1 hour ago, Shack95 said:

Just landed in Brussels and I think it actually doesn't look too bad.

Sadly though it doesn't always look like that. Yesterday I did a night flight in the UK with clear weather and it looked absolutely horrible.

Those are dawn/dusk shots. We are talking about night lighting, not lighting at dawn/dusk. The problem stands out more during pure night time.

32 minutes ago, captain420 said:

Those are dawn/dusk shots. We are talking about night lighting, not lighting at dawn/dusk. The problem stands out more during pure night time.

Partly because from a distance at dawn/dusk the strings of street lights on remote roads look more like strings of traffic.

It would still be  better if they lost the street lights on rural roads and gave the vehicles lights instead.

10 hours ago, captain420 said:

Those are dawn/dusk shots. We are talking about night lighting, not lighting at dawn/dusk. The problem stands out more during pure night time.

Yes, I know, I‘m not happy with it either. I just thought that that particular area looked better than others (no light bead chains at 300ft, not all lights too bright). I‘ve seen other places at dusk that look much worse. Maybe it was just the right time and weather conditions. 

I've read across this thread, and I think there's something wrong with me ?  Night Lighting in MFS is 2nd to none in any flightsim I have used so far ????? What's the problem ? 

On 10/30/2020 at 8:40 AM, Richard Sennett said:

Exactly

People who complain have never been in a darkened cockpit at night.

1 hour ago, jcomm said:

and I think there's something wrong with me ?

Uuuuh, that could have been tempting...😁

But tbh I think it's about perception and expectation and thus highly subjective. And I think it depends a bit on the location. Being from Europe I can now see all countries covered in a grid of high visibility lightbulbs, which apart from being questionable from an esthetic standpoint is simply not what Europe looks from above at night. On the other hand over large cities it comes down to uniformity and size/color of the bulbs which doesn't feel right (I'm being modest here) for me but may be more discussable. And then there's the fact that irl you can't see the runway lighting from tens of miles away. In fact runway lighting is in most cases more dimmed than the surroundin streetlights, airports in big cities at night are in fact darker spots in the surrounding brighter areas. And because the runway lights are now always on, even in broad daylight, avoiding night flying isn't even an option for us who don't appreciate the changes as much as you. And btw.: That was another great achievement of MSFS pre-patch5: in daylight, airports and their runways were much better integrated into the scenery so they didn't stick out as in former simulations. One of many challenges of VFR-flying irl is finding an airport that you've never been to before, day or night! I loved how that was represented pre-patch5. That's the problem! At least for me, but I'm not alone.

AH! Ok, now I see what you mean, and I agree !

Thx Tom!

1 hour ago, jcomm said:

I've read across this thread, and I think there's something wrong with me ?  Night Lighting in MFS is 2nd to none in any flightsim I have used so far ????? What's the problem ? 

For me, its not even really the lighting that's an issue. Its this search for a (very) subjective standard of perfection that I don't believe can ever be satisfied.

I've mentioned this before. To anyone who's read my posts over the years, I've commented more than once about how we always seem to be seeking some ultimate master tweaks that will finally make things perfect.

But its a chimera. As soon as one group is more or less satisfied, another steps up to say no, not quite yet.

And this can (and has in the past) continued for years!

We are essentially in this position because the original lighting that many demanded modifications to (and now want back) apparently didn't satisfy.

Now, if we succeed in our new demands, will that be it?

Nope, not likely.

It still won't be "quite right" for some, and we will then demand "refinements"

This, when even many of the people making the demands admit the sim currently has some of the best lighting ever seen in a sim.

Honestly, with so many mechanical and technical issues with the planes themselves outstanding, is this the best use of our limited bargaining power with Asobo?

For me the better solution would likely be some sort of third party app or freeware mod that lets people tweak lights to their hearts content, and doesn't force some highly subjective community standard on everyone.

But that's just me.

Real

 

1 minute ago, harrry said:

Real

 

yes from a camera, not our eyes. 

Two completely different things.

10 minutes ago, HiFlyer said:

 

Honestly, with so many mechanical and technical issues with the planes themselves outstanding, is this the best use of our limited bargaining power with Asobo?

They actually said in the last talk that the "always on" lighting was an experiment and they were fully expecting to have to add some of the random factor back in.

