18 hours ago, efis007 said:

This photo represents low dynamic range.
The backlight blinded the camera, and the scene became completely black.
Which is precisely what XP12 does! A poor imitation of a low dynamic range camera that gets blinded.

 

This photo instead represents a high dynamic range.
Which is precisely what the human eye does!

How was it possible to obtain this visual detail of imitation of the human eye?

The top two photos show the problem displaying reality on a monitor - there just isn't the dynamic range available on a display device to display detail evwerywhere.  In XP12 I would move my head down a few degrees and the eye adaption feature would brighten the trees. If I moved my head up a few degrees I would be seeing detail in the sky as  the eye adaption feature compensates.

You say the bottom two images are imitating what the human eye would see, which may be correct for the details, BUT NOT the brightness and contrast you would see in reality. Both the bottom two images are flat, have low contrast and are just plain dull looking. You and I differ on what is the best solution to a low dynamic range monitor.  You want the bottom two images, where I want the top two images.  My reason for this is simple - I can move my simulated head and get a bright and high contrast image with details where I am actually looking. You want the bottom two images because you want details in the whole scene at all times, and are willing to sacrifice some contrast to achieve it. You may say contrast doesn't have to be reduced but I firmly believe it does.  Somebody posted a link previously to an article about tonemapping.  Every single image in that article looked nothing like reality. OK, the details were there in the shadows and highlights just as the eye would see, but a monitor cannot show what the eye can see. Every image looked flat with low contrast or looked completely false with an HDR look.

You are not adding anything new constantly talking about what cameras / eyes see.  I think we all understand your point but do not agree with the methadology. When I look out the cockpit, I want to see a radiant, bright and high contrast scene to replicate as close as possible what I see in reality. If the cockpit is a little dark I dont care because I'm looking outside! If I'm flying on instruments I don't care if the outside is a little too bright - I'm looking inside! If I need to look outside and inside, when on finals for example, I move my head very slightly up and down - the inside and outside will both look correct.  Ok, a real pilot with real eyes may not move their head, just flick the eyes, but we are not viewing reality on a monitor so a compromise has to be made.

It is clear you and others want the detail to remain the same as what the eyes see in reality.  To achieve that, software tricks have to be employed so the whole scene is visible at all times. whatever method is used, contrast will suffer and the world will look flatter and duller as a result.  Nothing wrong in having that desire, but I think LR have chosen the best option.

I do understanding tonemapping is already being used, but I think it would be a backward step to reduce eye adaption to achieve what you want. Do yourself a favour, get a TrackIR and get the best out of the way LR have chosen to approach this low dynamic range issue.

Edited March 11, 20233 yr by MrBitstFlyer

12 minutes ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

get a TrackIR and get the best out of the way LR have chosen to approach this low dynamic range issue.

Dont even need that,

That aitrack thing works with just a webcam or even via a mobile camera.

https://github.com/AIRLegend/aitrack

13 hours ago, 2reds2whites said:

Why do you think you have some overarching authority which means you can dispel the opinions of others?

You constantly whine when others present their views. If you don't like it then don't post.

Don’t like my opinion? Don’t read it.  Nowhere did I exercise any kind of authority. 

Perhaps learn how to make a statement without insulting people, and stop trying to cause trouble, and you may be taken a little more seriously.  Adding insults to your replies, only lowers your credibility.

Edited March 12, 20233 yr by GoranM

7 hours ago, Biology said:

Re. the points of @efis007:

While I see where you're coming from, you are wrong that this is the same issue since X-Plane 11. In X-Plane 11 the issue was caused by the inaccurate rendering engine and a tonemapper with too low contrast.

Forgive me, but how XP11 and XP12 works in terms of rendering or technology used is not very important.
I go straight to the heart of the problem that has been affecting the XPlane Simulator for 6 years.
And the problem is this: independently of the technology used, XP11 generates unrealistic dark panels, and XP12 generates unrealistic dark panels. 
Then, if you want, we can also discuss "why" it generates them and other technical details.
But the substance does not change.
Both simulators generate the same bug which - in the specific case of XP12 - was a nasty surprise.
In the old XP11 bug discussions (including the dark panel bug) there was a great sense of excitement when, in the newer topics, someone started talking about this amazing XP12 "photometric engine" that seemed like it could wipe out all the old bugs from the old XP11 by snapping your fingers.
Customer expectations were therefore very high, also thanks to the XP12 advertising which exalted the powers of the new engine.
Instead.... disappointment.
Leaving aside the other XP12 bugs for a moment (as bad AA and poor performance), seeing XP12 generate the dark panel bug again, was twice as disappointing as XP11.
Indeed, triple disappointment, because that bug had already reported since 2017 with XP11, it was on the list of the most bad and urgent bugs to fix, and therefore everyone expected to see it corrected already at the first release of the new XP12 sim presented in 2022.
One thing is certain: no customer expected to see black panels in XP12 again!
Instead we are here to talk again, after 6 years, of dark panels.
😕

Edited March 12, 20233 yr by efis007

1 hour ago, efis007 said:

generate the same bug

What doesnt matter how many times you call it a bug, Laminar still isnt going to believe you over a lux meter. This doesnt work like a Coca Cola advert, where you yell often enough and they eventually drink your poison.

