45 minutes ago, efis007 said:

It is a visual effect that exclusively imitates a camera.
Our eyes don't see the world like cameras do, so XP12's representation is inaccurate and doesn't reproduce a realistic imitation of the human eye.
In the real world, our eyes don't need to look "down" to see the instruments and cockpit well.
A representation like this is completely far from reality.

If in the real world all the pilots of the world saw the panel all black and unreadable there would be dozens of plane crashes every day.
Accidents all due to the same factor: "human error resulting from a non-visible panel".

In the real world, when you look at the cockpit, you look down at it. Your eyes are then focused on the dark cockpit, your pupils re-enlarge, and you can see the cockpit. Then when you look back up (forward) at the outside, you're sun-blinded for a short moment, until your pupils shrink enough so that you can look outside normally.

But between the moment you looked outside and the moment you looked at the cockpit, you effectivement moved (rotated? orientated?) your eyes down. Since the sim cannot guess your eye orientation yet (eye tracker maybe?), then you have to rotate the view down a bit to simulate the same action, with the same consequences.

If you want to have to have a bright exterior AND a bright cockpit at the same time, you want either a less realistic light implementation in the graphic engine, or you want a 2D cockpit (with the reflection of the photo-camera flash on some surfaces, in that beautiful 1999 flavor...). I would hate that.

The only thing LR could implement to enhance the feature, would be a support for the toby eye-tracker. Not to orientate the view like a track IR, but to interpret what part of the screen you're looking at, and dynamically adjust the lighting accordingly. As your eyes would do in real life. Not sure if that could be done, but it would solve your issue.

 

 

This debate will probably go on until LR will revise X-Plane tone mapping, which apparently already is in their roadmap.

Edited July 10, 20232 yr by Murmur

1 hour ago, Murmur said:

This debate will probably go on until LR will revise X-Plane tone mapping, which apparently already is in their roadmap.

The problem with that is they can likely only make it worse for people who are happy now (revert back to 1999 style lighting) or worse for people who are not happy now (remove the slightly negative bias over real world lighting which is making the cockpits slightly brighter than would be captured by a camera, causing the outside to be a little over exposed)

And - for some reason - no one actually seems to be complaining about the only issue I am aware of with the lighting, which is that a moonlit night is waaaay to dark.

They have said the art team will give everything a look over again, but that may well not extend any further than updating default aircraft cockpit art to better match their real world counterparts.

But have to say, I'm a little suspicious of some of the more vocal complaints, in that it sounds like what they are actually advocating for is cockpits with little to no lighting at all, then being more than a little dishonest about the circumstances under which reading the instruments with peripheral vision is not possible by presenting such circumstances as being unable to read the instruments ever.

14 minutes ago, mSparks said:

The problem with that is they can likely only make it worse for people who are happy now (revert back to 1999 style lighting) or worse for people who are not happy now (remove the slightly negative bias over real world lighting which is making the cockpits slightly brighter than would be captured by a camera, causing the outside to be a little over exposed)

I think something like a local tone mapping would be positively received by those who are not happy now. Brighter cockpits without overexposed outside (as I perceive in real life).

15 minutes ago, mSparks said:

And - for some reason - no one actually seems to be complaining about the only issue I am aware of with the lighting, which is that a moonlit night is waaaay to dark.

+1. I think this is also in the roadmap.

1 hour ago, Murmur said:

I think something like a local tone mapping would be positively received by those who are not happy now. Brighter cockpits without overexposed outside (as I perceive in real life).

Not saying it is impossible, but I would be very surprised if it is possible.

The cockpits end up dark in situations where relatively speaking there is no light in the cockpit, any attempt to change that will always make the outside look far darker than it makes the inside brighter, giving a pastel washed out look to the scene (the edited screenshot efis posted)

That also wont help any of the actual underlying problems - cockpit textures to dark, people with uncalibrated monitors or monitors/TVs like my cheap dell which basically treats any colour below #323232 as #000, it will just ruin it for everyone that doesnt have those problems.

Then I guess not an insignificant number of people using TVs that only support the broadcast 16-235 RGB color pallette (nvidia has a limited color option under color settings when using them, dont know for AMD, doubt anyone using such displays have it enabled) - should LR throw out some 30% of the available color range for everyone just to make them happy with the default settings, rather than expect them to set their hardware up properly?

