1 hour ago, brinx said:

That shows that it can be improved by default.

There is for sure a burden already for aircraft authors to adapt to the lighting changes already introduced. 

More changes at the sim level would mean it takes even longer to adapt them, because the changes made so far would need redoing.

I am a very very long way from convinced there is any meaningful issue remaining at the sim level, Ive seen lots of claims of "improvements" that would improve one aircraft and ruin 10 others, for a single problem that would be resolved just by updating the albedo of the cockpit of the aircraft with problems..

Thats not saying there isn't opportunities to do better, moonlight for example is still my pet peeve, but wrecking what we have now in a futile attempt to silence critics that clearly care nothing about getting the cockpit to look realistic (or they would already be using virtual reality) would be an absolute disaster.

Edited March 13, 20233 yr by mSparks

6 hours ago, 2reds2whites said:

Is there a better example of the clown show on display in this thread than below? This is apparently an example of a beautifully bright and contrasty image, both inside the cockpit and out 🤣

https://imgur.com/6QBioS

T

A very dishonest post from yourself.  You have linked to my video file and snipped one image from that video, just as the eye adaption is raising the brightness for the cockpit. 

The cockpit panels are too dark for a desktop sim imo. You have to strike a balance considering the default view is basically half outside and half inside. If I wanted realistic cockpit lighting I would go fly for real. 

26 minutes ago, rjack1282 said:

The cockpit panels are too dark for a desktop sim imo.

Just as a quick test, I inverted the cockpit albedo in the SR22, just to see how much "play" there is for aircraft authors

I really do not think at all at this point it is the sim at fault.

didn't change any of the brightness or PBR either which could make it even brighter

26 minutes ago, rjack1282 said:

You have to strike a balance considering the default view is basically half outside and half inside.

Most of the discussion here is how much of that balance should be up to the aircraft author, and how much is out of their control and dictated by the sim.

26 minutes ago, rjack1282 said:

If I wanted realistic cockpit lighting I would go fly for real. 

That genre is already more than covered, knock yourself out.

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

 

Edited March 13, 20233 yr by mSparks

18 minutes ago, mSparks said:

Just as a quick test, I inverted the cockpit albedo in the SR22, just to see how much "play" there is for aircraft authors

I really do not think at all at this point it is the sim at fault.

didn't change any of the brightness or PBR either which could make it even brighter

Most of the discussion here is how much of that balance should be up to the aircraft author, and how much is out of their control and dictated by the sim.

That genre is already more than covered, knock yourself out.

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

 

Cool stuff but not sure how that would change my opinion on the cockpit brightness of a desktop simulator. 

8 minutes ago, rjack1282 said:

would change my opinion

You made the foundation of your opinion quite clear, it's not supposed to

48 minutes ago, rjack1282 said:

If I wanted realistic cockpit lighting I would go fly for real. 

Not Laminars target audience, don't expect them to deliver what you want.

Now, if you just paid $1,000 for a commercial licence, that would be a slightly different story, but then you would likely already not be using any equipment or aircraft this is currently an issue on.

Edited March 13, 20233 yr by mSparks

7 minutes ago, mSparks said:

You made the foundation of your opinion quite clear, it's not supposed to

Not Laminars target audience, don't expect them to deliver what you want.

Now, if you just paid $1,000 for a commercial licence, that would be a slightly different story, but then you would likely already not be using any equipment or aircraft this is currently an issue on.

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Laminar make a mobile flight sim app? Is your position that Laminar made that for real pilots...i.e. their target audience?  Or are they targeting the casual simmer but with tools might also be suitable for pros?  Either way, how would dark cockpit lighting on a desktop simulator have anything to do with either?

9 minutes ago, rjack1282 said:

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Laminar make a mobile flight sim app? Is your position that Laminar made that for real pilots...i.e. their target audience?  Or are they targeting the casual simmer but with tools might also be suitable for pros?  Either way, how would dark cockpit lighting on a desktop simulator have anything to do with either?

X-Plane is developed for commercial flight training, they base the properties and design decisions of the sim based on what that audience wants. That audience wants realism in every aspect.

But, unlike, say, Unigine, who charge $100,000+ for a single copy, they then make it available to a much wider audience with very fair pricing.

That's been Austins business model for 20 odd + years, if it's not what you want there are other options.

Edited March 13, 20233 yr by mSparks

4 minutes ago, mSparks said:

X-Plane is developed for commercial flight training, they base the properties and design decisions of the sim based on what that audience wants. That audience wants realism in every aspect.

But, unlike, say, Unigine, who charge $100,000+ for a single copy, they then make it available to a much wider audience with very fair pricing.

That's been Austins business model for 20 odd + years, if it's not what you want there are other options.