Edited March 12, 20233 yr by mSparks

Efis , it is you who has a problem with this implementation. Most of us find it acceptable. Okay, it might need some tweaking from the part of LR. But please stop trying to convince others with pages and pages of dull descriptions.
If I didn’t  have an issue at first, I certainly don’t like to be convinced that there is one now.

Then after pages of dull photographers jargon, you refuse to talk about the different programming techniques being used ?
 

If there is an audience for this, it is  LR and their lead programmers. Thank you.

Edited March 12, 20233 yr by soaring_penguin

12 hours ago, efis007 said:

Both simulators generate the same bug

There is no 'bug'

 

12 hours ago, efis007 said:

amazing XP12 "photometric engine"

It certainly is.  Quite uncanny how XP12 has such realistic lighting.  Just one look at it stopped my 2106 hours in MSFS instantly.

 

12 hours ago, efis007 said:

seeing XP12 generate the dark panel bug again

Again, there isn't a bug, it is a development decision to get the lighting as realistic as possible.  The lighting either has to be realistic, or squashed to get all details visible at all times, regardless where the simulated eyes are pointing. 

 

 

11 hours ago, mSparks said:

What doesnt matter how many times you call it a bug, Laminar still isnt going to believe you over a lux meter.

Who cares what their lux meter says? The cockpit gets dark to the point where one struggles to see the buttons at times, during the day. This is not realistic, and it creates a bad user experience. I would venture a guess that 90% plus would agree it's too dark at times. 

With mspark and a few others, everything is perfect.
Anti-aliasing? no anti-aliasing issue, it is fine.
Cockpit too dark? No, this is realistic.
??????, that is fine too.

 

 

23 minutes ago, brinx said:

The cockpit gets dark to the point where one struggles to see the buttons at times

Not because

23 minutes ago, brinx said:

This is not realistic

But because, as already posted in this thread you have trouble:

On 3/11/2023 at 1:06 PM, mSparks said:

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

accepting the fact that having a bright outside view (especially when looking towards the sun) makes it difficult to see the instruments inside... a fact of real aviation that all your real pilot friends are acquainted with as well, I am sure.

______

Perhaps... when your opinion is at odds with pretty much every aircraft and simulator developer in 2023, it might be time to maybe consider your opinion to be wrong.

If not, might I suggest

https://store.steampowered.com/app/286880/Disney_Planes/

Is probably more your cup of tea.

Edited March 12, 20233 yr by mSparks

2 minutes ago, mSparks said:

But because you have trouble:

Because I live in the real world, and this is not what I experience. I never have issues finding anything even on the cloudiest overcast day.

10 minutes ago, mSparks said:

https://store.steampowered.com/app/286880/Disney_Planes/

Is probably more your cup of tea.

You don't like others suggesting what SIM you should fly. I don't need any suggestions from you on what I should fly. Secondly, I don't drink tea. Thank you very much.

5 minutes ago, brinx said:

I never have issues finding anything even on the cloudiest overcast day.

Me neither, its the only good thing about overcast days.

6 minutes ago, brinx said:

and this is not what I experience.

🤷‍♀️

sounds like you need to experience some more....

Here's a comparison between default and a composite image using 2 different exposure levels (default exposure for external world and a modified exposure for the cockpit).

Looks like LR will be doing something similar with the upcoming local tonemapper. If they also add sun glare blinding (like in the previous IL-2 screenshot), we'll have the most realistic simulation in all lighting conditions.

Default:

Composite:

 

 

36 minutes ago, mSparks said:

sounds like you need to experience some more....

Hahahahah. I need your level experience. I need the mspark level of experience because he knows it all. 

Like I said, I live in the real world. Not sure what world you live in. Cloudy days, sunny days, any day (not night), my eyes have never struggled to find anything.

 

36 minutes ago, Murmur said:

Looks like LR will be doing something similar with the upcoming local tonemapper.

Good that they are working on it.

Edited March 12, 20233 yr by brinx

4 minutes ago, brinx said:

my eyes have never struggled to find anything.

You've never once closed the curtain because you couldn't see the TV?

Wow. must be overcast _a lot_ where you live.

11 minutes ago, mSparks said:

You've never once closed the curtain because you couldn't see the TV?

Wow. must be overcast _a lot_ where you live.

That is right. My eyes never struggled to find the TV or any of the buttons/knobs on the TV. On a sunny day, cloudy or otherwise.

Now, if you want to talk about pixel brightness of a TV, screen reflectivity, OLED vs LED etc, that is a different topic and not related to what we are discussing here.

Edited March 12, 20233 yr by brinx