1 hour ago, brinx said:

With mspark and a few others, everything is perfect.

The only way for it to be perfect is to have a monitor capable of display tens of thousands of nits brightness. Only then will your eye see on the monitor what your eye sees in the real world. LR has taken the route of maximising contrast and brightness by using 'eye adaption' to set brightness and contrast to where you are looking in the sim. VR or a head tracker will allow you to see detail AND good contrast wherever you look.

Of course, many in this discussion want to see ALL details, ALL of the time regardless where you they are looking. This will require the image to be overall less contrasty and flatter to acheive this. Personally I feel LR have taken the correct route, yet I do not consider it perfect - how could it be viewing the world on a low dynamic range monitor?

22 minutes ago, brinx said:

if you want to talk about pixel brightness of a TV

well, that's kinda the whole point isn't it? what do you think a glass cockpit in an aircraft is made of? fresh vegetables?

You want them bright and clear on a bright sunny day, and claim its unrealistic that they are dark and hardly visible staring out at direct sunlight 10,000 times brighter, and never in your whole life experience have you seen it otherwise.

 

Edited March 12, 20233 yr by mSparks

21 hours ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

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. 

What on earth are you talking about? Software tricks? It's literally a digital depiction. The entire image is software generated. That's literally the entire point of the whole lighting engine. 

Just to be clear - I have employed 'software tricks' to make the whole scene visible - so you think the world looks flatter and duller as a result? Correctly exposing all parts of an image has nothing to do with your monitors brightness.  

Image 1 - How Xplane deals with it - massively underexposes the shadows so as to expose the sky correctly - because that is at the 'centre' of the image.

Image 2 - How your eyes behave, appropriately exposing the entire image, and how the vast majority of digital lighting engines behave;

https://imgur.com/a/ue2EtAx

It is legitimately bewildering that people are arguing that 1 is correct. It's honestly like a group delusion. Have you actually forgotten what real life looks like?

 

 

Edited March 12, 20233 yr by 2reds2whites

2 minutes ago, 2reds2whites said:

Image 2 - How your eyes behave

Speak for yourself, Im not a Chameleon.

1 minute ago, mSparks said:

well, that's kinda the whole point isn't it? what do you think a glass cockpit in an aircraft is made of? fresh vegetables?

I never said anything about a glass cockpit, and I never said seeing glass instruments was a problem. I was talking about the overall cockpit getting too dark at times to the point you can barely see some buttons/knobs. This does not happen in real life.

24 minutes ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

The only way for it to be perfect is to have a monitor capable of display tens of thousands of nits brightness. Only then will your eye see on the monitor what your eye sees in the real world.

And that is my point, what we see in real life is not what we see on our monitor. So, it cannot be said what we see on our monitor is realistic because in real life it would not be that dark. 

Just now, brinx said:

I was talking about the overall cockpit getting too dark at times to the point you can barely see some buttons/knobs. This does not happen in real life.

Look again - in your peripheral vision. especially when you are squinting.

1 minute ago, brinx said:

So, it cannot be said what we see on our monitor is realistic because in real life it would not be that dark. 

But these guys are trying to say X-Plane looks like

8 minutes ago, 2reds2whites said:

Image 1 - How Xplane deals with it

When if they actually looked they would see it quite clearly looks nothing like that

 

8 minutes ago, mSparks said:

Look again - in your peripheral vision. especially when you are squinting.

But these guys are trying to say X-Plane looks like

When if they actually looked they would see it quite clearly looks nothing like that

 

 

I honestly didn't even think I'd have to explain that the images are an analogue for how the sim manages shadows and 'contrast,' but I suppose I should have expected that it would go straight over your head. Literally everything else does.

 

Edited March 12, 20233 yr by 2reds2whites

3 minutes ago, 2reds2whites said:

that the images are an analogue for how the sim manages shadows and 'contrast,'

I think the two images show perfectly the accuracy of your descriptions and images relating to X-Plane.

Completely unrealistic does spring to mind on that topic.

Edited March 12, 20233 yr by mSparks

13 hours ago, soaring_penguin said:

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

Do you think it is important to talk about the programming techniques used?
The customer doesn't care at all.

When you go to a restaurant, do you judge a dish by the list of ingredients, or by the taste?
You can use the best ingredients/tools in the world, but if the dish then turns out to be indigestible because you cooked it wrong, you failed the dish. 

Same thing for XP12.
You can use all existing XYZ programming languages, even "alien techniques" if you like, but if your product then generates dark panel bugs, you've failed the dish.
It's not hard to understand.

