Cockpit exposure.

[odi11 3]

the area of sharpest vision is called the central field of vision. This has an extension of 20°. Assuming a distance of about 80cm to the cockpit, you can see most clearly in a circle with a diameter of 28cm. This means that when I look out of the cockpit window, I have to look down to see the instruments clearly. The moment I look down, the eye adjusts to the difference in brightness. Exactly, that's simulated.

[efis007 904]

51 minutes ago, mSparks said:

as far as i can tell efis007 is complaining it doesnt look like that when you are staring at the sun and is expecting it to be "fixed" to look like that when you are....

Who said "staring at the sun"??
Nobody mentioned "staring at the sun"!
I wrote verbatim to "look forward", which means to look out the windshield.
When you fly an airplane and look out the windshield at the horizon (without staring at the Sun!!!) the eye-brain system allows you to see the scene in its entirety.

In the real world when you point your eyes at the panel you will never see the sky become overexposed (white).

In the real world when you look at the blue sky (not staring at the Sun!) you will never see the panel go underexposed (black).

There's absolutely nothing realistic about this way of looking at things, it's XP12's buggy way of mimicking a camera. ❌

The real world is different.
This is the way our eyes see.

[SAS443 1,731]

To further illustrate what @efis007 is trying to explain to everybody. Consider this photo from the DA40. I tried to mimic the lighting levels (not focus) on the panel  my eyes experienced when glancing just above the cowling. Obviously not 100% perfect but close enough for its purpose.

Now, In XP12 this view would be rather dark, as illustrated from Q8pilot's stream of the RSG DA40

I have to tell you, this particular ambiance feels very sureal to me as a DA40 pilot, it doesn't scream immersion. DA40 has a canopy which almost acts like a greenhouse, light easily find its way into the cockpit even when it's cloudy.

XP12 is generally superb at creating believable lighting conditions and colors, but its big weakness imho, is when sitting in the cockpit looking out. Sometimes it just doesn't feel right at all.

[efis007 904]

3 hours ago, flying_carpet said:

In the real world, the human eye reacts like a camera.

No.

3 hours ago, flying_carpet said:

The human eye has a pupil and the camera a shutter.

Pupil and shutter are two different things.

3 hours ago, flying_carpet said:

Both are working very similar.

Our visual system is unique and inimitable because the element that makes the difference is not so much the eye, but the brain.
Our visual apparatus is phenomenal, it manages to balance tiny elements that would be very difficult for a camera.
Example, have you ever tried to look at the stars at night?
Even standing under a lamppost you are able to see the brightest stars.
A camera in the same situation would take a photo of a black sky with no stars (the camera is blinded by the streetlight).
The example of the stars makes us understand how incredibly capable our visual system is of seeing the world even in "uncomfortable" conditions.
Our eyes have no problem seeing shadowed objects with light in their face.
They do it every day and we don't even notice it.

4 hours ago, flying_carpet said:

You don't need to fly planes, it is sufficient to drive cars against the sun.

Exactly.
All motorists in the world drive in these, even uncomfortable, conditions of light.
And everyone sees their panels perfectly.
I'm 60 years old, I've been driving cars for 42 years.
In 42 years of driving I have never (I repeat: never) seen the panels of my cars as XP represents them.

4 hours ago, flying_carpet said:

Were you ever able to watch the speedometer (or other instruments) "simultaneously" when watching out of the window against the sun?

Absolutely yes.
I just drove the car all morning, I had sun on my face for more than an hour on the highway, I also wore very dark sunglasses, but I always saw the dashboard and the car instruments perfectly even though I had eyes pointed out the windshield.
Can I ask you a question?
But what kind of world do you "fans" live in? 
In the real world,....or in the XP world?
Have you ever entered the cockpit of a liners aircraft, for example a A320, parked in the square in broad daylight?
If you entered the cabin, what was that panel like in broad daylight?
Was it all black and unreadable?

[flying_carpet 666]

6 hours ago, Daube said:

I do agree that in real life the panel would not go as black as it is on this screenshot.

However, wihtout sunglasses, you would definitely have trouble reading/seeing the panel details after watching outside for a short while.

 

Yes, they do. That's also why it takes you a while to see anything in the room at night when you close the lights, until your pupils re-enlarge enough. As written above, yes there is an issue with the intensity of the effect as it is shown currently in XP12, but saying the "eye-pupil-brain absolutely does not behave as you describe" is absolutely wrong 🙂 It does, just to a lesser degree.

