Cockpit exposure.

[Murmur 3,944]

5 hours ago, Biology said:

I want to highlights a few things as the same factually incorrect points are constantly being made:

Thanks @Biology for your technical posts on this issue, at least I found them extremely interesting, so your effort wasn't totally wasted 🙂. I'm afraid though, you won't convince those who think current cockpits are perceptually correct that they aren't, and viceversa I don't think they can convince us that cockpits are perceptually correct instead.

I'm sure LR will do a good job with the revised tonemapper they're working on.

 

Edited March 17, 2023 by Murmur

[efis007 898]

5 hours ago, mSparks said:

They want to turn the right hand side we have now into the left hand side because the bottoms of the trees are too dark - in this case the cockpit, which is 1000 times darker than that.

->dull and lifeless.

But do you "fans" have any comprehension problems, or do you pretend not to understand?
Please explain.... what would that image represent?
And what does that image have to do with the XP12 problem?

Do you want to see a "lifeless" image, i.e. completely unreal, blinding, flat, without details?
Look how wonderful.

We don't want coal and darkness in broad daylight.
What we critics would like to see is "vitality and detail", that is, this.

Airbus pilots know what you see in the cabin during the flight.
Ask them if they see the panels like in the first photo!
You won't find any pilot in the whole world who will tell you that that cabin is realistic.

XP12 (also MSFS!) invented an ridiculus function called "eye autoexposure".
This strange function should have been called by its real name: "camera autoexposure", not "eye exposure"!!
The way in which that function was implemented in fact does not remotely resemble the behavior of the human eye, but it resembles 100% the behavior of a camera light meter.
Let's see in detail what XP12 does.
I will use actual photographs from my camera.

If I aim at the sky, the meter closes the exposure and captures the real blue sky.
But the panel ends up underexposed.

If I aim at the panel, the meter opens the exposure and captures the light panel.
But the sky ends up in overexposure.

Question: Does the human eye work like this? In the real world, if I look the my car cockpit, do I see the sky become overexposed and change color?
The answer is NO. No human eye sees things that way.
But the cameras do!! Their light meter is easily fooled and the above images are generated.
But we are not cameras.
We are human.
And how do the eyes of humans see in that scene?
This.
In any direction the eyes point the image should not change.
This is how the reality of the human eye works.

And that's exactly what we "critics" want from XP12.
We want the realism of the human eye, not a camera.
We want detailed images where you can see things as the human eye would.
XPlane needs to stop replacing itself (badly) in our eyes.
Our eyes are ours.... we manage them.

The image below is yours.
You wanted to know if it was too dark.
What do you think?
Better like this...

... or like this?

[Humpty 751]

@efis007   One should understand, XP doesn't know where you are looking. For it to know where your retina is focusing then one would need an implant and connect it with the computer using bluetooth or something.  

So in the case of the dark cockpit it's probably correct in what LR have done. your view on the cockpit is the camera. So it's always looking straight unless you have some head tracking or use the CTRL + NUM Keys

Even if your eye moves to the outside when the XP view is looking at  12 o'clock the lighting will not change. 

The XP camera view will not have dynamic light, maybe it can be solved by what @Biology is talking about the tonemapper or some kinda coding on that camera view so that the light is rendered like what we have in real. Ofc real real not 100%

 

Edited March 17, 2023 by Humpty

[mSparks 2,094]

3 hours ago, efis007 said:

Please explain.... what would that image represent?

it represents what happens when you  remove the underexposure of a pitch back cockpit against a daylit background by lighting it like a photoshoot

which is the only way you can increase the brightness to that of the outside and make it not pitch black.

Edited March 17, 2023 by mSparks

[brinx 276]

14 minutes ago, Humpty said:

@efis007   One should understand, XP doesn't know where you are looking. For it to know where your retina is focusing then one would need an implant and connect it with the computer using bluetooth or something.  

And there lies the problem with the current implementation. It shouldn't matter where my eyes are looking. It is a desktop sim, and the view is usually split between the cockpit and exterior. Having to       move the camera to change the exposure isn't ideal.

[Humpty 751]

14 minutes ago, brinx said:

And there lies the problem with the current implementation. It shouldn't matter where my eyes are looking. It is a desktop sim, and the view is usually split between the cockpit and exterior. Having to       move the camera to change the exposure isn't ideal.

