43 minutes ago, RXP said:

I've forgotten to add:

Another processing stage FS2020 is using is typically called "eye adaptation". It is supposed to expose the scene based on some "metrics" of the image so that the perceived brightness is in a "suitable" range for the eyes and the situation (outside, inside etc...). XP11 equivalent implementation is not working as expected and I don't know where they'll go for XP12, but I can tell you this is very important a stage in the pipeline, and this is something Ben Supnik is aware off per my discussions with him.

A quote from the lighting blog:

The new pipeline features a new tone mapper – one thing you might notice from the videos is that color with the new pipeline are richer. This is partly because the new tone mapper (which works well with real-world illumination values and is HDR-display-ready) does a better job of preserving saturation.

Finally, the new pipeline can run screen space reflections (SSR), dynamic exposure, bloom and other effects (still to be previewed), all running with real world photometric HDR values.

---

---

Edited September 26, 20214 yr by akita

20 hours ago, mSparks said:

The lighting through the rain blowing accurately in the wind on the window blew me away tbh, I don't think I've ever seen anything simulation that well done ever, even from a AAA title.

Then you haven’t seen assetto corsa with csp and sol yet. That’s the best rain and effects implementation I’ve ever seen in a sim. 

9 hours ago, GoranM said:

No you can't.  I can very easily tell a real photo apart from an MSFS screenshot. 

MSFS lighting engine alone creates much more realistic screen shots than any civilian flight sim I've seen. 

Why don't you show me some comparison shots then? Here's some for you.

I was surprised at what I saw from the XP12 announcement. Yes it's an overall improvement over XP11. But still not even close to what MSFS has. The only thing that X-Plane has going for it is the actual PBL, physics based lighting. Which is lacking in MSFS. The other stuff is such as seasons, weather, clouds, trees, autogen are an improvement. But a plausible autogen world is still completely unrealistic no matter how you look at it. Especially when your flying by recognizing actual real life POIs and what not. You cannot do this in XP's make believe world. OSM data is good, but not good enough. Yes I agree that PG in certain areas look extremely bad and ugly. But hopefully that'll get sorted out as the bing data matures. But in areas where it is already good, PG looks amazing. If LR can somehow make their plausible world look realistic without using orthoimagery, then I may give it a try. But from the looks of it. XP12 is basically XP 11+ for me with nothing really revolutionary. I've never really like any of the 3rd party payware planes in XP. Especially Flight Factor, Jar's Design. I wasted so much money them, and find them extremely outdated looking. Especially the interior cockpits.

Edited September 26, 20214 yr by captain420

23 minutes ago, captain420 said:

Thats about on par with XP11, tail of that helo is also horrific.....

We're talking about real time lighting, not baked AO, so for an outside shot in overcast conditions something like

And, yes, I can see the bugs there (e.g. the prop on the lhs has artifacting)

Edited September 26, 20214 yr by mSparks

It comes down to what looks more realistic, and from those screenshots presented at their presentation, it doesn't look anything close to realistic to me. The exposure in that picture you showed, looks highly unrealistic.

4 minutes ago, captain420 said:

It comes down to what looks more realistic, and from those screenshots presented at their presentation, it doesn't look anything close to realistic to me. The exposure in that picture you showed, looks highly unrealistic.

well, we have pure like for like shots of MSFS vs XP11

e.g

vs

The lighting in that top photo looks identical to the screenshots you posted, If you think any of those MSFS shots look realistic I really think you need to get out more....

I also really dont understand why you are setting the bar so low. XP12 is competing with:

They have a long way to go to match that, MSFS isn't even in the race (yet)

It's clearly that the MSFS shot looks much more realistic than XP. If you think XP one looks good, then good lord something are wrong with your eyes. Look at how horrible the grass looks, the lighting looks a lot more natural in the 1st shot. I think you're the one that needs to get out more, and while you're at it invest in some glasses if you think that is on par with X-Plane. I am not even talking about DCS. I said civilian flight sims. But if you want to bring DCS into it, then DCS is more on par with MSFS than XP12.

Edited September 26, 20214 yr by captain420

5 minutes ago, captain420 said:

It's clearly that the MSFS shot looks much more realistic than XP. If you think XP one looks good, then good lord something are wrong with your eyes.

you know the top one is MSFS right? the bottom one is XP, as given away by the 92fps.

If you did, you either need to put your glasses on, or get out more, or both.

Edited September 26, 20214 yr by mSparks

Yeah, I know the top one is MSFS and the one underneath it is XP. It's so obvious.

Just now, captain420 said:

Yeah, I know the top one is MSFS and the one underneath it is XP. It's so obvious.

There is absolutely nothing right with that top photo.

There is no lighting on the grass

There is no reflections in the cockpit

The clouds have no substance or shape

The trees are 2D billboards

And the cars looked like someone sprayed them all with white paint.

And you think that is realistic..... Just... Wow....

2 minutes ago, mSparks said:

And you think that is realistic..... Just... Wow....

and if you think the 2nd picture looks more realistic, than a double wow.

Motion to lock this thread as it's just the same old, same old, same old and same old for the 423542384752349852nd time.

Motion #2 to ban any "MSFS vs X-Plane" discussion from this subforum. I'm so sick of having to read the same BS day after day after day.

Just now, captain420 said:

and if you think the 2nd picture looks more realistic, than a double wow.

I think it looks as bad. hence "on a par with XP11"

3 minutes ago, Bjoern said:

Motion to lock this thread as it's just the same old, same old, same old and same old for the 423542384752349852nd time.

Motion #2 to ban any "MSFS vs X-Plane" discussion from this subforum. I'm so sick of having to read the same BS day after day after day.

The solution is simple. We all should switch into the real superior simulator, FlightGear.

33 minutes ago, mSparks said:

Thats about on par with XP11, tail of that helo is also horrific.....

We're talking about real time lighting, not baked AO, so for an outside shot in overcast conditions something like

And, yes, I can see the bugs there (e.g. the prop on the lhs has artifacting)

I think this is a good example of what I mean when I say mSparks has a different perception to many (most?) of us. It took my partner 2 seconds and my daughter 0.5 seconds to state that the MSFS shot “obviously” was more real. I don’t doubt that he does believe XP (even 11) looks better, but I also wouldn’t be surprised if what he’s seeing is being informed by his need to ‘provoke the xbots’ more than what’s actually on the screen.

The water reflections do look very good on that XP12 shot, but that lighting...no.