I'm opening another thread to discuss exposure, instead of hijacking other threads.

Quote

Indeed the panel is a bit 'improved.
Too bad, however, that the scenario is overexposed.
But I admire your creative effort in trying to solve the problem of dark panels. 👍

As I have explained many times on many topics, the problem lies above all in the shadows, Xplane generates too black shadows.

I'm not sure the issue is with the shadows per se. It might be due to how dynamic range and tone mapping are implemented. In other words, the shadows and the lit areas of the cockpit might both have the correct internal values in the photometric engine, but the modeled dynamic range might be too limited (attempting to simulate the human eye), causing shadowed areas to appear too dark when viewed on a monitor.

Anyway, this is another screenshot using the same dataref setting as my previous one. The exposure looks acceptable to me, for both the cockpit and the external world. It just requires modifying a single dataref:

5 hours ago, efis007 said:

As I have explained many times on many topics, the problem lies above all in the shadows, Xplane generates too black shadows.
I'll show you what happens with photoshop camera raw.
I used your nice picture...

.... I imported it in camera raw changing only the shadows parameter...

... et voilà, dark panel bug fixed without touching the photometric light or sky exposure.

As you see, XPlane's bug resides only in the shadows.
That is well known news!
This bug already existed in year 2017 in XP11. 
And I'm not talking about a "partially similar" bug, but exactly the same 100% precise bug, always caused by ... shadows. 😣

Couple of points I note,

On my phone the cockpit in the first picture is pretty black, but on my desktop display there isn't that much difference between them, if anything the second images look fairly washed out across the entire scene -> display settings matter. 

Also, this is probably why it works so well in VR, because when you glance down into the cockpit you will get some pupil/iris dilation and your eyes automatically change the first image into the second - more or less, 2D digital wall art that's not going to happen - in fact it could be much much worse if for example you are 4K on HDMI and operating in reduced colour quality mode, although I see no evidence of anyone doing that, because if they were we see them complaining angrily about AA and the cockpits being to dark....

This is also why there is demand for HDR displays...

https://www.coolblue.nl/en/advice/hdr-monitor.html

Edited March 3, 20233 yr by mSparks

11 hours ago, Murmur said:

I'm not sure the issue is with the shadows per se.

Trust me, the problem is the shadows.
Let's analyze this nice pic of yours with the camera raw.

The histogram shows that there is too much contrast between the highlights and shadows.
In simple words the "dynamic curve" is too aggressive (it looks a lot like the P3D simulator... then I'll explain why)

By modifying the shadows in the camera raw (only the shadows!), the panel becomes more realistic in the scene, also confirmed by the histogram curve which becomes less aggressive precisely on the parameter that affects the shadows of the histogram.

Here is the comparison of the histograms. 
On the left the dark panel bug. 
On the right the corrected dark panel bug.

See how Xplane's shadow generation is off the charts?
The curve is too steep, too "aggressive".
It's that excess of aggressiveness that creates the dark panel bug.
If Xplane softens the shadows it will forever solve that terrible bug that afflicts the simulator since the year 2017 in Xp11 and in the year 2023 in XP12.
Let's review the two photos before and after.

Xplane must not modify the photometric light!
The light is fine as it is. 👍
The shadows are the problem! 🤔
Too black.
Too dark.
Too much "Apollo 11 on the moon".

Now I'll reveal a professional trick to understand when an object... in our case a cockpit... is correctly represented in the scene.
That is, if it has the right brightness, or if it is too dark.
Do exactly what I tell you. 
Put this photo in full screen.



Now get up from your chair,... turn your back to the monitor,... move at least 3 meters away,... stop,... turn around... and observe the scene from that distance.
Result: you will see a panel that is too dark, completely out of scenic context. 😕

Now put this photo in full screen and repeat the same procedure... get up from your chair,... turn your back to the monitor,... move at least 3 meters away,... stop,... turn around... and observe the scene from that distance.


Result: you will see a perfectly illuminated panel inserted in the scenic context. 😲
You basically see the panel exactly as your eyes would expect to see! 

