41 minutes ago, GoranM said:

Please provide a link. 
I know Austin and I know what it takes for him to change anything. So, I would like to see EXACTLY what was said. 

Good that you know him. It should be a simple question from you to him then. It was a stream where he was landing the f14 at a small airport I believe. I don't remember the exact one. I'm not going to waste my time looking it up for you. However, he acknowledged the dark cockpit complaint in that stream.

41 minutes ago, GoranM said:

You can’t just say things like “The majority…” without backing it up, just because it fits your own narrative. Provide hard and fast sources, then we can have a discussion. 

Why do I need numbers for us to have a discussion about the dark cockpit? The cockpit being dark has nothing to do with numbers. But indeed, I would love to see a poll on this. I'm pretty confident, the majority would say yes based on what I've seen.

41 minutes ago, GoranM said:

One persons opinion is no more important than another’s. To suggest the opposite, is extremely arrogant. Some of us think the lighting and shadows are fine. Some don’t.

For the most part, people have been respectful in this thread. You can choose to engage or not engage. Disagree or agree. As long as we are respectfully discussing the issue, I don't see the problem.

Edited March 13, 20233 yr by brinx

59 minutes ago, StuSpeed said:

Seems to be his professional opinion that in using a simulator and moving around the views as he would scan in RL, finds that the instruments get too dark when any of the outside is in view-  I surmise as compared to his muscle memory perception in RL.

He could also be wearing sunglasses as well which he does not reveal in his analysis, which has the same effect as what LR is doing with adjust the light intensity where ever you look. If you ever had you eyes dilated for a eye exam in a low light setting and then you go out side, the world is much brighter and sun can be blinding if your not wearing dark sunglasses. That's because your pupil is not do not adjusting to light and with dark glasses on the instruments in your car that would appear dark. The world is much brighter than what we normally see in real life  because our eyes naturally adjust to it. The brightness in the sim is same limited by the monitor ability to project that brightness and is force to adjust its view based on where you are looking. It like wear dark sunglasses in the cockpit.  The adjustment to how bright to see the instruments may need some tweaking, but in no way should they lower the brightness in the outside world any more than you can in real life. 

1 hour ago, GoranM said:

Majority?  How many people have you surveyed?  What are the percentages?  We need figures and facts. 

I'll be eagerly awaiting your response, because if it's as you say it is, I'll be more than happy to go to Laminar with the figures.

Come on you're being a bit extra difficult here ... I'm sure the X-Plane team take feedback on features even when we don't have a statistically significant survey.

It would seem like there is interest in having brighter cockpits and perhaps that can be an option. It is a common complaint for other sims (e.g. MSFS, P3D) and there are preferences for a brighter cockpit.

1 hour ago, brinx said:

We know what they were trying to simulate but it does not work well.

That depends who it doesn't work well for. You forget there are other users that are not impacted by the darkness of the instruments. Those who build or purchase there on own panels, or cockpits, only need their monitor view. Others like myself fly in VR who also not impacted was well.

2 minutes ago, BobFS88 said:

That depends who it doesn't work well for. You forget there are other users that are not impacted by the darkness of the instruments. Those who build or purchase there on own panels, or cockpits, only need their monitor view. Others like myself fly in VR who also not impacted was well.

That is true. In cases of cockpit only it does not matter. I have VR also, but my preference is still a multimonitor set up for more complex aircraft.

55 minutes ago, brinx said:

Good that you know him. It should be a simple question from you to him then.

What question?  I said I know him and I know what it takes to change his mind.  He doesn't want opinions.  He wants concrete proof that there is a problem.  What, exactly, do you expect me to ask him?

55 minutes ago, brinx said:

It was a stream where he was landing the f14 at a small airport I believe. I don't remember the exact one. I'm not going to waste my time looking it up for you. However, he acknowledged the dark cockpit complaint in that stream.

You're coming across as a flat earther now.  "The video is there, but it's up to you to do your own research."

No.  You made the claim.  You quoted him.  You need to provide the source.  That's how this works.  I'm not going to go blindly looking for a video somewhere, with a vague description of it, and then scrub through the video for a quote, that for all intents and purposes, you may have gotten wrong.  

55 minutes ago, brinx said:

Why do I need numbers for us to have a discussion about the dark cockpit?

You stated, and I quote, "Majority of the community agrees it's too dark regardless of what we are hearing from a few here."

I've seen fewer people than I have fingers on one hand, agree the shadows are too dark.  I've seen about the same amount disagree with that.  You said, "Majority of the community."  The flight sim community is a lot more than just a few people in an avsim thread.

