15 hours ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

The measuring stick I'm using are my eyes, seeing sun glare in real life.  

Our Monitors are not capable to properly simulate glare because of the low light level that is produced by our consumer displays. Hence isn't possible to generate the biological changes that are comparable to the effects caused by real sun glare when you are actually flying.

Blowing up an entire FOV is a work around (like in the image below), but in now way resembles the "real" issue.

You can choose to believe it or not. Several pilots in this thread alone aren't happy with this effect. 

Edited November 23, 20223 yr by SAS443

35 minutes ago, SAS443 said:

Several pilots in this thread alone aren't happy with this effect. 

looks pretty much spot on to me. Top gun even made a thing of it

 

3 hours ago, SAS443 said:

Our Monitors are not capable to properly simulate glare because of the low light level that is produced by our consumer displays

This point has been made several times in this thread - I suggested it maybe the way the effect is portrayed on a monitor that is the real issue being discussed, not glare itself.  One does not need to be a pilot to understand glare is an issue when walking, driving, riding, or flying towards the sun!

With the limited nits available to Laminar Research, I feel the way they are trying to portray glare has been done very well.  I certainly think the sim would be poorer without it.  

Edited November 23, 20223 yr by MrBitstFlyer

Some FPS imho have a more realistic sun glare than flight sims.

I know many people would judge these too strong and unrealistic and disable it if it were used in sims (just as people try do disable them in FPS!)

The problem is, as has been said, that the limited dynamic range of a monitor does not allow for a complete reproduction of sunglare. But for me, they acceptably model the most important effect of sunglare, which is not the bloom of light (which indeed appears unrealistic due to monitor limitations), but the loss in detail and contrast of a limited field of view around the sun. I think these reproduce that effect nicely.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

23 hours ago, Murmur said:

I think these reproduce that effect nicely.

Save for that hideos anamorphic lens flare in Bf4 (they really should use ocular glare instead to make it more real, but then they'd lose that Michael Bay-style of effects), I like it too 🙂 

But it is far ahead of flight sims. Just recently at FL430 in XP12 in the Citation, the sun was a plain white disc. No glare, no bloom, no lenticular halo. Looked very bad.

1 hour ago, SAS443 said:

Just recently at FL430 in XP12 in the Citation, the sun was a plain white disc. No glare, no bloom, no lenticular halo. Looked very bad.

At that level you'll also meet yet another nuisance - apparently there is an inconsistency in the modelling of the Tropopause in XP12, with Real World or Manually set weather 😕

Tropopause T is fixed ( should vary with the altitude of the Tropopause and can IRL reach minus 80ºC depending on latitude, while in XP12 I was told by someone who tested it, stops decreasing by -56.5 ºC already by FL350 or even lower... 😕)

Edited November 24, 20223 yr by jcomm

Sometimes some features get worse instead of better.

XP10:

XP12:

Hopefully they will reintroduce some sort of sun bloom and more glare. That would be more realistic, like in XP10.

3 hours ago, jcomm said:

At that level you'll also meet yet another nuisance - apparently there is an inconsistency in the modelling of the Tropopause in XP12, with Real World or Manually set weather 😕

Tropopause T is fixed ( should vary with the altitude of the Tropopause and can IRL reach minus 80ºC depending on latitude, while in XP12 I was told by someone who tested it, stops decreasing by -56.5 ºC already by FL350 or even lower... 😕)

Rather than an inconsistency I'd say it's a choice/limitation, XP12 is modeling a fixed altitude and temperature for the tropopause. Depending on the set sea level temperature, the lapse rate is changed to have fixed -56.5 C at the tropopause. So it is modeling physically correct atmosphere properties, but there's the limitation that atmosphere lapse rate and tropopause altitude cannot be  manually changed.

As far as I tested, the temperature reaches -56.5 at a geometric altitude of 36000 ft (as it should be, barring a small error of around 150ft) if conditions are ISA. The strange thing is that if there's any temperature deviation from ISA, the tropopause level is changed to 39000ft.

I assume data on tropopause altitude/temperature could be available from real weather providers? That would allow more accurate modeling when using real weather.

The problem is also that the Tropopause isn't fixed in altitude, the GRIB data has that information, as well as the temperature, which can be bellow minus 80ºC in some circumstances...

For aircraft cruising at higher flight levels that's a limitation in the simulation of their performance, for sure.

Then, the Temperature also get's fixed at those negative 56.5 above FL360, which is unrealistic as you know... A choice I would somehow accept for manually defined weather, but can't understand for GRIB-based weather..

Edited November 24, 20223 yr by jcomm

6 hours ago, jcomm said:

At that level you'll also meet yet another nuisance - apparently there is an inconsistency in the modelling of the Tropopause in XP12, with Real World or Manually set weather 😕

Yes, disappointingly noted that as well. (Flying the Rotate MD11 as we speak)

After further testing, in XP11 there are writable datarefs for tropopause temperature and altitude, and they indeed work.

The variables are still there in XP12, but they are now deprecated and not writable. That's weird, maybe it's still a work in progress related to the new weather modeling.

1 hour ago, Murmur said:

After further testing, in XP11 there are writable datarefs for tropopause temperature and altitude, and they indeed work.

The variables are still there in XP12, but they are now deprecated and not writable. That's weird, maybe it's still a work in progress related to the new weather modeling.

yeah, the sdk stuff for weather is still very much a work in progress.

6 hours ago, Murmur said:

Sometimes some features get worse instead of better.

XP10:

XP12:

Hopefully they will reintroduce some sort of sun bloom and more glare. That would be more realistic, like in XP10.

did.... you... file... a...bug...report..

6 hours ago, mSparks said:

Did.... you... file... a...bug...report..

Hmmm... I wonder if it would be accepted as a bug. Anyway, good idea, will do!

48 minutes ago, Murmur said:

Hmmm... I wonder if it would be accepted as a bug. Anyway, good idea, will do!

Emailed Austin & LR already...

They also have to do something about the completely overdone and malformed turbulence that has been plaguing XP12 probably since they started to listen to users saying.. "Oh, XP is now on-rails compared to MFS..."

Problem is, LR and ASOBO really don't know very well how to do turbulence 😕 They're both as good at turbulence as at gliders 🙂

But then again, I'm at the uninstall tide right now... Trash'em all is the best... including IL-2 which now has this astounding flight dynamics for the recently released C-47:

MORE FUN with the C-47 - YouTube

I guess Condorsoaring is my new UINIQUE sim again... 😜

 

Edited November 25, 20223 yr by jcomm

51 minutes ago, Murmur said:

Hmmm... I wonder if it would be accepted as a bug. Anyway, good idea, will do!

add both pictures, be clear how recreate them. I could be wrong but pretty sure that is not intentional. it may even be what some people are complaining about the sun glare. Thats why I like pictures and videos.

Edited November 25, 20223 yr by mSparks