I completely agree with the OP remarks about how LR has added functionality with upgraded visuals.  The clouds do need higher details for sure though.  And the rain on the windscreen - too cartoony - with the thick streams.  A step in the right direction though - I don't recall XP11 having it at all unless you used the mod made by the Hot Start developer.  The droplet streams should be far thinner.

I agree on the water appearance - a solid upgrade from 11.

I've not yet flown much in storms (I try to avoid them for the most part even in the sim haha).

I think the runway/approach lighting in the small photo on the OP is pretty close. (I did change mine to not have the star-like filter though).  In real life, runway lights are typically directional (but not always), and runways can be quite challenging to find unless you're lined up on final already.  The airport beacon is usually the first to be seen.  I look for a "black hole" if searching for an airport in the middle of a large city - because unless you're landing Atlanta, or Heathrow, most midsize to smaller airports aren't brightly lit areas.

I feel I am an expert on runway lighting because I worked in a tower for over a decade and it was part of my job to change the runway lights based on weather conditions.  In the FAA (USA) at least, visibility is the number one factor for runway and approach system lighting intensity.

In fog and low vis situations I feel like people think the lights should be incredibly bright (in the sim) because they should be on the maximum setting.  This is not accurate.  The lights often appear quite dim - especially as the vis lowers.  These two real world photos depict accurate and realistic night lighting with good visibility and daytime lighting with poor vis.  Many a times have I witnessed aircraft attempt to line up on roads because the street lighting is actually brighter at times.

runwayedge by Ryan Butterworth, on Flickr

Mostly likely these runway lights are set to maximum but you can see how low the vis is - looks like RVR 800 or so...maybe less.

primary by Ryan Butterworth, on Flickr

Thanks ryan for good insight and I agree with all of them.

But let's discuss apples to apples and not high intensity light settings in CAT III (those lights are like you said directional and toned down in lov vis operations.

However, in OPs post I am expecting a similar light-system as below since visibility is >2000m. In his image the lights are VFR day intensity and you can barely make them out which I hope LR can provide in a future "feature". I should be seeing way more of the runway contour lined up like that despite being slightly low.

When high intensity lights are ON, it should be quite hard to mix them with regular street lights.

Edited September 19, 20223 yr by SAS443

Maybe what's happening is that the visibility of runway lights in XP12 is correct from a strictly technical point of view (e.g., with XXX RWR, you must see X rows of runway lights), but the relative light intensity is lower than it should be (compared to ambient light levels for a given visibility).

So they appear dimmer than they should be in RL, albeit being equally visible as in RL, if the explanation makes sense.

That could be a case for a bug report, but it needs very precise comparison photos between matching conditions of RL vs sim (like those photos above).

 

36 minutes ago, Murmur said:

Maybe what's happening is that the visibility of runway lights in XP12 is correct from a strictly technical point of view (e.g., with XXX RWR, you must see X rows of runway lights), but the relative light intensity is lower than it should be (compared to ambient light levels for a given visibility).

So they appear dimmer than they should be in RL, albeit being equally visible as in RL, if the explanation makes sense.

That could be a case for a bug report, but it needs very precise comparison photos between matching conditions of RL vs sim (like those photos above).

 

It's a possibility.

Our visibilimeters  are also painful to callibrate IRL 😕

Screenshots and photos or even videos from RW cockpits, etc, ... don't have the necessary resolution / saturation processing required for a valuable base for working on fine tuning rw ALSs...

I think as it is right now XP12 is already doing a good work. Just a bit of fine tuning required maybe... or control over the bulb intensity as a new feature to ask Austin for.... 🙂

Edited September 19, 20223 yr by jcomm

11 minutes ago, jcomm said:

Screenshots and photos or even videos from RW cockpits, etc, ... don't have the necessary resolution / saturation processing required for a valuable base for working on fine tuning rw ALSs...

True and also what you see in a photo not always matches what you see in real life because of different optical characteristics of cameras/displays vs human eyes: dynamic range, etc.

1 hour ago, Murmur said:

True and also what you see in a photo not always matches what you see in real life because of different optical characteristics of cameras/displays vs human eyes: dynamic range, etc.

Even with the very same camera, photos/videos can look completely different, due to exposure, aperture, ...

I strongly assume that there are technical specifications which define, how lighting has to look. And I think, LR knows about these and implemented them (more or less?) correct, from a technical standpoint - as Murmur already mentioned before.

19 hours ago, ryanbatc said:

I agree on the water appearance - a solid upgrade from 11.

Upgrade yes, but I still think that it's much too mirror-like and that it could do with more notable foam caps at greater wave heights.

10 hours ago, flying_carpet said:

I strongly assume that there are technical specifications which define, how lighting has to look.

There are isocandela diagrams for every type of lights found on approved CAT II/III runways

10 hours ago, flying_carpet said:

And I think, LR knows about these and implemented them (more or less?) correct, from a technical standpoint

Not sure it works correctly then, since their High intensity lights seems to be stuck at stage 1 or 2 out of 6? (Meaning very little intensity at all).