A statement like that requires numbers.  I can say the majority of people say that Boeing is a better company than Airbus.  Without figures and percentages, that statement is nothing but an opinion.  So yes.  You need numbers to back up your statement.

55 minutes ago, brinx said:

The cockpit being dark has nothing to do with numbers.

In this instance, that is correct!  It has to do with opinions.  And an opinion is nothing more than a belief.  And so far, after 13 pages, not a single person has backed down from their opinion.

However, if we want to actually prove the shadows are too dark, we need measurements from a light meter inside a real cockpit, at a certain time of day, and then compare that to measurements from within the sim.  THEN, we can have a truly productive discussion.  And if someone disagrees, the person with the concrete figures can say, "Don't have to believe me.  Believe the numbers."

55 minutes ago, brinx said:

For the most part, people have been respectful in this thread. 

You got that right.  

55 minutes ago, brinx said:

You can choose to engage or not engage. Disagree or agree. As long as we are respectfully discussing the issue, I don't see the problem.

Very true.  But then it's my opinion that this thread has gone on way too long, and it's 13 pages of people trying to convince each other that they're right. That's not a discussion.  That's a debate.

51 minutes ago, level7 said:

Come on you're being a bit extra difficult here

In what way?  I'm a person who, when he hears or reads an opinion, wants FACTS before proceeding.  Without the facts, opinions are as shallow as puddles.  I would expect this thread to go for this long if numbers were introduced, and we discussed it from there.  But this has been a lot of "Shadows are too dark.  Trust me." and "Shadows look perfectly fine to me."

If the shadows are too dark, and a person is inclined to submit some data to LR, then that would be a ton more productive than engaging in a 13 page debate about something that, almost definitely, cannot be reproduced, in any sim or game, anyway.

Some people are happy with the shadows.  I am.  Others are.  So what?  Why do we have to keep reading the same stuff from people who think they're opinion matters more than others.  If I'm happy how shadows look, why does someone else have to tell me, "How can you be happy??  No, you should not be happy.  They're too dark."

Just think, if, hypothetically, everything posted in here about the shadows being too dark is actually correct, think what LR could have done with this information!  Instead it's being posted here.  

51 minutes ago, level7 said:

I'm sure the X-Plane team take feedback on features even when we don't have a statistically significant survey.

Not often.  People were screaming at Austin to fix the torque roll.  They simply said it was too much.  Austin wants NUMBERS!  "Prove to me it's wrong, then I'll look at it."

Guess what?  @Murmur provided the figures, and the torque roll was fixed in the following update.

A gentleman by the name of Mike Vivaldi, who has been a tester of our add ons for over a year, contacted Austin and told Austin that X-Planes critical Mach number and wing sweep physics were off.  Austin wasn't interested without numbers and data.  So, Mike put together an info package that would make a physics professors jaw drop.  Austin looked at it and after analyzing everything, and coming to the conclusion that Mike was, indeed, correct, immediately set about fixing it.  And made a video to explain it all.  

Don't get me wrong.  I don't mind opinions, and I don't mind discussing them.  But when I'm told things like, "This is how it is, and you're just going to have to trust me!"...well, no.  I don't have to trust anyone if they're going to insist they're correct.  The world doesn't work that way.  

Edited March 13, 20233 yr by GoranM

1 hour ago, GoranM said:

You're coming across as a flat earther now.  "The video is there, but it's up to you to do your own research."

No.  You made the claim.  You quoted him.  You need to provide the source.  That's how this works.  I'm not going to go blindly looking for a video somewhere, with a vague description of it, and then scrub through the video for a quote, that for all intents and purposes, you may have gotten wrong.  

In your previous post you speak of arrogance, but you are the one coming across as arrogant.  We were having a respectful discussion, about the dark cockpit issue in xplane. Suddenly I'm coming across as a flat earther now? How did we go from dark cockpit to flat earther? I'm laughing because of how ridiculous this is. This is where the name calling will starts, and it escalates into getting the thread locked I suppose. Guess what Goran? I'm not going to engage in mudslinging with you. I noticed this is your tendency when you don't like the conversation.

They did measurements, luxmeteter or whatever. As I've been saying all thread long, none of it matters if the cockpits are too dark on our monitors. Austin, himself has acknowledged the issue. What they are trying to simulate does not work well on our monitors.

But because of your little immature statement, I went and looked up the video to show proof for all in this forum to see.

Austin: I'm willing to fake it.
Austin: A computer monitor isn't as good as what we were born with. We are going to have to fake it so you can fly the dang sim.
Austin: We are going to fake it to make the sim usable.

I wonder why he would think it is not usable? mmmm, maybe because the cockpit is too dark at times?

 

 

 

Edited March 13, 20233 yr by brinx

All I care is that the cloud with terrain blending is sorted.  The rain issue is fixed.  Or rather the wx has significant improvement .  This is the most important in a flight sim, THE WX. 

Stalls are done correctly.  

 

 

31 minutes ago, brinx said:

In your previous post you speak of arrogance, but you are the one coming across as arrogant.

If you're going to accuse someone of something, post why.  I posted why I think specific people COME ACROSS as arrogant.  They're essentially saying their opinion or comment, which is devoid of any evidence, is more important than another persons.  THAT, to me, is arrogance.

31 minutes ago, brinx said:

We were having a respectful discussion, about the dark cockpit issue in xplane. Suddenly I'm coming across as a flat earther now?

I explained it, in detail...

1 hour ago, GoranM said:

No.  You made the claim.  You quoted him.  You need to provide the source.  That's how this works.  I'm not going to go blindly looking for a video somewhere, with a vague description of it, and then scrub through the video for a quote, that for all intents and purposes, you may have gotten wrong.  

That is exactly what flat earthers do.  They make the claim.  Globe earthers ask for proof, and flat earthers reply with, "Do your own research."

That is precisely what you did.

31 minutes ago, brinx said:

I'm laughing because at how ridiculous this is.

This does nothing to support your argument.  I can mention I've facepalmed at almost every 2nd post in here, but what good would that do to support my argument?

I will however agree, that I also laughed, but at how ridiculous this entire thread is.

31 minutes ago, brinx said:

This is where the name calling will starts, and it escalates into getting the thread locked I suppose.

I NEVER called you a flat earther.  I LIKENED you to a flat earther, and I explained why.  Don't twist it into something it's not.

31 minutes ago, brinx said:

Guess what Goran? I'm not going to engage in mudslinging with you. I noticed this is your tendency when you don't like the conversation.

I don't like factless opinions, and people telling me, "No you're wrong.  I'm right.  I don't have the proof, but trust me.  I know I'm right."

You stated, as fact, "The majority of the community think the shadows are too dark."

I asked for proof.  I NEVER said you were wrong.  I never negated your claim.  All I asked for was facts to back up your comment.  You started an argument.  

Show me proof. Show me numbers.  And I'll be happy to discuss them and gladly admit that you are correct.  Facts don't lie.  

THAT kind of thing, I will "like" as a conversation starter.  Do you not see how pointless it is to make a comment, which is essentially, an opinion, and not have facts to back it up?

That isn't a discussion.  That's someone trying to force an opinion on someone else.  If you condone that, then I'm more than happy to cease discussing this with you, so you'll be doing us both a favor.

31 minutes ago, brinx said:

They did measurements, luxmeteter or whatever.

Where?  I've seen histograms.  Which mean nothing.  A histogram changes the highlights, midtones and shadows to suit a persons personal preference.  If we're going to dig this deep into shadows and why they're wrong, then do it properly.  

31 minutes ago, brinx said:

Austin, himself has acknowledged the issue. What they are trying to simulate does not work well on our monitors.

Ahhhhhh.  There's a bit more context!  I'm wondering what else is missing.  Again, I would still love to see a video of what he said.  

31 minutes ago, brinx said:

But because of your little immature statement

And he accuses me of making insults.  This just shot your credibility down quite a bit.

31 minutes ago, brinx said:

Austin: A computer monitor isn't as good as what we were born with. We are going to have to fake it so you can fly the dang sim.

MORE CONTEXT!

This is absolutely correct!!  No hardware can replicate what the human eye can do. So, in saying that, this entire thread, all 13 pages of it, is completely moot.  We CANNOT replicate what the human eye is capable of, on a 2D monitor, or anywhere else, so we have to fake it, OR, do the best we can.  HALLELULJAH!!!!!

31 minutes ago, brinx said:

Austin: We are going to fake it to make the sim usable.

YES YES AND AGAIN YES!!!

Because it simply can't be done.  PERFECT CONTEXT.  

Just take a step back and think about what I'm asking for.  I don't want vague quotes.  Context is required for anything.  That includes the entire quote.  Not just something you can remember.

Arguments occur when 2 or more people have opposing opinions, and no one backs down.  I don't want an argument.  I'm asking for facts, which destroy opinion fuelled arguments.  

Edited March 13, 20233 yr by GoranM

37 minutes ago, brinx said:

Austin: I'm willing to fake it.
Austin: A computer monitor isn't as good as what we were born with. We are going to have to fake it so you can fly the dang sim.
Austin: We are going to fake it to make the sim usable.

27th of November.

It was released a week or so later

Then you get to where we are now:

Quote

This is a design decision, and we have talked about the pros (and cons) for weeks.

On January 21

Now it's mid March and we're in final tweaking if any.

Edited March 13, 20233 yr by mSparks

Goran, you wanted to see the proof of what Austin said. I said I was not going to waste my time looking up it up. You said I'm coming across as a flat earther and blah blah. And yes, you were trying to throw a little immature jab at me. I wasted my time scrubbing through videos to find it. What more do you want?

Austin said it out of his own mouth. "We are going to fake it to make the sim usable."

Faking it because on our monitors it too dark. You can't simulate what our eyes see easily on a monitor. If Austin's own words don't satisfy you, nothing ever will and I'm tuning out everything else that you say.

 

5 minutes ago, mSparks said:

Now it's mid March and we're in final tweaking if any.

Complaints will continue until tweaked.

25 minutes ago, GoranM said:

This does nothing to support your argument.  

Watch the video Goran. That is all I can say.

 

5 minutes ago, brinx said:

Austin said it out of his own mouth. "We are going to fake it to make the sim usable."

The "eye adaptation" is the faking it, they fake your pupil dilation based on where you are looking because the monitor isn't bright enough to change your pupil dilation.

This is why the cockpits look dark or the outside turns into a white haze when the sim thinks you aren't looking at them.

 

Edited March 13, 20233 yr by mSparks

10 minutes ago, brinx said:

Goran, you wanted to see the proof of what Austin said. I said I was not going to waste my time looking up it up.

And I appreciate it.  Now I see the full context, and am satisfied.

10 minutes ago, brinx said:

You said I'm coming across as a flat earther and blah blah.

Yes, but don't blah blah over the important part.  You know what I said and you know what I meant.  

10 minutes ago, brinx said:

And yes, you were trying to throw a little immature jab at me.

I was doing no such thing.  If that's the way you saw it, that's on you.

10 minutes ago, brinx said:

I wasted my time scrubbing through videos to find it. What more do you want?

Nothing.  If I was going to make a statement, I would absolutely be prepared to back it up, and I wouldn't even consider it a waste of my time.  You want to have a discussion.  So do I.  But we can't have a discussion without some kind of foundation.  

That has now been provided, and it has now been established that Austin has to fake the visual darkening and brightening, because the human eye can not be replicated on a 2D monitor.  Thereby, again, rendering this entire thread, a moot point.

10 minutes ago, brinx said:

Faking it because on our monitors it too dark.

He's faking the effects of eye adjustments.  I go by what I see on my own PC.  And what I see looks different to what efis has posted.  That's not wrong.  I'm just stating what I see, with my own 2 eyes.  

10 minutes ago, brinx said:

If Austin's own words don't satisfy you, nothing ever will and I'm tuning out everything else that you say.

When did I say Austins words don't satisfy me?  This all started when you said the majority of the community agree the shadows are too dark, and I challenged that.  

If you want to tune out, that's up to you.  Then you can't have a discussion, unless it's with someone who agrees with you.

10 minutes ago, brinx said:

Watch the video Goran. That is all I can say.

What does that have to do with you stating that you laughed at something I posted?

Have a discussion.  If you make a claim, provide a source.  If someone disagrees with you, don't laugh at them or call them immature.  That's killing the discussion.

Edited March 13, 20233 yr by GoranM

24 minutes ago, brinx said:

Complaints will continue until tweaked.

Thankfully, the complaints that X-Plane is to realistic and not enough like Disney Planes will continue well beyond that.

8 hours ago, level7 said:

Throw some fuel into the fire at 56:54... 🙂

I just quickly recorded a "through the lens" VR view.

The transition is only visible in 2D

you also do not get anything like the very black edges you get in 2D.

I'd say the root cause is probably not having a proper FOV setup, putting the eye adaptation out of whack.

I didn't really notice this before, because 2D sucks in so many more ways than that I can't really bare to look at it.

EDIT: yeah, if I set a "proper" field of view the transition all but vanishes, but then of course in an airliner even on a 19 inch monitor the cockpit isn't exactly usable either

https://sampsoid.com/fov-calc/

Monitor width including bezel:

19"

Visible width excluding bezel:

17.4"

Viewing distance:

24"

Field of View when driving:

42°

 

Edited March 13, 20233 yr by mSparks