XP12 Early Access status live stream

[mSparks 2,094]

1 hour ago, Krakin said:

XP12's lighting simply isn't vibrant enough.

Compared to what? Please, just for the record, just confirm that you think this

Is better than this

Just so everyone is clear on your preferences.

9 hours ago, Baber20 said:

Who cares even if it's a U-turn.

Can someone please share with me the time stamp they think this U-turn was made?

[Baber20 1,474]

2 hours ago, Krakin said:

This is very apparent with how it interacts with the clouds

You mean like this ?

Oh wait that is msfs..

[blingthinger 649]

2 hours ago, Krakin said:

I'll use my words but since you did not offer anything near as complex as the post you linked, I think it would be fair for me to follow your lead. Something that makes XP12 easily identifiable is its lighting. XP12's lighting simply isn't vibrant enough. No matter the time of day there is this weird dullness to it and the way it interacts with the environment. This is very apparent with how it interacts with the clouds but its probably the fault of how they are rendered so that might be an unfair criticism. It is definitely improved over XP11 thankfully. The most convincing aspect of MSFS' graphics engine is it's lighting and the sim has no trouble depicting haze, pollution and so on when conditions call for it.

I mean...your first statement was anything but complex, so I had nothing to respond to. This description is far more thought provoking.

The pic below came from Janov over on the org a day or so ago. Maybe you saw this post? He's sporting a fancy light-measuring sensor in a 748 cockpit. They used these to confirm the light quantities appearing in cockpits, etc. You don't really need such a measurement unless you've got a photometric renderer under the hood. 

So, while I totally get your take on the dullness and the differences over 11, given the new algorithm and what they've done to verify it, I can't say I agree. In fact, distant terrain in 11 has always looked more realistic to me than from other algorithms. Popping colors and contrast to overcome drab and dull isn't real. If anything, I hear complaints that the colors are too much in others.

Given that the algorithm is as real as you can get from a fundamentals/energy conservation perspective, it's very likely that the final step to full believability (exiting the uncanny valley) is that everyone has HDR monitors that get even brighter than we have now.

https://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?/forums/topic/278420-live-show-–-x-plane-12-early-access-update-nov-27-2022-1900-utc/&do=findComment&comment=2459764

Edited November 30, 2022 by blingthinger

[filou 2,766]

 

I like MSFS but it is not visually amazing for my eyes .Sunday pilots find the MSFS fantastic .It's their way of seeing things. But for me the general lighting of the MSFS 2020 is not good at all. Too white in good weather and too dark in bad weather (Charcoal color) and especially in real weather. Completely unreal.Imbalance .A cartoon overall effect.

Fortunately, Google Map and Nvidia freestyle help me a little to take back the natural colors of things...

The importance of the overall rendering of the light of a simulator is the central point of realism, if this one is not good, everything else suffers from the consequence of this great weakness.

I would like them to work a little more on this essential point.

The X-P12 is much more balanced and realistic in its overall light rendering and a lot of depth in the realistic natural effect A real pleasure to fly in real weather and and under an overcast sky.Visibility is natural and subtle, It makes all the difference.

 

Real image with natural lighting example

 

X-P12 lighting exemple

 

 

 

MSFS2020 lighting example

 

 

[MrBitstFlyer 3,894]

18 minutes ago, filou said:

I like MSFS but it is not visually amazing for my eyes .Sunday pilots find the MSFS fantastic .It's their way of seeing things. But for me the general lighting of the MSFS 2020 is not good at all. Too white in good weather and too dark in bad weather (Charcoal color) and especially in real weather. Completely unreal.Imbalance .A cartoon overall effect.

Your images illustrate the differences very well.  Clearly MSFS is a great sim and has many, many great great aspects to it.  I wouldn't even describe its light as bad, just a bit too white - too clean in so many different weather types.  Too often visibility at altitude is unlimited and rarely changes during a long flight.  MSFS has very nice low mist/fog effects in valleys, but even these effects are always 'white and too clean'.  XP12's lighting captures the nuances of the light in a more realistic way to my eyes.  I completely get anybody liking MSFS light better if that is what they feel is more realistic, but in my eyes XP12 has really captured the 'mood' of the weather in a way MSFS can't.

A great time for flight simming, with two great products that best serve our personal needs.

[Daube 355]

11 hours ago, mSparks said:

Compared to what? Please, just for the record, just confirm that you think this

Is better than this

Just so everyone is clear on your preferences.

If we want to compare, we should do a real comparison, not check two completely different situations and view angles. Shaders and related options such as "bloom" etc will impact how a picture look depending on what is included in the field of view. Finally, graphic options should also be similar (I'm looking at the complete lack of shadows in your hangar for example, which is not helping to evaluate the quality of the lighting).