That experiment allows you to "reset" the eye's visual memory, that is, it allows you to see the object in the scenic context exactly as your eyes would expect to see in reality. 🙂
Here at the school where I teach I have shown both scenes to at least 20 different people, and ALL the people who have conducted the experiment have declared what I expected: "that panel is too dark, there is a rendering defect".
I state that I didn't influence those people, otherwise what kind of experiment would it be??
However I was 100% sure of the result because, as I have already written many times, I have been analyzing the xplane dark panel problem for YEARS, so I know very well what I am talking about, and I can guarantee that no Laminar engineer would be able to deny the tests I have acquired through years of experimentation.
Laminars may be good programmers, but in terms of "visual arts analysis" skills, I think they have a lot to learn.

Just to clarify, I discovered some XP11 bugs that no user had ever discovered.
For example the volumetric fake fog of XP11.
https://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?/forums/topic/226738-some-thoughts-on-hazefog-for-xp-12/#comment-2040510
I discovered the bug, I explained it in detail, I showed the proofs of my claims, and no one (I mean no one!) has ever been able to deny me because it is impossible to deny a full-blown truth.

The same thing happens with the dark panels bug.
Laminars know it!
They know it too (for 6 years!) that Xplane generates dark panels, you can't escape from these full-blown truths.

Hopefully after 6 years they fix the problem. 👍

 

What you're stating (wrong "shadows") could actually also be modified by acting on the tone mapping algorithm. After all, tone mapping influences the histogram of the final image. I'm referring to the internal tone mapping used by XP12 photometric engine.

Edited March 3, 20233 yr by Murmur

30 minutes ago, efis007 said:

Now get up from your chair,... turn your back to the monitor,... move at least 3 meters away,... stop,... turn around... and observe the scene from that distance.
Result: you will see a panel that is too dark, completely out of scenic context. 😕

depends if you have the light turned on in the room.

If the room is otherwise pitch black (which for best results it should be) you will be pretty much blinded when you turn back around.

from a display that is probably putting out 300cd - but still brighter than a G1000. 

30 minutes ago, efis007 said:

The same thing happens with the dark panels bug.

all I see is a picture of a horribly bright panel that looks nothing like a c172 cockpit that should be generally in near complete darkness even at the height of day.

Edited March 3, 20233 yr by mSparks

1 hour ago, efis007 said:

Trust me, the problem is the shadows.
Let's analyze this nice pic of yours with the camera raw.
 

The histogram shows that there is too much contrast between the highlights and shadows.
In simple words the "dynamic curve" is too aggressive (it looks a lot like the P3D simulator... then I'll explain why)

By modifying the shadows in the camera raw (only the shadows!), the panel becomes more realistic in the scene, also confirmed by the histogram curve which becomes less aggressive precisely on the parameter that affects the shadows of the histogram.
 

Here is the comparison of the histograms. 
On the left the dark panel bug. 
On the right the corrected dark panel bug.
 

See how Xplane's shadow generation is off the charts?
The curve is too steep, too "aggressive".
It's that excess of aggressiveness that creates the dark panel bug.
If Xplane softens the shadows it will forever solve that terrible bug that afflicts the simulator since the year 2017 in Xp11 and in the year 2023 in XP12.
Let's review the two photos before and after.

 

Xplane must not modify the photometric light!
The light is fine as it is. 👍
The shadows are the problem! 🤔
Too black.
Too dark.
Too much "Apollo 11 on the moon".

Now I'll reveal a professional trick to understand when an object... in our case a cockpit... is correctly represented in the scene.
That is, if it has the right brightness, or if it is too dark.
Do exactly what I tell you. 
Put this photo in full screen.



Now get up from your chair,... turn your back to the monitor,... move at least 3 meters away,... stop,... turn around... and observe the scene from that distance.
Result: you will see a panel that is too dark, completely out of scenic context. 😕

Now put this photo in full screen and repeat the same procedure... get up from your chair,... turn your back to the monitor,... move at least 3 meters away,... stop,... turn around... and observe the scene from that distance.


Result: you will see a perfectly illuminated panel inserted in the scenic context. 😲
You basically see the panel exactly as your eyes would expect to see! 