Edited July 10, 20232 yr by mSparks

58 minutes ago, mSparks said:

The cockpits end up dark in situations where relatively speaking there is no light in the cockpit, any attempt to change that will always make the outside look far darker than it makes the inside brighter, giving a pastel washed out look to the scene (the edited screenshot efis posted)

As I previously said, something similar to the left image, which I consider the closest to real life perception, taking into considerations the various limitations of hardware visual displays. But we've been going circles for pages in this thread, that's why I said the debate will go on until LR modifies the tone mapping or exposure algorithms etc as they intend to do.

 

 

5 hours ago, Daube said:

In the real world, when you look at the cockpit, you look down at it. Your eyes are then focused on the dark cockpit, your pupils re-enlarge, and you can see the cockpit.

In the real world, pilots don't fly with cameras attached to their eyes.
In the real world there is no "graphic engine", the light is already realistic by nature and the representation of the panels is never wrong.
In the real world when you are in the cockpit and look forward out the window at the pink arrows you will never see your aircraft panel go black. (only the cameras behave that way)

In the real world, in broad daylight, the eye-pupil-brain system absolutely does not behave as you described.
In the real world, pilots fly in total safety even with sunglasses in front of their eyes and are able to see the panel and instruments perfectly even with sunglasses on.

Source: Ask every pilot in the world what cockpits look like in the real world, or try flying a real plane and see (using your eyes, not cameras!) what the lighting looks like on a airplane cockpit in broad daylight.

The "real world" that you imagine (and that you described) is represented in this short video:
https://mega.nz/file/w4xiQJqL#PqT3NkuonNaKSnoudBQSmNNLwp6nXCd7Mpd2Mv9DuBQ
Well, this is not the real world and it is absolutely not the way we see the world and things.

When XP12 fixes the black panels bug, that will be when XP12 is finally mimicking the real world, i.e. the exact way our eyes see.

6 hours ago, Daube said:

If you want to have to have a bright exterior AND a bright cockpit at the same time, you want either a less realistic light implementation in the graphic engine

In the real world, the eyes can see the outside world and the instrument panel, both perfectly illuminated.
You confuse cameras with human eyes, they are two completely different things.
Source: Spend more time in the cockpit of an airplane or automobile.

6 hours ago, Daube said:

or you want a 2D cockpit (with the reflection of the photo-camera flash on some surfaces, in that beautiful 1999 flavor...)

I advise you to re-read the whole topic from the beginning because in addition to learning many interesting things you will discover that the "2D panels of the year 1999" effect is paradoxically generating them XP12 with its dark panel bug!
Read here and you will find out why.

 

5 hours ago, Murmur said:

This debate will probably go on until LR will revise X-Plane tone mapping, which apparently already is in their roadmap.

Exact.
I honestly don't understand what's the point of talking about a problem that Laminar knows very well and will fix it. 
These useless talks seem like only a vain desperate attempt by very few users to try to beg Laminar to keep the bugs as they are now. 
I feel sorry for them… XP12 must go on… it must improve.
I have enough faith it will.

1 hour ago, efis007 said:

In the real world, pilots don't fly with cameras attached to their eyes.

Sigh.  I agree, real pilots don't use cameras instead of eyes, but neither do they cover their windscreen with a low dynamic range monitor either!

Although we are using real eyes in the sim, we are not looking at a real, high dynamic view.  We are seeing a representation of the high dynamic real world on a low dynamic monitor.  In an attempt to maintain as much dynamic range as possible, an eye adaption technique is used in the sim.  Of course, we as sim pilots need to adjust our real world eye movements, to head movements in the sim, to see a decent representation of the outside and inside views.

In my view, this slight change in the way we look around the scene is a good method to maximise dynamic range for where our sim eyes are pointing.  The easiest way I have found to accomodate the eye adaption is to use a head or eye tracker to look around.  A small movement of the head can be tuned to a large movement in the sim.  For example, on final approach when the eyes need to look outside and to the instruments, the head can be moved in small movements to replicate the eye movement in the real aircraft. As the head moves a couple of degrees, the lighting adjusts to what you are looking at.