Yes, it's not ideal on a computer. 

The only thing is either they increase the brightness on the cockpit or make some kind of camera view to render the light. Maybe ray tracing can help ?  

[mSparks 2,094]

1 hour ago, brinx said:

shouldn't matter where my eyes are looking

and it would not matter.

if you had a monitor capable of 100,000 lux.

since you cant buy monitors capable of blinding you, and because xplane is generating the scene with real world lighting, the only other way you are getting an unlit cockpit to not be black against a daylit background is to do what they do in the real world and shine a big bright light on it, big jumbo landing light should do the job, drop one inside the cockpit shining on the dashboard.

lb_landing_spot or smth. you'll probably need to increase the displays to output the same amount of light as the sun to keep them visible though, and of course, like the real world, that will only remotely work for that very specific single viewing angle, everything else would just look even more silly than doing that in the first place, unless you go bilogicalnanobots direction of trying to create that spotlight with algorithms that track where you are looking...

gl hf

Edited March 17, 2023 by mSparks

[efis007 898]

3 hours ago, Humpty said:

Maybe ray tracing can help ?  

In my opinion it is enough to fix the tonemapper, and eliminate the "camera autoexposure" function.
That function made the problem even worse because overexposing or underexposing the scene further damages the final result.
That is, if the XP12 tonemapper is already wrong, and you also add "camera autoexposure", the union of these two (wrong) functions creates a disaster.
The developers keep calling that feature "eyes autoexposure", but that name doesn't make sense because Xplane mimics the camera autoexposure.
Basically XP12 works like this, it brightens and darkens objects based on where the camera is pointing (click on the link to see the video).

https://mega.nz/file/w4xiQJqL#PqT3NkuonNaKSnoudBQSmNNLwp6nXCd7Mpd2Mv9DuBQ

Anyone of us can do the experiment, just stand in front of a window, move our eyes up and down, and see that our eyes don't see the world as the video showed!
If XP12 aims to become realistic, it must immediately eliminate that absurd "camera autoexposure" function, because that function has nothing to do with imitating the human eye.
Plus that feature makes the problem of overexposed skies and dark panels worse.
 

[mSparks 2,094]

50 minutes ago, efis007 said:

and eliminate the "camera autoexposure" function.

That would fix it for people who want a completely unrealaistic flight simulator.

Or they could just go fly disney planes and leave those of us who want a realistic simulator alone.

50 minutes ago, efis007 said:

damages the final result.

For people using uncalibrated monitors, at 80 degrees FOV, in an airplane with incorrect albedo only, not anyone who actually cares about flight sim, just the gamers.

50 minutes ago, efis007 said:

it brightens and darkens objects based on where the camera is pointing (click on the link to see the video).

correct, it gets the lighting perfect for where you are looking, well done.

50 minutes ago, efis007 said:

and see that our eyes don't see the world as the video showed!

make sure to point a camera at your pupil to find which of  Miosis or Mydriasis you have as well.

Edited March 17, 2023 by mSparks

[MrBitstFlyer 3,896]

8 hours ago, efis007 said:

But do you "fans"

I think you should tone down your language a little.  You are suggesting somebody who likes the lighting is somehow blinded to bugs/faults by a love of LR and XP12.  This is not the case at all.  For example, the depth problems with the clouds drives me crazy, and I wish this had been sorted months ago. 

The lighting is great for me and I never perceive dark panels, probably because I use a TrackIR so the brightness is always correct for where my head is pointing.  We both have a valid point, and for the most part this thread has been respectful.  Labelling somebody as a 'fan' is not repectful or needed.

[MrBitstFlyer 3,896]

41 minutes ago, efis007 said:

In my opinion it is enough to fix the tonemapper, and eliminate the "camera autoexposure" function.

No, no, NO!  If LR can adjust the tonmapper and not degrade the lighting then I would go along with that.  The camera autoexposure function is absolutely require to help maintain high contrast.

