It looks like the VC screenshot thread was deleted for some reason (I thought the beta was no longer under NDA?) - anyway, I asked in it if anything has been done about the VC lighting issue that was said to be fixed in FSX?The screenshots didn't show any improvement over the FSX demo or FS9. Was this because the person who took them forgot to turn some feature on (that fixes the problem) or is the problem still there?

>It looks like the VC screenshot thread was deleted for some>reason (I thought the beta was no longer under NDA?) - anyway,>I asked in it if anything has been done about the VC lighting>issue that was said to be fixed in FSX?>>The screenshots didn't show any improvement over the FSX demo>or FS9. Was this because the person who took them forgot to>turn some feature on (that fixes the problem) or is the>problem still there?If memory serves, there have been marked improvements in VC lighting that neither the beta nor the demo show-- tdragger said (and I'm paraphrasing) they're saving that good stuff for release.Whether that includes the answer to your question is unsure- may be you'll get an ACES response however prior to that, you may want to articulate what you think the VC lighting issue is so they have something specific to work with.

I know for a fact that the devteam knows of this problem - I just can't remember which one of the developers it was who mentioned that something had been done about it or was being planned.If that something hasn't been implemented in the demo / beta it would explain why the VC lighting does not seem to have improved (yet). I'd just like a confirmation that a fix IS forthcoming before release.

Mike has said several times that the VC lighting is not in the demo/beta, and will be in the released product. Guys the Beta is less than a week older than the demo, not many fixes are in it.Thomas[a href=http://www.flyingscool.com] http://www.flyingscool.com/images/Signature.jpg [/a]I like using VC's :-)

>Mike has said several times that the VC lighting is not in>the demo/beta, and will be in the released product. I only hope it will be brighter. Currently the VC is too dark and gloomy when in shade.Michael J.http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/for...argo_hauler.gifhttp://sales.hifisim.com/pub-download/asv6-banner-beta.jpg

Too bad they're not dark and gloomy enough.

>Too bad they're not dark and gloomy enough.:-hmmmCarmine,I have doen a fair amount of flying in real aircraft and can't recall situation when I could not read instrument panel because of bad weather or clouds. When it was daytime it was never an issue yet in FS in VC often the panel is unusable without extra lighting - even during daytime flying. That's the general problem with shading in FS -it is often too strong regardless if we are talking about VC or some airport building.Michael J.http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/for...argo_hauler.gifhttp://sales.hifisim.com/pub-download/asv6-banner-beta.jpg

Hey Michael, I myself have over 200 hours in a 172 and I'm not talking about it being so dark as to where you can't read the gauges but just a little more contrast in shading is all. I'm actually more concerned with the panel being illuminated when the tail is facing towards the sun. We would think with self shading that the interior wouldn't show illumination as such.

If there is an additional contrast issue that may very well be the case but I suspect shading also is very crude. You suggest that things can also be too 'bright' - so maybe that's the overall problem in this computer simulation - things tend toward the extremes - either too bright or too dark. Unfortunately soft shading is probably years away but given the choice I would rather have things too bright than too dark.Michael J.http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/for...argo_hauler.gifhttp://sales.hifisim.com/pub-download/asv6-banner-beta.jpg