You really need to get your head around the fact a low dynamic range viweing device is being used to view a high dynamic range real world view.

 

1 hour ago, efis007 said:

The "real world" that you imagine (and that you described) is represented in this short video:
https://mega.nz/file/w4xiQJqL#PqT3NkuonNaKSnoudBQSmNNLwp6nXCd7Mpd2Mv9DuBQ
Well, this is not the real world and it is absolutely not the way we see the world and things.

...and you will never have a monitor displaying real world dynamic range - why can't you grasp this fact.  In the video link you posted, when the view is outside, the dynamic range is maximised for that view.  When the the view drops inside, the dynamic range is changed to maximise the inside view.  I personally don't want to use a sim that tries to average the dynamic range across the whole scene because that will lower contrast, and thus, realism.

7 hours ago, Murmur said:

As I previously said, something similar to the left image,

There is a very easy way to get that, we've had it for quite some time.....

I just dont expect or want flight sim to go back to that.

And I dont think it is possible to combine both realisic lighting and a cockpit that is never so deeply in shadow that it comes out black in your peripheral vision.

 

10 hours ago, efis007 said:

In the real world, pilots don't fly with cameras attached to their eyes.
In the real world there is no "graphic engine", the light is already realistic by nature and the representation of the panels is never wrong.
In the real world when you are in the cockpit and look forward out the window at the pink arrows you will never see your aircraft panel go black. (only the cameras behave that way)

 

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.

 

10 hours ago, efis007 said:

In the real world, in broad daylight, the eye-pupil-brain system absolutely does not behave as you described.

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.

10 hours ago, efis007 said:

In the real world, pilots fly in total safety even with sunglasses in front of their eyes and are able to see the panel and instruments perfectly even with sunglasses on.

Source: Ask every pilot in the world what cockpits look like in the real world, or try flying a real plane and see (using your eyes, not cameras!) what the lighting looks like on a airplane cockpit in broad daylight.

The "real world" that you imagine (and that you described) is represented in this short video:
https://mega.nz/file/w4xiQJqL#PqT3NkuonNaKSnoudBQSmNNLwp6nXCd7Mpd2Mv9DuBQ
Well, this is not the real world and it is absolutely not the way we see the world and things.

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.

10 hours ago, efis007 said:

When XP12 fixes the black panels bug, that will be when XP12 is finally mimicking the real world, i.e. the exact way our eyes see.

In the real world, the eyes can see the outside world and the instrument panel, both perfectly illuminated.
You confuse cameras with human eyes, they are two completely different things.
Source: Spend more time in the cockpit of an airplane or automobile.

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

12 hours ago, efis007 said:

In the real world, pilots don't fly with cameras attached to their eyes.
In the real world there is no "graphic engine", the light is already realistic by nature and the representation of the panels is never wrong.
In the real world when you are in the cockpit and look forward out the window at the pink arrows you will never see your aircraft panel go black. (only the cameras behave that way)
In the real world, in broad daylight, the eye-pupil-brain system absolutely does not behave as you described.
In the real world, pilots fly in total safety even with sunglasses in front of their eyes and are able to see the panel and instruments perfectly even with sunglasses on.

In the real world, the human eye reacts like a camera. The human eye has a pupil and the camera a shutter. Both are working very similar. You don't need to fly planes, it is sufficient to drive cars against the sun. Were you ever able to watch the speedometer (or other instruments) "simultaneously" when watching out of the window against the sun? You will even have difficulties watching the lit up traffic lights, when the sun is close to them. Nuff said.

5 hours ago, mSparks said:

There is a very easy way to get that, we've had it for quite some time.....

I just dont expect or want flight sim to go back to that.

And I dont think it is possible to combine both realisic lighting and a cockpit that is never so deeply in shadow that it comes out black in your peripheral vision.

Nah, it can be done with local tone mapping. Maybe something a bit closer to this (but much better):

As I said, going full circles and re-posting old pics because neither part can be convinced of the other. Until LR will change things as they plan to do.

10 minutes ago, Murmur said:

Nah, it can be done with local tone mapping. Maybe something a bit closer to this (but much better):

XP12 can look exactly like that now.

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....