That experiment allows you to "reset" the eye's visual memory, that is, it allows you to see the object in the scenic context exactly as your eyes would expect to see in reality. 🙂
Here at the school where I teach I have shown both scenes to at least 20 different people, and ALL the people who have conducted the experiment have declared what I expected: "that panel is too dark, there is a rendering defect".
I state that I didn't influence those people, otherwise what kind of experiment would it be??
However I was 100% sure of the result because, as I have already written many times, I have been analyzing the xplane dark panel problem for YEARS, so I know very well what I am talking about, and I can guarantee that no Laminar engineer would be able to deny the tests I have acquired through years of experimentation.
Laminars may be good programmers, but in terms of "visual arts analysis" skills, I think they have a lot to learn.

Just to clarify, I discovered some XP11 bugs that no user had ever discovered.
For example the volumetric fake fog of XP11.
https://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?/forums/topic/226738-some-thoughts-on-hazefog-for-xp-12/#comment-2040510
I discovered the bug, I explained it in detail, I showed the proofs of my claims, and no one (I mean no one!) has ever been able to deny me because it is impossible to deny a full-blown truth.

The same thing happens with the dark panels bug.
Laminars know it!
They know it too (for 6 years!) that Xplane generates dark panels, you can't escape from these full-blown truths.

Hopefully after 6 years they fix the problem. 👍

 

You don't get out much, do you?

Edited March 3, 20233 yr by GoranM

General reminder:

X-Plane has datarefs. Some of which are writable. There are plugins that allow interacting with such datarefs based on text file input. If you don't like something that may be changeable by these datarefs, be curious. Experiment. Tinker.

 

Specific reminder (not sure if these datarefs still exist or are still writable):

 

 

Edited March 3, 20233 yr by Bjoern

11 hours ago, GoranM said:

You don't get out much, do you?

@efis007 has gone quite a field but his histogram analysis is on point.  I've edited a lot of pictures in my time and there is almost never a valid reason to compress the darks (no part of the image using the darkest dark) when any image is already limited in dynamic range.  The adjusted cockpit image looks way better and shows to me there is nothing necessarily wrong with the LR lighting model, just a problem projecting the lighting model in an optimal manner (using maximum dynamic range available) to the monitor. 

39 minutes ago, StuSpeed said:

The adjusted cockpit image looks way better

It looks more like a camera shot and less like a rw cockpit, it also shows nothing about how that will behave as the virtual pupil contracts/dilates

better is relative.

39 minutes ago, StuSpeed said:

is already limited in dynamic range.

But the "virtual pupil dilation" massively extends that range in a very very realistic way depending on how much virtual light is estimated to be hitting your eye, hence the reference to head tracking (and the need for eye tracking to do any better), look outside and the cockpit in your peripheral vision is correctly very dark, look inside where its dark and the virtual pupil dilates "washing out" the outside

^ all I did there was change the view, both shots are insanely realistic compared to a real world cockpit, and already actually lightened to better match what you see, since if they were rendering the lighting precisely the cockpit would actually be drawn like:

That's not saying that it cannot be improved (e.g. night lighting is still a 💩 show), or that tweaking the datarefs that determine how it works wont improve it in certain circumstance - but from what I've seen all you will get from trying to "do better" is make one aspect slightly better at the expense of making everything else much much worse.

1 hour ago, mSparks said:

It looks more like a camera shot and less like a rw cockpit, it also shows nothing about how that will behave as the virtual pupil contracts/dilates

better is relative.

I am not advocating any change to the lighting model but to me the "camera shot" is an ok compromise given the limits of a monitor.  The pupil captures more dynamic range than a monitor outputs in all cases outside of staring directly at the sun (pitch dark you will still perceive "brilliant darkness").  To not make use of the full dynamics of the monitor darks cannot be considered a correct representation of a virtual cockpit.

Edited March 4, 20233 yr by StuSpeed

4 minutes ago, StuSpeed said:

I am not advocating any change to the lighting model.

Do you agree that the darkness of the cockpit and "washout" of outside should change depending upon if you are looking outside vs inside?

7 minutes ago, StuSpeed said:

To not make use of the full dynamics of the monitor darks cannot be considered a correct representation of a virtual cockpit.

This makes no sense to me - as in I don't understand what you are trying to say.

2 minutes ago, mSparks said:

Do you agree that the darkness of the cockpit and "washout" of outside should change depending upon if you are looking outside vs inside?

This makes no sense to me - as in I don't understand what you are trying to say.

