements most here post about by choice.

A couple of things here:

 

1) we use the minimum amount scenery types only to "enhance" the overall image quality

 

2) we have never and will never alter the imagery after the fact.

 

3) we always supply lots of imagery prior to release. In fact, as a general rule, we allow our testers free reign the closer we get to release.

This is a very difficult topic, but something that should be discussed.

 

Is it right for a developer to use promotional shots for their products when they are using other add ons as well (ENB, SweetFX, REX, Shade, to name but a few)? Is using something like Photoshop a step too far? I feel that if anything other than vanilla FSX is used, then it should be explicitly stated, otherwise it is an unfair representation of the product but quite often this is not the case.

 

However, where do you draw the line? Having a huge LOD that would be completely unusable on 99% of users machines, for instance. That's not using anything other than what is available straight out of the box.

 

Thoughts?

 

I don't understand this Lod thing people talk about I run an lod of 9 over orbx pnw in the ngx with no issues And I only have 8gb of ram. As for Enb I think most people use it anyway as most use rex clouds and orbx textures.

They'll taste the same though, and that's the most important factor in a burger. If, however, you're selling something that will improve the visuals (scenery, aircraft) then the weighting of the visual aspect of the marketing becomes much more significant.

 

If you sell me a car that you say will do 0-60 in 5s in the promotional material, and then once I purchase I find out that you did that with a set of slick tyres, a different gearbox and a remapped engine I'd not be happy.

 

But editing screenshots, as long as it doesn't mis-represent the usability of the product or your interaction with it, is perfectly legal.  You can't legally dispute something based on the way it looks, as it is purely subjective.

 

Just as in your example, McDonalds can show a great looking hamburger in their ads and it will be completely different from what you got in the store, but it doesn't actually affect the hamburger in any way.  It is different from your  car example, as they advertised something that the car is unable to do and that will affect your usability of the vehicle.

 

To add another example, hotels do this all the time.  Go to a hotel website and look at their pictures of the hotel - they will all look vibrant, full of color and contrast, etc.  Then go to the hotel and it will look much more bland.  The difference being that the colors won't be as vibrant but it doesn't affect your usability of what you're paying for.

I personally have no problems with screenshots using one of the big 3 (enb, fxaa, or sweetfx) . Photoshop editing is out though. I use sweetfx in my sim, so seeing enhanced shots gives me a better picture of what will happen on my rig, than unaffected shots do.

 

This discussion though, is counter productive. By having this discussion, we are confirming to the developers that looks in advertising shots is a significant factor in our purchasing decision, thus giving them more reason to alter shots, not less.