This video, like our sim, shows how camera lenses react. Our eyes do react in the same way, but to a lesser degree (with less dramatic effects, if you prefer). "Absolutely not" is not going to work here, you might want to write it differently. The logic between the camera lense and the pupil is the same. Vary the opening to let more or less light enter and hit the "sensor". When your pupil is fully retracted in a sunny day when you're seating outside, you won't see a thing inside the house at first, until you focus on that interior long enough for your pupil to reopen. Again, the sim just exaggerates the effect a bit, but the effect itself is correct.

You might want to stop thinking you're the only one in here who gets out of his room from time to time...

It doesn't make sense to discuss with efis, as ... you know ... haters gonna hate. And even use a lot of their time for underpinning it. I for myself wouldn't waste so much time for something I don't like, but that's possibly only me ...

 

2 hours ago, SAS443 said:

To further illustrate what @efis007 is trying to explain to everybody. Consider this photo from the DA40. I tried to mimic the lighting levels (not focus) on the panel  my eyes experienced when glancing just above the cowling. Obviously not 100% perfect but close enough for its purpose.

Now, In XP12 this view would be rather dark, as illustrated from Q8pilot's stream of the RSG DA40

I have to tell you, this particular ambiance feels very sureal to me as a DA40 pilot, it doesn't scream immersion. DA40 has a canopy which almost acts like a greenhouse, light easily find its way into the cockpit even when it's cloudy.

XP12 is generally superb at creating believable lighting conditions and colors, but its big weakness imho, is when sitting in the cockpit looking out. Sometimes it just doesn't feel right at all.

Cheating is a no go ...

4 screenshots without comment.

[SAS443 1,731]

8 minutes ago, flying_carpet said:

Cheating is a no go ...

4 screenshots without comment.

Why are you flying into the sun. We aren't even talking about that phenomenon. In Q8pilot shot, he is flying in daytime, BKN skies. Despite that, the panel is extremely dark.

It's incorrect.

 

 

[efis007 904]

29 minutes ago, flying_carpet said:

It doesn't make sense to discuss with efis

In fact there is no point in arguing with efis why Laminar will fix the problem. 🙃
What will you do after Laminar fixes the dark panels and lighting?
Will you open a forum of "alternative theories" where you can take refuge together with other "fans" to discuss dark panels again?
If you don't like this, don't write to me, write a letter to Laminar begging them not to change the dark panels. 🙏
Indeed tell him to make them even darker because they are more "realistic".
Indeed tell him to remove all panels from the planes, from today we only fly hang gliders without instruments, so no one complains anymore. 😄

[mSparks 2,094]

7 hours ago, efis007 said:

Who said "staring at the sun"??
Nobody mentioned "staring at the sun"!

that is the only time xplane makes the cockpit dark - when you are looking (with a naked eye, no sun visor or sun glasses or tinted windows - all of which Xplane can simulate) outside to the east in the morning or outside to the west in the afternoon. 

e.g.

Any other circumstance of the cockpit is coming out dark has nothing to do with xplane, and the dark cockpit is no more in the screenshot than trying to view a color screenshot on a black and white monitor and complaining xplane is always black and white.

Edited July 11, 2023 by mSparks

[MrBitstFlyer 3,897]

6 hours ago, efis007 said:

When you fly an airplane

Using XP12 is NOT flying an airplane, it is flying a sim!!  The monitor is a low dynamic piece of hardware that is being used to portray a high dynamic real world - SOMETHING has to be compromised, and I'm glad contrast isn't it!

[MrBitstFlyer 3,897]

6 hours ago, SAS443 said:

To further illustrate what @efis007 is trying to explain to everybody. Consider this photo from the DA40. I tried to mimic the lighting levels (not focus) on the panel  my eyes experienced when glancing just above the cowling. Obviously not 100% perfect but close enough for its purpose.

Now, In XP12 this view would be rather dark, as illustrated from Q8pilot's stream of the RSG DA40

I have to tell you, this particular ambiance feels very sureal to me as a DA40 pilot, it doesn't scream immersion. DA40 has a canopy which almost acts like a greenhouse, light easily find its way into the cockpit even when it's cloudy.

XP12 is generally superb at creating believable lighting conditions and colors, but its big weakness imho, is when sitting in the cockpit looking out. Sometimes it just doesn't feel right at all.

Another post trying to explain REAL WORLD lighting levels using REAL EYES!!  In XP12 we don't have real eyes looking at the world, we have a low dynamic range monitor. Somehow all that real dynamic range has to be squashed down and displayed on a monitor.  The path LR has taken is to maximise contrast by using an 'eye adaption' technique.  I applaud this approach which maximises contrast for where your simulated eyes are looking.  In the image you posted above, the only way to make the panel brighter is to look down a little, or rob some contrast from the outside view and give it to the panel.  If this is done, the overall contrast of the image will be lowered, thus lowering realism as far as I'm concerned. 