[SAS443 1,729]

10 hours ago, filou said:

Real image with natural lighting example

completely worthless without any context such as season, time of day, /rel. huminidity, clouds and thickness.
For example, if I ventured outside to the ramp at the airport where I work, 11:30 AM local time. We currently have overcast but the apron area (damp/wet concrete) and surrounding hangars/ forests in background are way brighter than this image.

Just a statement that trying to "colormatch/lighting match" after a photo from internet is not fool proof. 

I have sessions where MSFS lighting is more real, and I have sessions in XP12 where the lighting is more real, compared to my own experiences in the air. The human eye is very sensitive to light, and I see many dark elements in XP12, especially  groundtextures  during daytime where there really shouldn't  be so dark at all.

[UKflyer 630]

these comparisons really are pointless, both sims have their strengths and weaknesses

[mSparks 2,094]

3 hours ago, Daube said:

not check two completely different situations and view angles.

They are identical locations in the two sims, one I actually care about. He was asked to post that ms screenshot the last time he made such unsubstantiated claims, but in the end someone else did it for him recently, back then we were comparing the XP11 version

Now MS is competing with the XP12 version

Which is already outdated from the few weeks ago this was taken (Laminar updated the hanger objects a Beta or two ago - see the deer screenshot)

Which brings me right back round to

15 hours ago, mSparks said:

Can someone please share with me the time stamp they think this U-turn was made?

Because I am a long way from convinced he said what some posts seem to think he said.

 

Edited December 1, 2022 by mSparks

[Ianrivaldosmith 5,317]

29 minutes ago, mSparks said:

Because I am a long way from convinced he said what some posts seem to think he said.

Austin said satellite streaming was not needed, and it was basically no good due to various reasons.

Now he is saying they are looking in to implementing it.

I am not sure what else you need? But that is a u-turn. 

[mSparks 2,094]

10 minutes ago, Ianrivaldosmith said:

Now he is saying they are looking in to implementing it.

timestamp for this please. And not just "looking into fixing it" (cos it has bugs atm)

Edited December 1, 2022 by mSparks

[filou 2,766]

3 hours ago, SAS443 said:

completely worthless without any context such as season, time of day, /rel. huminidity, clouds and thickness.
For example, if I ventured outside to the ramp at the airport where I work, 11:30 AM local time. We currently have overcast but the apron area (damp/wet concrete) and surrounding hangars/ forests in background are way brighter than this image.

Just a statement that trying to "colormatch/lighting match" after a photo from internet is not fool proof. 

I have sessions where MSFS lighting is more real, and I have sessions in XP12 where the lighting is more real, compared to my own experiences in the air. The human eye is very sensitive to light, and I see many dark elements in XP12, especially  groundtextures  during daytime where there really shouldn't  be so dark at all.

No comparison with reality is possible but the example of a rapprochement is questionable and I allow myself freedom by "Examples"

In my case and to explain to you simply. XP12 light rendering in a global perception is much more realistic and natural than that of MSFS.No doubt about it

"I have sessions where MSFS lighting is more real"

Do not hesitate to share  with real weather of what MSFS2020 is capable in bad weather even in ultra setting and 4k.Bring me value.Surprise me!

1 hour ago, UKflyer said:

these comparisons really are pointless, both sims have their strengths and weaknesses

As much as your constructive commentary.

 

"these comparisons really are pointless, both sims have their strengths and weaknesses"

I've been reading this same formula for two and a half years.

 

"these comparisons really are pointless"

How do you know both sims have their strengths and weaknesses?

 

We spend our lives comparing things and you first. You do not even realize it.

Comparison is essential.

It mainly depends on how we talk about it.

[bogdansrb 230]

I watched the live stream and listened to what Austin said about the weather. There's not much activity on their suggestions page anymore but I really hope they don't stop here with the weather. I wish I'd see better cloud definitions, the "fingers of God" and the storm "curtains" that he mentioned, raindrop splatters on surfaces and cumulus clouds.

I also (mostly) agree with what he said about scenery, that he'd take better weather over better scenery. 

[mSparks 2,094]

17 minutes ago, filou said:

No comparison with reality is possible

Well there is, what I want is this under all lighting, weather and seasonal conditions.

XP12 is here

and will look like this in January

Is XP12 so hyper realistic I can't tell its a computer image? No, obviously but ##2!# if you told me this time 2 years ago I'd be posting those screenshots rendered nearly perfectly in VR.... hmm.. I might have believed you because generally LR deliver what they promise...

Saying that the MS rendering is in any way superior then refusing to share any evidence or claiming that Laminar never cared about scenery is disingenuous at best. In the end they are only lying to themselves.

 

[Ianrivaldosmith 5,317]

1 hour ago, mSparks said:

timestamp for this please. And not just "looking into fixing it" (cos it has bugs atm)

What has bugs? It’s not even in use in XP12, he just u-turned and said they were now looking in to it. 
 

You do know black isn’t blue don’t you?