Cockpit exposure.

[Murmur 3,945]

23 minutes ago, mSparks said:

Somewhere there is a picture with Janov with a light meter in what I think was a 744 cockpit iirc.

The cockpits get dark because they are only slightly brighter than a broom cupboard with no windows the door closed and the light off. They are specifically designed to keep the light out as much as possible so the CRT/LCD displays are always visible and readable.

It is this that is fundamentally being objected to by those not OK with it at the moment, even Faruk evaded the look based exposure question because he fundamentally wants the same thing - cockpit lit by a 6000W bulb that is bright against the outside.

I've seen that pic, not objecting that at all. I just think a local tonemapper can give a more realistic perception of a bright outside and a darker cockpit.

[efis007 899]

36 minutes ago, Murmur said:

1 hour ago, efis007 said:

However I like to discuss things, what would be the points where you disagree with efis007?

E.g. that the cause of the issue is cockpit shadows.

How do you create a dark panel without shadows?
There is no "black light". 
On stage there is only object and light.
The part of the object that receives light is illuminated, the part of the object that does not receive light is in shadow.

And that's where the problem lies: XP12 generates lights and shadows that are too contrasty, so the image "burns".
Result: overexposed skies (in the light part) and dark panels (in the shaded part).

User @Biology's photo confirms the exact behavior of the solid objects above.
XP12 has literally "burned" the representation: the lights are too strong and the shadows too dark.
Result: overexposed sky and underexposed panel.

[Murmur 3,945]

@Biology already explained to you why the issue is not cockpit shadows, and I agree with him. So as I said, we'll agree to disagree because I don't think you can be convinced otherwise after his explanation.

[efis007 899]

2 hours ago, mSparks said:

they are the same users, they want to remove the look based exposure and turn the cockpit back into how it was lit in XP11:

Sir, you are underestimating XP11.
Let's say you're partly right: since XP11 migrated to Vulkan it's gotten worse.
But when XP11 was still in OpenGL version 11.41 the user had the ability (via script) to handle HDR light and shadow contrast as he wished.
And the results were outstanding, the panels were gorgeous, you could see the Sun illuminating the office without "burning the photo", there were no black shadows, the shadows had the correct shade of gray which allowed for a very pleasant view of the panel.
Flying liners in XP v11.41 OpenGL was a fantastic experience.

What was his sentence?
"they are the same users, they want to remove the look based exposure and turn the cockpit back into how it was lit in XP11"

I tell you one thing frankly.
Rather than flying with this "black horror" I prefer 100 times to return the cockpit back into how it was lit in XP11.... oh yes!

[efis007 899]

43 minutes ago, Murmur said:

@Biology already explained to you why the issue is not cockpit shadows, and I agree with him. So as I said, we'll agree to disagree because I don't think you can be convinced otherwise after his explanation.

I repeat the question: in an object illuminated by light, what is there (physically) on the opposite side of the light?
1- light
2- shadow
Please choose the correct number.

[scotchegg 4,240]

1 hour ago, efis007 said:

I repeat the question: in an object illuminated by light, what is there (physically) on the opposite side of the light?
1- light
2- shadow
Please choose the correct number.

That’s a bit of a leading question…

Couldn’t 3 be - a light shadow due to residual light reflecting off of other surfaces in the room (n.b. I am really not qualified to know, just a hunch)

[mSparks 2,094]

7 hours ago, efis007 said:

I tell you one thing frankly.
Rather than flying with this "black horror" I prefer 100 times to return the cockpit back into how it was lit in XP11.... oh yes!

problem solved. 😀 

It was a design choice, use look based exposure to capture the full dynamic range of the world, with everything specified in real world units, or go back to the crushed, washed out, small dynamic range of XP11 where everything is a guesstimate.

Further, aiui the tone mapper is set to one of the standard blender mapper, so aircraft authors now have 100% control over what the aircraft looks like before it ever goes near xplane and in blender WYSIWYG. I dont think any aircraft authors want that to change... (and any changes are likely to be dictated by them, not people wanting to impose fixes to individual aircraft as changes on everybody)

That is not to exclude - improvements to the light meter that controls exposure (authors can already set their own, like I did for the SR22 sunvisor), or general improvements at very low light levels such as night.

 

Edited March 18, 2023 by mSparks

[efis007 899]

9 hours ago, scotchegg said:

That’s a bit of a leading question…

Couldn’t 3 be - a light shadow due to residual light reflecting off of other surfaces in the room (n.b. I am really not qualified to know, just a hunch)

That's correct, it "should be", but XP12 doesn't run that mode.
Let's read what the Wikipedia encyclopy reports: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow
Phrases from Wiki:

"The more diffuse the lighting is, the softer and more indistinct the shadow outlines become until they disappear".

What is meant by "diffuse illumination"?
The sky.
The sky is the most powerful emitter of scattered light on Earth.
But XP12 seems to completely ignore its diffusion effect.

"The absence of diffusing atmospheric effects in the vacuum of outer space produces shadows that are stark and sharply delineated by high-contrast boundaries between light and dark".
Those words perfectly describe the XP12 bug: the "Space effect" which produces shadows that are too black.