What you and @efis007 are wanting is to see is the panel AND outside to show the exact brightness/contrast you see with real eyes in the real airplane - how is this going to be achieved when you are viewing a simulated outside world with the a much lower dynamic range monitor?  It has been suggested previously that (I think it was local contrast) will brighten the panel without lowering outside view dynamic range, but until I see it, I remain sceptical outside dynamic range is going to be maintained without a form of HDR unrealistic lighting technique.

What infuriates me about @efis007 is his constant referring to REAL eyes - the sim world is NOT being viewed through a high dynamic range pair of real eyes, rather a low dynamic range monitor.  He needs to acknowledge this fact before any further usefull discussion on the subject can be made.  When this fact is acknowledged, the discussion can talk about good ways to represent real world lighting levels in a simulator, and the compromises that have to be made.

[MrBitstFlyer 3,897]

5 hours ago, efis007 said:

In 42 years of driving I have never (I repeat: never) seen the panels of my cars as XP represents them.

Good grief, why is this so difficult?

You view your real car dashboard in a real world of high dynamic range light using sophisticated real eyes.  In a flight simulator,  all that dynamic range has to be squashed down to be viewed through a low dynamic range monitor.  There HAS TO BE a compromise made to get as much dynamic range as possible in the sim.  The eye adaption technique is a clever way to do this.

If you want both the panel AND outside view to be as visible as YOUR REAL WORLD scenario, the overall dynamic range of the monitor will have to be spread over the WHOLE scene, rather than just where you simulated eyes are pointing.  I believe this representation of the light will degrade the image.

[MrBitstFlyer 3,897]

3 hours ago, SAS443 said:

Why are you flying into the sun. We aren't even talking about that phenomenon. In Q8pilot shot, he is flying in daytime, BKN skies. Despite that, the panel is extremely dark.

It's incorrect.

It would be incorrect viewing the real world with real eyes, sure.

[MrBitstFlyer 3,897]

3 hours ago, efis007 said:

In fact there is no point in arguing with efis why Laminar will fix the problem.

You will not acknowledge the problem - representing the real world on a low dynamic range monitor.

 

3 hours ago, efis007 said:

What will you do after Laminar fixes the dark panels and lighting?

If they manage to do it without spoiling the display with an HDR look, rejoice!

 

3 hours ago, efis007 said:

Will you open a forum of "alternative theories" where you can take refuge together with other "fans" to discuss dark panels again?

If LR use an unrealistic looking HDR tecnique, then yes, I will discuss when the sim looked more realistic.

 

3 hours ago, efis007 said:

If you don't like this, don't write to me, write a letter to Laminar begging them not to change the dark panels.

You have it wrong again, the letter to LR will beg them not to use a false looking graphical technique to lower overal contrast.

 

3 hours ago, efis007 said:

Indeed tell him to make them even darker because they are more "realistic".

You really don't get it, do you?  Dark panels in the real world using real eyes wouldn't be realistic, obviously.  In a flight simulator, using a low dynamic range monitor, compromises have to be made to portray real world levels of lighting. Either the dynamic range of the monitor has to be utilized for the whole scene, lowering overall contrast, or contrast is decided by where the simulated eyes are looking.  I prefer the second option, where the outside view contrast can be maximised.  You prefer the first option, where outside view contrast will have to be lowered to brighten the panel.

 

3 hours ago, efis007 said:

Indeed tell him to remove all panels from the planes, from today we only fly hang gliders without instruments, so no one complains anymore.

Please acknowledge that compromises have to be made to cram real world light levels into a monitor, then usefull discussion can be had.

Edited July 11, 2023 by MrBitstFlyer

[SAS443 1,731]

9 hours ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

What infuriates me about @efis007 is his constant referring to REAL eyes - the sim world is NOT being viewed through a high dynamic range pair of real eyes, rather a low dynamic range monitor.  He needs to acknowledge this fact before any further usefull discussion on the subject can be made. 

Sir, half the posts in this thread are people telling Efis that Xplane has it right, that our eyes are "cameras" and it is normal to have these dark cockpits. Glad you at least believe that's not the case.

You are indirectly agreeing with both me and Efis. But the fundamental difference is that you are content with this compromise, while me and Efis is asking for improvements in the tonemapping.

Edited July 12, 2023 by SAS443

[mSparks 2,094]

1 hour ago, SAS443 said:

and it is normal to have these dark cockpits.

it is absolutely not normal to stare at the sun.

Not being able to see much when you do however... is pretty normal.

Edited July 12, 2023 by mSparks