1 hour ago, brinx said:

because in real life it would not be that dark. 

Look at it, then it won't be dark.

7 minutes ago, efis007 said:

It's not hard to understand.

LOOK AT something in the cockpit or outside and it will be exposed correctly in XP12, do you agree with this?.  I guess for you we need to be more specific - TURN YOUR HEAD to look at something in the XP12 world and it will be exposed correctly, do you agree with this?

12 minutes ago, efis007 said:

Do you think it is important to talk about the programming techniques used?

For you, yes.

LR have decided to maintain contrast and brightness levels as high as they can.  They use a software technique called 'eye adaption' to achieve this - the brightness will be correct for what you are looking at.  You on the other hand want much more reliance on tone mapping by not using 'eye adaption'.  You are clearly not wrong in anyway for your preference, but I feel eye adaption gives a much better representation of the real world, you just HAVE TO MOVE YOUR VIRTUAL HEAD in the direction of what you are looking at.

This reminds me so much about the discussion of field of view.  People sit in a real C172 and can see the whole cockpit.  they then set their FOV to a high number in sim - they can see the whole of the XP12 C172 cockpit, but they have completely distorted distance to acheive it.  It looks like they are sitting in the rear seats, a mile long runway will look two miles and 100kts will look like 200kts. They seem to not understand they are viewing the world through a frame of the size of their monitor.

You are doing the same thing with the XP12 display.  In the real world you can see detail everywhere, because your eyes have the capacity to do so. You want the same in XP12 - It is of no consequence to you that brightness and contrast will be negativly affected.  Every image you have posted on the subject looks dull because of the way you are squashing brightness and contrast to get the details.

LR have taken the decision to use eye adaption, which I agree is the right way to go.  Use a correct FOV, have a calibrated monitor, and use VR, TrackIR or similar so you can move your head in the direction you want to look.  TrackIR only needs a very small head movement to move the view in the sim a large distance (almost like an eye flick to check instruments on finals).  It isn't a bug, but a development decision.

2 hours ago, 2reds2whites said:

What on earth are you talking about? Software tricks? It's literally a digital depiction. The entire image is software generated. That's literally the entire point of the whole lighting engine. 

You don't agree software tricks (technique, procedure, routine - pick whatever suits you best)  is being utilized for eye adaption or tone mapping?

2 hours ago, 2reds2whites said:

Correctly exposing all parts of an image has nothing to do with your monitors brightness.

If that were the case, why this long discussion?  If a monitor was capable of display real world brightness there wouldn't be an issue.

2 hours ago, 2reds2whites said:

Image 1 - How Xplane deals with it - massively underexposes the shadows so as to expose the sky correctly - because that is at the 'centre' of the image.

Well, your image looks nothing like what I would see in XP12 at a location like that.

2 hours ago, 2reds2whites said:

It is legitimately bewildering that people are arguing that 1 is correct. It's honestly like a group delusion. Have you actually forgotten what real life looks like?

As I said, XP12 would not display that scene in the way you presented it.  Real life? yep, I've seen that and XP12 does a remarkable job of portraying it.

59 minutes ago, efis007 said:

It's not hard to understand.

I'd say so

Some seem to be struggling tho.

Or maybe straggling...

Edited March 12, 20233 yr by mSparks

5 hours ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

There is no 'bug'

Great 👍 ...now go tell all these people. 

https://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?/forums/topic/122225-very-dark-cockpits/
https://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?/forums/topic/229494-cockpit-shadows-suddenly-go-dark/
https://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?/forums/topic/226792-cockpit-lighting/
https://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?/forums/topic/246558-cockpit-and-cabin-too-dark/
https://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?/forums/topic/278307-its-too-dark-to-operate-the-panel-even-in-the-middle-of-the-day/
https://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?/forums/topic/279591-the-cockpit-is-too-dark-sir/&

 

5 hours ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

Quite uncanny how XP12 has such realistic lighting.

Fantastic 👍 ... it is so realistic that it generates dark panels.
Ops sorry, my mistake, I forgot that dark panels are not a bug, they are "realism".
 

5 hours ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

Again, there isn't a bug, it is a development decision to get the lighting as realistic as possible.  

Ok, you convinced me. 👍
I finally understood that this anomaly is no longer an anomaly, it's not a bug to fix, on the contrary it's an advantage, a good thing, it's realism!
Thanks...thanks...thanks... 🙏 ... now I am aware that I have an ultra-realistic XP11 that generates gorgeous dark panels (ultra-realistic of course!) like XP12.  🤗✨🤸‍♂️