The argument is about how to most realistically project a high dynamic range lighting scenario to a monitor.    This would naturally mean whatever "correct" projection is produced, would use the full dynamic range of the monitor.  Presuming that the screen capture was taken from a decently calibrated monitor, to have gaps in the histogram means that even the limited dynamic range of a monitor is not being fully utilized- that is what can't be correct.

Absolutely agree the darkness/washout should vary depending on outside vs inside.  As I updated in my prev post right when you responding, I don't see a "camera shot" as derogatory but rather as a fair representation of what the eye/brain can actually perceive in RL in real-time.

 

3 hours ago, StuSpeed said:

@efis007 has gone quite a field but his histogram analysis is on point.  I've edited a lot of pictures in my time and there is almost never a valid reason to compress the darks (no part of the image using the darkest dark) when any image is already limited in dynamic range.  The adjusted cockpit image looks way better and shows to me there is nothing necessarily wrong with the LR lighting model, just a problem projecting the lighting model in an optimal manner (using maximum dynamic range available) to the monitor. 

Ok, before we get into what everyone has or hasn't done professionally, I'll throw this out there, as well.  I've been a casual photographer, (almost going professional, before taking up addon development) since the 90's.  So I know about photo post processing.  Histograms.  RAW files.  (One of my favorite T-Shirts has "I only shoot RAW" across the front of it.).  So I'm also well versed in photography, light, how to process photos in Lightroom, lens types, etc...  

But, seriously, efis, and anyone else going along with his post, is making a Mt Everest out of a mole hill.  This is a flight sim.  Are we really going to dissect the shadows, to the extent he posted, and how dark they are, or how dark they are supposed to be, by adjusting the histogram of a screenshot taken on a computer, where the monitor might not have even been correctly calibrated?  AND, the monitor of anyone else viewing the screenshot, likely isn't correctly calibrated, either.  Are we really going to load up a screenshot, look at it for 30 seconds, stand up, turn around, walk back 3 steps, stand there for another 30 seconds, then turn around and THEN make an opinion on the shadows?

THEN, efis mentioning that all that is one of the reasons why he won't upgrade his PC to buy and run X-Plane 12.  I mean, I feel like I'm being punk'd.

This is getting beyond ridiculous.  It's a FLIGHT SIMULATOR. If you want to talk about lighting and shadows, there's a flight sim I can wreck with that discussion, in about 5 minutes.  And after posting every single fact I have, I’ll still be called a troll.  But others posting opinions are justifying them by saying, “We can post and discuss opinions.”  

A LOT of perspective is needed here.  As was demonstrated, a change in a dataref value is enough to fix the shadows.  I really don't see how this topic got so deep, that I feel like I'm in the Mariana Trench of flight sim discussions.

I'm now waiting for the person who says, "I can't smell the jet fuel, so until that is fixed, my wallet stays closed!"

Edited March 4, 20233 yr by GoranM

1 hour ago, StuSpeed said:

The argument is about how to most realistically project a high dynamic range lighting scenario to a monitor.

AFAICT, they want the cockpit as bright as the outside when looking outside.... and the are calling it not being a

On 3/3/2023 at 2:47 AM, efis007 said:

dark panel bug

and

On 3/3/2023 at 2:47 AM, efis007 said:

the problem of dark panels.

1 hour ago, StuSpeed said:

Absolutely agree the darkness/washout should vary depending on outside vs inside.

I don't think the others do.

Edited March 4, 20233 yr by mSparks

17 hours ago, efis007 said:

Let's review the two photos before and after.

I actually prefer the first picture, before modification.  the panel in the second picture looks too bright and does not appear to me to be part of the overall scene - almost 'stuck on' to the outside view (just like the FSX B747 screenshot that was posted previously).

Somehow the dynamic range of the image should remain as wide as possible for realism.  The eye adaption feature seems a good way to maximise dynamic range on a monitor.  what you are suggesting is trying to capture the full range of light at all times, but as your pictures have shown, this just leads to a 'flatter' looking image, with panels unaturally bright.  This 'problem' does not exist for me using a head tracker because the light adjusts as my eyes move from inside to outside the cockpit.

I think your suggestion would make the current excellent lighting model poorer.