You are stating these things as fact although you and I know you have no clue about the inside workings at Laminar or their target audience.  What are their commercial sales vs. entertainment sales?  Give us specifics since you know.  You could easily persuade anyone that the dark cockpits are perfect in every way if only we were the target audience.  This would be a one page thread instead of fifteen if you could just make a compelling argument.  Instead we keep getting the @scotchegg defined argument that is not only embarrassing for you, but hinders any progress towards a mass appealing XP that I would really like to see.

3 minutes ago, rjack1282 said:

although you and I know you have no clue about the inside workings at Laminar

Ive been around xplane since 2017, I know fairly well now many of the super old timers who have been at it since the naughties (not exactly friends with all of them, but its a diverse community), I'm an XP dev myself, Ive seen plenty of their discussions and how they make their decisions, worked with a couple of their commercial customers

https://github.com/mSparks43/747-400

Is the kind of thing I do just for fun.

So yeah, fairly reasonable insight into their inner workings, I know who is who, I mostly know who has responsibility for what, more than my fair share of fixed bugs in the release notes are ones I discovered and sent detailed recreates to facilitate fixing them.

Never once in all that time have I seen them do something just because its popular. 

But sure,

23 minutes ago, rjack1282 said:

You could easily persuade anyone that the dark cockpits are perfect in every way

Quite the opposite, convince me it is something they need to change, and you have a more than a fair chance of them changing it.

But "I prefer the lighting of Disney Planes" will get you filed alongside the bug reports submitted by flat earthers (although the last one they got from them was 2019, I checked)

So you have no information to backup any of the claims you made which instantly discredits anything else you write. That’s a you problem. 

23 minutes ago, mSparks said:

Ive been around xplane since 2017, I know fairly well now many of the super old timers who have been at it since the naughties (not exactly friends with all of them, but its a diverse community), I'm an XP dev myself, Ive seen plenty of their discussions and how they make their decisions, worked with a couple of their commercial customers

https://github.com/mSparks43/747-400

Is the kind of thing I do just for fun.

So yeah, fairly reasonable insight into their inner workings, I know who is who, I mostly know who has responsibility for what, more than my fair share of fixed bugs in the release notes are ones I discovered and sent detailed recreates to facilitate fixing them.

Never once in all that time have I seen them do something just because its popular. 

But sure,

Quite the opposite, convince me it is something they need to change, and you have a more than a fair chance of them changing it.

But "I prefer the lighting of Disney Planes" will get you filed alongside the bug reports submitted by flat earthers (although the last one they got from them was 2019, I checked)

 

6 minutes ago, rjack1282 said:

So you have no information to backup any of the claims you made which instantly discredits anything else you write. That’s a you problem. 

The difference between me and you in this particular disagreement, is I dont need to provide any backup information in order that things stay the same.

I was just informing you, that from my experience "I dont like ....." will get about as much attention inside Laminar as a debate over whether its Tuesday tomorrow. They have more important things to be doing.

17 minutes ago, mSparks said:

The difference between me and you in this particular disagreement, is I dont need to provide any backup information in order that things stay the same.

I was just informing you, that from my experience "I dont like ....." will get about as much attention inside Laminar as a debate over whether its Tuesday tomorrow. They have more important things to be doing.

Look, it’s all good. I stated my opinion that you tried to discredit with facts you couldn’t backup. Everyone’s ego gets the best of them sometimes. I’m not one to judge. 

4 minutes ago, rjack1282 said:

Look, it’s all good. I stated my opinion that you tried to discredit with facts you couldn’t backup. Everyone’s ego gets the best of them sometimes. I’m not one to judge. 

Not sure what you think I cant back up?

the developer documentation on the new xplane lighting system is here.

https://developer.x-plane.com/2021/11/photometric-lighting-what-is-it-and-why-do-we-need-it/

the whole point of the new lighting system is it

"Simply put, a photometric renderer is one that tries to create realism by using actual real world light levels (specified in real physical units) in its internal calculations. In other words, we render the world as it is."

Like it or not that isnt going away.

10 hours ago, soaring_penguin said:

Actually Yes, it is important to understand how an effect is reached. 
Because the solution for your problem would be very different.

The customer is not interested in understanding these details, the programming languages are of interest to the company's engineers.
The customer just wants a product to work well.

Example, If you buy a new car... and the engine stalls because the on-board ECU uses the OS-X system instead of OS-Y,... it is important (for the customer) to know the "programming language " of the car?
The customer only cares that the car works perfectly without breakdowns and without bugs.
Fixing car bugs or using other programming language are all technical aspects that are the responsibility of the manufacturer, not the customer.

The issue we are discussing here is not that of teaching Laminar how to program a simulator.
None of us have that claim.
We discuss problems encountered by customers here, and report them to the company for correction.

That is, here we don't suggest to the company... "Hey, your programming language is wrong, you have to program the car ECU with the programming language I tell you!".

We here simply suggest to the company..."Hey we have a problem, your car shuts down for no reason, we have hundreds of photo evidences to support the bug, please fix".