43 minutes ago, efis007 said:

That function made the problem even worse because overexposing or underexposing the scene

You use the word 'scene' which is the crux of the issue.  A flight Simulator is always going to have a very bright, and darker, part of the scene. I don't believe relying on a tonemapper only is going to be sufficient to maintain contrast across the whole scene.  the eye autoexposure is a brilliant idea to maximise the brightness/contrast on a low dynamic range monitor.  As the eye looks more towards the dark or light areas of the scene, the contrast can be maximised for that area.

 

49 minutes ago, efis007 said:

Basically XP12 works like this, it brightens and darkens objects based on where the camera is pointing

A great idea to maximise brightness/contrast in the area being looked at.

 

51 minutes ago, efis007 said:

Anyone of us can do the experiment, just stand in front of a window, move our eyes up and down, and see that our eyes don't see the world as the video showed!  If XP12 aims to become realistic, it must immediately eliminate that absurd "camera autoexposure" function, because that function has nothing to do with imitating the human eye.

Yet again, you are using eyes as the tool for an experiment, but we only have a low dynamic range monitor to see XP12! To see detail  in both bright and dark areas of the image, developers use a tonemapper. You keep focussing on detail only, but for a realistic feeling of being in the real world, contrast must not be degraded to get that detail.  @Biology gave some very good technical explanations where I misunderstood some features of tonemapping, but I firmly believe the camera autoexposure system must remain in XP12.  If LR can improve tonemapping and use that in combination with it, I'll be fine with that.

 

[efis007 898]

33 minutes ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

No, no, NO!  If LR can adjust the tonmapper and not degrade the lighting then I would go along with that.

The lighting has nothing to do with the tonemapper and camera autoexposure.

34 minutes ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

The camera autoexposure function is absolutely require to help maintain high contrast.

That function is detrimental to realism because it "burns" the image.
I had already proved it with the photographs.
What you call "high contrast" in photography is called "burnt image"!

This is an image with well balanced contrasts.
Result: beautiful light and shadow, excellent detail, good three-dimensional perception, visual pleasure.

This is an image burned by unbalanced contrasts caused by incorrect autoexposures.
Result: blinding lights, too dark shadows, three-dimensional flattening, lack of detail, visual fatigue.

This last image ↑↑ bears a striking resemblance to what XP12 generates (especially in airliners): images completely burnt out by reckless use of improper tonemapper and improper camera autoexposure. 

I also demonstrated how our human eye does NOT work.
No human sees the world light up and darken like this camera does. ↓↓
Video. 
https://mega.nz/file/w4xiQJqL#PqT3NkuonNaKSnoudBQSmNNLwp6nXCd7Mpd2Mv9DuBQ
XP12 is mimicking this ↑↑
The unrealism.
That's why that autoexposure feature should be banned from the simulator.
That function does damage and imitates the fake.
I'm not asking you to believe me. 
I ask you to believe your eyes!
Do the camera experiment, stand in front of the window, move your eyes up and down, and tell me: "how do your eyes see the world?"
Do they see it as the camera?!?
Do you see the sky turning white?
And the radiator go dark?
My eyes don't see like that at all !!! 😳
So... since we've established beyond any doubt that XP12 is imitating a camera autoexposure and not the human eye... it's distorting reality, it's an unrealistic simulator.
I'm so sorry, but that's the sad truth, whether you like it or not. 🤷‍♂️

[GoranM 3,779]

So, the tonemapper problem, is distorting reality in a simulation(???), and therefore the entire software package is an unrealistic flight simulator. Let me get this right.  X-Plane is unflyable, because of the shadows?
Oh brother!  Are we being punk'd?  Is this actually legit, or is he just trolling for the sake of trolling?

🤦‍♂️

Edited March 17, 2023 by GoranM

[mSparks 2,094]

28 minutes ago, efis007 said:

also demonstrated how our human eye does NOT work.

And what does that have to do with it? its not simulating the eye - it is stimulating the eye. Two completely different things.

the monitor can only put out so much light - about 400 lux, outside daylight is 100,000 lux

It needs to "trick" the eye into thinking 400lux is actually 100,000 lux

making the inside e.g. 20 lux and outside 400lux already breaks that down, because then the cockpit looks like it is 5,000 lux instead of 100.

bring them closer together and all you do is wash the image out more.

Edited March 17, 2023 by mSparks

[Humpty 751]

Wow 18 pages of discussing the dark 😛