Here are some real-life untouched pictures...

Pretty much every digital camera these days does some sort of in-camera post-processing, so even an "untouched" picture may not necessarily be untouched in the strict sense of the term, depending on the type of camera and the settings you use.  Cell phone cameras in particular do a lot of image processing to balance exposure and punch up saturation.

Hey stop posting XP screenshots LOL (meant as a compliment for XP     )

 

 

All I need now is seasons LOL.  Let's hope it;s there before we all drop dead 

 

Here ya go...

Pretty much every digital camera these days does some sort of in-camera post-processing, so even an "untouched" picture may not necessarily be untouched in the strict sense of the term, depending on the type of camera and the settings you use.  Cell phone cameras in particular do a lot of image processing to balance exposure and punch up saturation.

They may be capable, but not necessarily functioning in that mode all the time.  My Nikon DSLR can take a WYSIWYG, raw photo without any settings changes, so can a basic camera on a cellphone, BUT the difference emerges when it comes to the type of sensor, megapixel count, and colorspace (gamut) range.  Don't forget add-on filters for DSLRs as well, and they can skew the resulting image, as they manipulate the way light enters the lens.

Here ya go...

 

No disrespect but those are not what I would call quality replacement textures - hoping for a nice payware to address this 

No disrespect but those are not what I would call quality replacement textures - hoping for a nice payware to address this 

 

It's not the best, but at least it is a start and it is much easier to install than simple season+xflyer's winter textures. 

Yep, how a camera meters the light, or how exposed the photo is - is a MAJOR factor in how dark or light the image is. That photo in the clouds is under exposed - the camera is metering the white wing and white clouds...so the overall brightness on real life is nice and bright, but the camera thinks it's too high of exposure and you actually take a darker photo when it's all said and done.

 

It's like taking a photo of a snowy scene... unless you manually expose it, your photo will be dark.

 

I think in my case it's just my monitor and the fact that I am used to stronger than life colours in games and simulators. Whenever I've produced orthos for somebody else using my colour settings, people have mentioned it is oversaturated (but it doesn't look like this when used in X-Plane for me).

 

Here are some real-life untouched pictures taken during the summer if I remember. The haziness and general dullness of the sky compared to say FSX or P3D is very apparent, 

 

 

 

However, it would certainty seem XP11 has it pretty close and I guess the bright/vivid colours of my other sims and games have somewhat changed my expectations on a screen. 

Ha ha I recognise that view Tony! The camera is not lying - that's what it looks like most of the time oop north in Liverpool. Obviously the sun can be blinding (about twice a year) which you don't get in the sim. Must admit I am very happy with the colours particularly with X-Enviro. Using a Samsung 40 inch HD TV on 'dynamic' setting. I'll see if I can reproduce that approach shot - but not today as it is pxxxing down!

 

cheers

Peter

So I thought I would give XP11 a shot to see if it is worth transitioning from P3D. I downloaded a bunch of the free airport sceneries, mesh etc. Now I am quite impressed with the way the default aircraft handle. However I am a little disappointed with the visuals. The colors look really pale and washed out. Is there a setting or something which I am missing to add some richness to the world around me?

Setting up the visual effects to max (HDR +SSAO) if your system allows it, adds an ambient occlusion and sharpens shades on objects. Its not a full solution but improves things a bit.

This gotta be Beechcraft?

 

'73 Grumman AA-5 Traveler

'73 Grumman AA-5 Traveler

Cool. I have never flown Grumman but wing did reminded me of Beech

They may be capable, but not necessarily functioning in that mode all the time.  My Nikon DSLR can take a WYSIWYG, raw photo without any settings changes, so can a basic camera on a cellphone, BUT the difference emerges when it comes to the type of sensor, megapixel count, and colorspace (gamut) range.  Don't forget add-on filters for DSLRs as well, and they can skew the resulting image, as they manipulate the way light enters the lens.

 

I'm well aware of that.  When I do "serious" photography, I capture raw files with a Nikon DSLR and process them in Gimp.  For snapshots, I use my smartphone which does loads of image processing including HDR, sharpening, and a saturation boost.

 

Basically, if you're capturing anything other than raw then the image is being "retouched" by in-camera processing in one way or another.  That's all I was saying.

 

 

I'll see if I can reproduce that approach shot...

 

That could make for an interesting thread for the real pilots who inhabit this forum: comparisons between real-world locations and X-Plane 11.

I tried the XP 11 today, and I worked in the simulation video field with commercial sims for a few decades. This washed out look has nothing to do with visibility, it looks like the gamma is not correct on my monitor, which it is, because it has been calibrated and looks fine on any other program. There is no decent back level happening, period. BTW, many hundreds of hours of real world flying from Florida to Alaska, so I know what it should look like. 

 

the sky textures can be adjusted though and having a different set for different visibilities makes more sense to me than the P3D approach.

 

1 hour ago, Bobsk8 said:

I tried the XP 11 today, and I worked in the simulation video field with commercial sims for a few decades. This washed out look has nothing to do with visibility, it looks like the gamma is not correct on my monitor, which it is, because it has been calibrated and looks fine on any other program. There is no decent back level happening, period. BTW, many hundreds of hours of real world flying from Florida to Alaska, so I know what it should look like. 

There is a common complaint about this washed-out/hazy look, which appears excessive. The developers have been working on the haze modeling during the beta though, so it's possible that things will get improved before final release.

A thing to check would be to make sure that the visibility (in the weather screen) is set to max (100 miles). It usually defaults to 25 miles, which further exacerbates the hazy look.

25 miles:

100 miles: