Cockpit exposure.

[Murmur 3,978]

You actually wrote detailed explanations suggesting that the issue was due to cockpit shadows, whereas it's something completely different and not related at all to shadows, as Biology explained very well.

Anyway, as Goran said, all these long discussions are a moot point now, because as we understand, LR is already working on a better tone mappjng algorithm that should improve the issue. Continuing to complain about the same thing and writing long posts on the issue is hence useless.

[GoranM 3,815]

@Biology

I never said the issue doesn't exist for SOME.  

But I also am one of those people who realize that the human eye can NEVER be replicated, as far as how it works, by any kind of hardware or software.  Especially, on a 2D monitor.  

For me, and a few other people in here, the lighting and shadows is "acceptable".  Perhaps it's because I'm on a Mac, and Mac displays are highly accurate when it comes to calibration.  I honestly don't know.  I also have a 4K monitor that gets calibrated monthly with a Spyder X calibrator.  

I'm not going to pretend I know everything about how they coded this stuff.  However, I'm willing to make consolations for the sake of a developer not being able to do something, because it's either not possible, or needs serious manipulating that even NASA would find challenging.  Price also comes into play.  

The depths at which efis went to, with his almost college level thesis on X-Plane lighting and how light and shadow works, and how it SHOULD work in X-Plane, is, to me, way over the top for a desktop simulator that costs under $100.  No software is going to replicate what he's asking for.  And you know, as well as I do, that the lighting engine is not the same in 12 as it was in 11.  Yet he keeps insisting it is. 

I'm all for getting it done as "right" as possible, but within reason.  Some things simply are not achievable to the lengths some people think they can be.  

If they improve it, great!  If they don't, I'm not going to dump X-Plane because of it.  It's something I'll accept, and move on with.  

Imagine I start a topic like this in the other forum.  And I point out everything wrong with it.  I'll be crucified within the first 2 posts.  Here, it's "constructive criticism" and an "opinion".

6 hours ago, Biology said:

Technicalities aside, you can see why I'm really frustrated now. Not only me and other developers spent several days discussing the issue and potential solutions with LR, but LR themselves acknowledged the issue multiple times and said that they will find a solution. Meanwhile we have people in this thread saying that I'm making a Mount Everest out of a mole hill, it's not a bug and I'm a chameleon, dismissing the points I make without even trying to understand them and even conveniently cutting out parts that change the context when quoting me. Just to prevent a possible misunderstanding, I'm not saying that you were doing these, I'm saying that they were done by some people in this thread. This short interjection aside, I don't think they constitute to a healthy discussion and I wish they drawed your attention as much as @efis007's posts did.

This is the problem with differing opinions.  The one's who are criticizing it, have the opinion that, "It's a bug.  It needs to be fixed.  Laminar are incompetent because it's a bug that has existed for 7 years..." resort to veiled insults directed toward those who say, "It's perfectly fine for me..."

Why does it bother people who insist it's a bug, when people who are fine with it, tell them they are fine with it?  I mean, 15 pages of discussion about a dark panel bug, that affects some people?  

It should have ended with "submit a bug report with as much information as possible, and hopefully they fix it."

DONE.

Instead, this thread has been constant "I know better than you..." with some insults thrown in.  

Edited March 14, 2023 by GoranM

[mSparks 2,125]

7 hours ago, GoranM said:

And you know, as well as I do, that the lighting engine is not the same in 12 as it was in 11.  Yet he keeps insisting it is.

Just on this specifically.

I don't particularly hold that against him.

If you disregard the new technology, whats now available to aircraft developers, what can be done and what's changed.

Take an XP11 aircraft, and put it in XP12, on an uncalibrated 15 inch monitor, at 80 degrees FOV.

He is absolutely right that the cockpits are going to be a long way from perfection, and look quite a lot like XP11. Not least because Laminar put quite a bit of effort into not completely borking XP11 aircraft out of the box.

But also, to use a car analogy he seems to like so much. He is basically taking his 1980 Ford Orion into a Subaru race team after using their test track and complaining they don't have any parts for him, then feeling insulted when told to look elsewhere, like maybe a Ford dealership.

Edited March 14, 2023 by mSparks

[rjack1282 330]

12 hours ago, mSparks said:

Not sure what you think I cant back up?

Was this you below?  I asked you to provide Laminar's numbers for commercial sales vs. entertainment sales.  Where have they said the base the properties and design decisions of the sim are based on the commercial audience?  You have stated all of the below as fact whereas I've only provided my opinion.  Please cite specific examples and then perhaps I will agree with your reasoning for the dark cockpit decision making.  But as previously stated, this will not change my opinion about the matter.

14 hours ago, mSparks said:

X-Plane is developed for commercial flight training, they base the properties and design decisions of the sim based on what that audience wants. That audience wants realism in every aspect.

But, unlike, say, Unigine, who charge $100,000+ for a single copy, they then make it available to a much wider audience with very fair pricing.

That's been Austins business model for 20 odd + years, if it's not what you want there are other options.

I don't claim to be a lighting expert and I don't care about all the technical stuff in the lighting engine.  It's my opinion, which has also been echoed by flightdeck2sim (numerous occasions) 320simpilot (numerous occasions) and blackbox711 (numerous occasions) and numerous others here and elsewhere that the cockpit panels shouldn't be that dark in a desktop simulator.  

[mSparks 2,125]

8 minutes ago, rjack1282 said:

Where have they said the base the properties and design decisions of the sim are based on the commercial audience

 

 

Edited March 14, 2023 by mSparks

[efis007 922]

11 hours ago, Murmur said:

You actually wrote detailed explanations suggesting that the issue was due to cockpit shadows, whereas it's something completely different and not related at all to shadows, as Biology explained very well.

Biology didn't say different things, it just added one more detail.
The problem of the dark cockpits is due to the shadows which (especially in XP12) are exaggeratedly black.
Why are they so black?
I had already explained it previously by also showing the histograms.
And Biology also explained it.
Black shadows bug occur because XP12 uses too aggressive dynamics curve.
The name of this curve doesn't matter... you can call it "contrast", "level", "tonemapper", "foo", "pluto" "donald duck"... call it whatever you want, it doesn't matter.
What is important is the result you get!
And the result is this:
The combination of aggressive tonemapper curve + automatic eyes exposure  causes a deleterious effect to the image, generating overexposed white skies and underexposed black shadows.
Shadows therefore are a key part of the bug.
Without the shadows, the dark panel bug would not exist.
Let's see why.
We have two elements on the scene: the front of the light, and the back of the light (shadowed part).

Our eye is used from birth to handle very high contrasts of light and shadow.
But beware!
It's one thing to say "the eyes are used to tolerating very high contrasts", quite another to say "the eyes love very high contrasts".
In our eyes, very high contrasts DON'T like it at all, they hurt it and cause it immense annoyance.
Those of you who have been on a theater stage know this.
The very high contrast caused by the darkness in the audience and by the followspot is terrible for any actor, the eyes don't like that condition.

To avoid discomfort in our eyes, optical experts always advise never to abuse the brightness of the monitors!
The monitors that we generally buy in stores are of good quality and are already calibrated by default for optimal performance, i.e. they do not emit too weak or too strong light.
If they were too strong, they would blind our vision and damage us.

Having said that, let's move on to the problem of dark panels.
As I said before, the problem occurs when any rendering engine gets the contrasts wrong or exaggerates them.

Let's start with a photograph with contrast levels that are well done for the human eye.



The image is pleasant, it is well balanced in lights and shadows (note the histogram).
This type of balanced curve allows you to have an excellent view of the details and three-dimensional sense.

What would happen if we bring the image into XP12?
This happens... the histogram curve bends a lot (note the histogram) because the XP12 tonemapper increases the light-shadow contrast too aggressively.

This process of "curving" the image too much DOES NOT increase the three-dimensional effect!
It completely destroys it because:
1- the lights are overexposed
2- the shadows are too dark
3- black shadows no longer make details visible
4- Increasing the curve generates what in architecture they call the "cartoon effect".

Cartoon effect?
What is it?
It's this: if I increase the contrast again I get a flat image.

Basically if I try to replicate the very high contrast of the real world on a monitor, by acting recklessly on the contrast curves, I'll get a cartoon!
🤭

Do not you believe it?
I'll show you.
Check out this photo taken by user UKflyer.

That poor Airbus has turned into a cartoon.
Please take a good look at it....it's all black...with the tools stuck on it. 🙁
How do some users claim that that "horror" is realistic... boh... it's a mystery of the human mind that should be investigated by psychologists.
It seems to have returned to the 2D panels of 30 years ago.

The dark panel bug can also be seen very well in the recent videos of the new Toliss A320 Neo.

I captured the image from this video in which from minute 52:00 you can clearly see the panel turning black when the plane moves towards the nose of the runway.
 

 

The video is very long, and for most of the flight time the panel remained black. 🤦‍♂️
The thought of buying such a beautiful plane...and then seeing it destroyed by XP12's engine....is awful. 😣
I can't wait for Laminar to fix this bug !

[MrBitstFlyer 3,918]

50 minutes ago, efis007 said:

The video is very long, and for most of the flight time the panel remained black.

I seriously suggest you check your monitor calibration as the panel never got black on my screen, just darker when the view was aimed outside.  Through most of the video the panel was clearly visible.  When looking inside it was perfect.  Very strange why you decided to take a single frame from that long video when the view was aimed outside. At the point you took the screen shot, the viewer only had to move the view down a few degrees if they wanted a brighter panel.

Again, this isn't a bug, it is working as LR intended.  Many people are saying they find the panels too dark, so LR are looking at the tonemapping again.  If they can improve it, and not negativley impact on the excellent lighting engine, fair enough.

Edited March 14, 2023 by MrBitstFlyer

[mSparks 2,125]

2 hours ago, efis007 said:

The problem of the dark cockpits is due to the shadows which

....are determined mostly by the aircraft author in XP12.

The airbus itself is getting a massive update "soon" not least with a brand new FMC. 

Putting everything else aside you had already been told.

Edited March 14, 2023 by mSparks

[efis007 922]

4 minutes ago, mSparks said:

....are determined mostly by the aircraft author in XP12.

Ah, are the dark cockpits caused by the incompetence of the aircraft manufacturers?
What a bad life is that of the "denier" forced to lie against all evidence.

Let's see what the designer of X-craft aircraft wrote in 2021 about dark panels.
https://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?/forums/topic/246558-cockpit-and-cabin-too-dark/#comment-2199442

[mSparks 2,125]

On 3/13/2023 at 10:15 AM, mSparks said:

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°

 

 

14 minutes ago, efis007 said:

Ah, are the dark cockpits caused by the incompetence of the aircraft manufacturers?

Are the above cockpits to dark for you?

[efis007 922]

2 hours ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

I seriously suggest you check your monitor calibration as the panel never got black on my screen, just darker when the view was aimed outside.  Through most of the video the panel was clearly visible.  When looking inside it was perfect.

Fortunately you're there to open my eyes numb from non-existent illusions.
The dark panel bug doesn't exist. ✋
I have to tell myself that all the time if I want to heal.

... "The dark panel bug does not exist."....
... "The dark panel bug does not exist."....
... "The dark panel bug does not exist."...."
... "The dark panel bug does not exist....".

Oh what a beautiful feeling of freedom. ✨
Now I'm free, I'm healed! 🤸‍♂️
Now I can finally see XP12 without dark panels anymore. 🤩

 

OOOPSSSS !!!  🤦‍♂️😖 🤢😤

 

 

[mSparks 2,125]

4 minutes ago, efis007 said:

The dark panel bug doesn't exist. ✋

For many of us, indeed it does not. congratulations on finally noticing.

 

[MrBitstFlyer 3,918]

1 hour ago, efis007 said:

Fortunately you're there to open my eyes numb from non-existent illusions.
The dark panel bug doesn't exist. ✋

It isn't a bug because it is by design.  It sounds like LR is looking again at tonemapping to see if they can tweak for those that find the panels too dark.

In the video you posted, the panel was visible at all times on my monitor (which is why I mentioned monitor calibration).  For those times you suggested the panel was 'black', it in fact wasn't.  In the screenshot you posted, the virtual eyes were looking outside, so to my logic the panel would be a little darker, as the exposure needs changing to preference the outside.  If the panel has to be brighter, I would suggest looking at the panel.

Still, you don't like eye adaption so LR is going to revisit Tone mapping.

Edited March 14, 2023 by MrBitstFlyer

[mSparks 2,125]

22 minutes ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

so LR is going to revisit Tone mapping.

Not clear that that is a given.

I would expect several of the default aircraft, not least the SR22 and Airbus to get new albedo textures and PBR that more closely represent the real world materials they are made from.

Possibly some alterations to the light meter, especially with respect to FOV. But this may just get left to plugin authors and aircraft devs. As pointed out really early on there are some very powerful datarefs people can modify themselves reasonably easily accessible. 

There has been a lot of talk, but the guys who make the decisions have not weighed in in any meaningful way since well before the recent changes, the most influential voice inside Laminar wrt this is probably Janov, and the last I heard his position was

https://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?/forums/topic/281852-xp1201r2-out/&do=findComment&comment=2494574

And lastly a sim change now isnt a minor undertaking, it would also need validating against the entire fleet, VR, 2D, all the different monitor and projection configurations such that it doesnt do more harm than good. It needs to be a very compelling argument to pull that trigger, and I don't believe anyone has made one convincingly enough.

[MrBitstFlyer 3,918]

52 minutes ago, mSparks said:

Not clear that that is a given.

Good, anything that may degrade the lighting engine in XP12 would be disaster.