27 minutes ago, SAS443 said:

There are isocandela diagrams for every type of lights found on approved CAT II/III runways

Not sure it works correctly then, since their High intensity lights seems to be stuck at stage 1 or 2 out of 6? (Meaning very little intensity at all).

With your expertise, you should try to bring the topic to LR developers. It's possible that they're interested in the matter since, as I reckon, they are aiming to do an accurate model for lighting and visibility for XP12.

18 hours ago, SAS443 said:

Thanks ryan for good insight and I agree with all of them.

But let's discuss apples to apples and not high intensity light settings in CAT III (those lights are like you said directional and toned down in lov vis operations.

However, in OPs post I am expecting a similar light-system as below since visibility is >2000m. In his image the lights are VFR day intensity and you can barely make them out which I hope LR can provide in a future "feature". I should be seeing way more of the runway contour lined up like that despite being slightly low.

 

When high intensity lights are ON, it should be quite hard to mix them with regular street lights.

That photo is overexposed though... you can tell because the lights are blurry and not sharp like the photo I posted.  The camera is metering a darkened scene and keeping the shutter open a while longer to bring in more light.  Therefore blurring the lights and increasing the appearance of their brightness.

I haven't flown much in IMC in XP12 yet - it's possible the lights are too low for hardball IMC.  Can we agree that accurate lighting in low vis conditions is somewhere between my pics and yours?  Mine is very low vis and yours looks like a mile at least.  In that case, in the USA at least, the runway lights and associated ALS would not be required to be set to max...  unless pilot request.

Also the pilot's aligning with street lights was a reference to a visual approach at night...  so the lights would be set more realistically to my first photo at the top of this page.  And that's only the straight on view....  it obviously looks nothing like that from 90 degrees off.  This is why many pilot's opt for an instrument approach in VMC night conditions.

Ok now I was curious lol... I went into XP12 just now and set CAT I mins and shot this approach at KDLH ILS 09.  I used to work there and I know it has ALSF 2 approach lighting (high intensity plus step 5/5 runway lighting).  At 200 ft mins and RVR 2400, maximum lighting would be required in the USA.  I'd say this looks spot on to real life.  Hard to tell in the first screenshot but it was 210 ft DH and I had the "rabbit" in sight which allows me to descend another 100 ft feet as long as I'm flying part 91 (basically general aviation).

At 120 ft I have the runway easily in sight and would continue for landing.  I feel like second pic is easily accurate to real life and reflects CAT I maxium lighting brightness settings.  I also took a night pic for fun - that's almost too bright imo - but I think LR is already aware of the excessive light spills on surfaces

Again this is 200 ft ceilings, 2400 ft rvr (about half mile vis), noon at KDLH ILS 09

(added on more pic from LSGG clear skies near midnight).  I'd say the lighting is spot on.  5 mile final was a little tough to see from straight on but still visible.

CAT1210ft by Ryan Butterworth, on Flickr

CAT1_120ft by Ryan Butterworth, on Flickr

CAT1_120ft_night by Ryan Butterworth, on Flickr

LSGGlighting by Ryan Butterworth, on Flickr

Edited September 20, 20223 yr by ryanbatc

@ryanbatc again, I'm not arguing over low vis ops /RVR conditions. If you have high intensity lights turned on, you will be blinded due to the light pollution.

But it seems like XP is doing the opposite of MSFS - where the runway-lighting system is bad mind you, and always turned on at insane intensity.

Lighting system is just as incomplete in XP12 but reversed, because we can't see runway contour in 3-5km visbility at dusk/dawn, which any ATC at approved CAT1-III airport can fascilitate by cranking up the HIRL-system.

At least give the user an option to request brighter or dim the PAPI, HIRL as in the real world when conducting an approach. 

For any reader that is wondering what I'm rambling about, check out Stefan Drury's (worth a sub regardless) video. I believe this is not what XP12 can do at the moment, despite it's FAA compliance? The approach lighting ground splash is way exaggerated as well.

 

Edited September 20, 20223 yr by SAS443

6 hours ago, SAS443 said:

@ryanbatc 

At least give the user an option to request brighter or dim the PAPI, HIRL as in the real world when conducting an approach. 

 

 

 

I agree about this part - I've always asked to have some sort of control over airfield lighting especially at uncontrolled airports, where the pilot be able to click up the lights.

added:  I will say though that real world lighting is only required to be in low setting with good weather...  Sometimes I opted to increase a little for pilot awareness if we had some people not familiar with the area.  So the step 3 brightness (in your video) is even a little brighter than you'll find on an average night.  (large airports tend to bring the lights up much higher than required from the flying I've done).  I still think XP replicates this pretty well.

FAA lighting requirements:  https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/atc_html/chap3_section_4.html

Edited September 20, 20223 yr by ryanbatc

15 minutes ago, mSparks said:

pic

 I highly recommend this mod which removes the silly star-filter on the lights

https://x-plane.to/file/38/x-plane-12-light-sprite-tweak

Edited September 20, 20223 yr by ryanbatc

10 minutes ago, ryanbatc said:

 I highly recommend this mod which removes the silly star-filter on the lights

https://x-plane.to/file/38/x-plane-12-light-sprite-tweak

Kinda my point