I had already explained many times that excessive contrast - due to a wrong tonemapper + the camera autoexposure function - is detrimental to the overall image generated by XP12.
The XP12 dark panel bug is not the result of 1 single event, but 2 combined events that add up to the detriment of the image.
If I start from an image that has a wrong tonemapper, and add an autoexposure that contrasts the image more, the effect is devastating, I burn the image completely (skies turn white, shadows turn black).
How can Xp12 fix the problem?
- It has to modify the curves of the tonemapper, make them less aggressive, more softer.
- And he has to modify the "camera autoexposure function", make it less intrusive, or even remove it from the simulator because this function falsifies the excellent photometric engine of Xp12.
If I have an image generated by a realistic photometric engine, and I increase the contrast, what do I need the photorealistic engine for?!?
By increasing the contrast on the image I damaged the realism of that image which was (initially) realistic.
The camera's autoexposure changes the levels of light and shadow, thus... photorealistic image destroyed.






 

[MrBitstFlyer 3,896]

12 hours ago, efis007 said:

Flying liners in XP v11.41 OpenGL was a fantastic experience.

For me, those cockpits shots explains my nervousness about putting detail more important than light - the cockpits kind of look 'stuck on' to the scene, rather than being part of it.

[mSparks 2,094]

1 hour ago, efis007 said:

The camera's autoexposure changes the levels of light and shadow, thus... photorealistic image destroyed.

Now put her in a dark room with the sun behind her (like the cockpits we are actually discussing here) and get it to look "photorealistic"

preferably without shining a 6000W light into her face.

Edited March 18, 2023 by mSparks

[GoranM 3,792]

13 hours ago, efis007 said:

Sir, you are underestimating XP11.
Let's say you're partly right: since XP11 migrated to Vulkan it's gotten worse.
But when XP11 was still in OpenGL version 11.41 the user had the ability (via script) to handle HDR light and shadow contrast as he wished.
And the results were outstanding, the panels were gorgeous, you could see the Sun illuminating the office without "burning the photo", there were no black shadows, the shadows had the correct shade of gray which allowed for a very pleasant view of the panel.
Flying liners in XP v11.41 OpenGL was a fantastic experience.

What was his sentence?
"they are the same users, they want to remove the look based exposure and turn the cockpit back into how it was lit in XP11"

I tell you one thing frankly.
Rather than flying with this "black horror" I prefer 100 times to return the cockpit back into how it was lit in XP11.... oh yes!
 

They don't look good, at all!

Why would you think that looks even remotely acceptable??  The lighting looks completely off.

Agree with BitsFlyer.  They look like someone got some cockpits in good lighting, and photoshopped them onto some scenery.  

I have to start questioning your eyesight, and your original opinion, if you think those look anything close to good quality.

Edited March 18, 2023 by GoranM

[2reds2whites 827]

3 hours ago, GoranM said:

They don't look good, at all!

Why would you think that looks even remotely acceptable??  The lighting looks completely off.

Agree with BitsFlyer.  They look like someone got some cockpits in good lighting, and photoshopped them onto some scenery.  

I have to start questioning your eyesight, and your original opinion, if you think those look anything close to good quality.

Except he's talking about the flight deck illumination, which is far closer to reality than what XP12 has to offer. Simple as that. Source: spend lots of time in a flight deck.

If you'd have read his post then you'd have known that. He literally states it very explicity;

Quote

the panels were gorgeous, you could see the Sun illuminating the office without "burning the photo", there were no black shadows, the shadows had the correct shade of gray which allowed for a very pleasant view of the panel.

Regrettably you don't have any valid arguments so you just fabricate one.

Edited March 18, 2023 by 2reds2whites

[2reds2whites 827]

19 hours ago, mSparks said:

The cockpits get dark because they are only slightly brighter than a broom cupboard with no windows the door closed and the light off. They are specifically designed to keep the light out as much as possible so the CRT/LCD displays are always visible and readable.

Absolutely hilarious. 

This is a classic mSparks moment of comedy up there with 'mach number has nothing to do with temperature.'

[scotchegg 4,240]

18 hours ago, efis007 said:

I tell you one thing frankly.
Rather than flying with this "black horror" I prefer 100 times to return the cockpit back into how it was lit in XP11.... oh yes!

Agreed, XP11’s cockpit lighting looks better in these shots.

[mSparks 2,094]

2 hours ago, 2reds2whites said:

Absolutely hilarious. 

This is a classic mSparks moment of comedy up there with 'mach number has nothing to do with temperature.'

Round my way, learning new things isn't an insult.. we save that kind of mindset for the western staff.

congratulations on learning how a 748 cockpit is lit

(credit:Janov)

vs X-Plane

which do you think looks more real?

or

31 minutes ago, scotchegg said:

Agreed, XP11’s cockpit lighting looks better in these shots.

cheaper to, so have fun with the second best simulator available in 2023 until you can find some cash under the sofa for a VR setup or head tracking

https://www.x-plane.com/product/desktop/

Edited March 18, 2023 by mSparks