Even if they do make the street lights more random again that will not revert it back to initial release, you will still have the adjustment that lets  you see lights at FL30 rather than only at 10,000 feet .

1 minute ago, Glenn Fitzpatrick said:

They actually said in the last talk that the "always on" lighting was an experiment and they were fully expecting to have to add some of the random factor back in.

Even if they do make the street lights more random again that will not revert it back to initial release, you will still have the adjustment that lets  you see lights at FL30 rather than only at 10,000 feet .

The question is, will people then be satisfied? Or will that just lead to the next series of Demands for further refinements?

Agreed . Subjectivity is underestimated imo.

One person will see trees out of alignment in a scenery screenshot, and somebody

else will just see a "work of art" in the same screenshot!

 

As a neutral, I guess direct comparisons are difficult to post in this thread iff everyone

is running the update version.

 

 

 

.

32 minutes ago, HiFlyer said:

Or will that just lead to the next series of Demands for further refinements?

I think there's nothing wrong with stating one's opinion or making demands. But it's a huge problem for the developer to filter all those different expectations for sure.

I see a big problem in the voting system over at their forums.

This whole lighting issue started with a thread that pointed out issues with large patches of light emitting from terrain in certain areas. As I found that disturbing and wanted it to be changed, I voted in the early stages of that thread. But soon enough the discussion evolved as some admittedly versed users took over and the narrative changed in the direction of "pre-release-lighting was best". And the thread was kept alive with detailed descriptions and comparisons of photos and screenshots and good ideas how the whole lighting should be changed and ended up with 500 votes so far.

But the OP started with the words "I love the night lighting in MSFS".

Then we had patchday 5, and another user posted the "terrible night lighting after the patch" thread and petitioned to revert the changes. I voted for that too, very early, as I found the pre-patch lighting convincing - minus the light-emitting-terrain. But guess what? Soon enough the thread evolved again, driven by the same individuals, and has now changed into the same discussion that was had ad nauseam in the former thread. I doubt that there's a consensus between the early and late voters about the purpose of the thread.

I appreciate the huge contributions of the dedicated people for their goals. But the voting systems turns their contributions from valuable feedback to leverage. And as much as I appreciated the voting system in the beginning, the more I have come to think about it.

1 hour ago, Tom_L said:

I think there's nothing wrong with stating one's opinion or making demands. But it's a huge problem for the developer to filter all those different expectations for sure.

I see a big problem in the voting system over at their forums.

This whole lighting issue started with a thread that pointed out issues with large patches of light emitting from terrain in certain areas. As I found that disturbing and wanted it to be changed, I voted in the early stages of that thread. But soon enough the discussion evolved as some admittedly versed users took over and the narrative changed in the direction of "pre-release-lighting was best". And the thread was kept alive with detailed descriptions and comparisons of photos and screenshots and good ideas how the whole lighting should be changed and ended up with 500 votes so far.

But the OP started with the words "I love the night lighting in MSFS".

Then we had patchday 5, and another user posted the "terrible night lighting after the patch" thread and petitioned to revert the changes. I voted for that too, very early, as I found the pre-patch lighting convincing - minus the light-emitting-terrain. But guess what? Soon enough the thread evolved again, driven by the same individuals, and has now changed into the same discussion that was had ad nauseam in the former thread. I doubt that there's a consensus between the early and late voters about the purpose of the thread.

I appreciate the huge contributions of the dedicated people for their goals. But the voting systems turns their contributions from valuable feedback to leverage. And as much as I appreciated the voting system in the beginning, the more I have come to think about it.

And this is my concern. This sort of thing won't be confined to simply lighting. I suspect strongly there'll eventually be a zillion detailed wishlist's, with little to no thought about how to accomplish them.

Recently, I saw a thread where somebody was talking about getting the waves on beaches/shores to come in based on gravity and moon phases.

Demands just as particular are out there, and history suggests every single group making such a demand will claim urgency and priority based on "realism"

But realism is so subjective that who wins an argument of what exactly is "real" often seems to depend pretty much on how many people one can gather who agree with you.

Internally, I wonder at what point Asobo (while continuing to make nice PR noises) will begin rolling their eyes at us.