51 minutes ago, mSparks said:

This is not to dark tho, its pretty much perfect.

Cameras flatten the image in the way you describe, making it look like

that's completely false lighting, the real world looks nothing like that. lots of last gen simulators do....

they are trying to recreate the effect the iris/pupil has on the light getting into the eye.

what you suggest would make the lighting more like a photograph (second picture) and less like what you see sat in an actual cockpit (first picture).

It seems to me, what you want is simultaneously your pupil open this much

and this much

eyes cannot do that, pupils have 1 diameter, and it changes depending on what you are looking at.

Which I guess is why you keep avoiding the fundamental question

 

Mark, I'm afraid there is no point in arguing with you as you're not even reading my posts before responding, so I won't respond to you any further, especially given that this is basic photography. If you had read my previous post, you would've seen that I already answered your "fundamental question" and addressed the points you made in this post. To reiterate what I've said - cameras do not "flatten the image", it is done in post-processing to make the photograph represent human experience better. While pupils "have one diameter", as I've mentioned multiple times our brains process the signal coming from our eyes locally, so what we perceive is different. Regardless, if we go by your logic, cameras also "have one diameter" which is defined by the aperture size, so how come do cameras produce such images? The answer is simple, they don't, it's done in post-processing. Our eyes are no different than a camera in an optical sense, what makes the difference is the processing done in the brain, which is absent in a RAW photograph or a film. This is why they are post-processed to represent human experience better.

The fact that you posted an A330 screenshot without showing the outside also shows that you likely didn't read any of my posts. The issue is not when looking either at the cockpit or the outside, it's when looking at the both at the same time. In real life, thanks to the processing our brains make we perceive both the cockpit and the outside well exposed, while with a digital camera or a film without post-processing either the cockpit would be underexposed or the outside would be overexposed, which is exactly what's happening with X-Plane 12:

I'm sorry but this looks nothing like real-life. Even spending 5 minutes in a real cockpit is enough to see that. Regardless, as I mentioned LR already agrees that this is an issue and they're working on a solution, so I genuinely don't understand what's the point in arguing otherwise.

Edited March 9, 20233 yr by Biology

18 minutes ago, Biology said:

which is what's happening with X-Plane 12:

I'm sorry but this looks nothing like real-life. Even spending 5 minutes in a real cockpit is enough to see that. Regardless, as I mentioned LR already knows about the issue and working on a solution, so I genuinely don't understand what's the point in arguing otherwise.

The cockpit in that picture should not be visible, it is in your peripheral vision, you are not looking at it, you are looking outside.

you are complaining about something you shouldn't even be able to see clearly.

18 minutes ago, Biology said:

without showing the outside

because that is THE WHOLE POINT

So I take your continued silence to mean, you do not agree that the darkness of the cockpit and "washout" of outside should change depending upon if you are looking outside vs inside?

XP11 or MSFS has you covered. It will improve more when we get eye tracking, until then fake camera lighting would be a huge step backwards.

Edited March 9, 20233 yr by mSparks

I have no clue about technical aspects. The only thing i can say is that it may depend on the monitor-calibrations / brightness (HDR etc.) or whatever. Because it seems like not every one is experiencing the same. And a monitor will never be exactly the same like what we see in three dimensions outside.

For me personnally the brightness inside the cockpit is very good and seems realistic. I don't want them to change anything.

Edited March 9, 20233 yr by Franz007

3 hours ago, Biology said:

I won't be surprised at all if someone calls me a troll just for stating facts about the cockpit lighting issue.

I wouldn't be surprised at all either. Any form of criticism is generally not taken well in these forums. 

Even if the developer sat down for a one on one to explain the issue, some here would still continue to insist there is no issue with the cockpit lighting. Your explanation of the tonemapping makes perfect sense.

I've seen moments where it is completely fine, then a few seconds later you can't even find switches/buttons. And this is during the daytime too.

17 minutes ago, brinx said:

I wouldn't be surprised at all either. Any form of criticism is generally not taken well in these forums. 

Even if the developer sat down for a one on one to explain the issue, some here would still continue to insist there is no issue with the cockpit lighting. Your explanation of the tonemapping makes perfect sense.

I've seen moments where it is completely fine, then a few seconds later you can't even find switches/buttons. And this is during the daytime too.

The thing is, this isn't criticism, I understand entirely why he and others think that cockpit is to dark, if you were looking at it, it would be to dark, but then the outside wouldn't be washed out enough.

what they dont seem to understand is in that shot you are not looking inside the cockpit, you are looking outside, and in that scenerio the cockpit is perfectly shaded.

There are 3 solutions:

head tracking, linked, 

On 2/28/2023 at 7:41 PM, Bjoern said:

Or use face tracking with a standard webcam. https://github.com/AIRLegend/aitrack

VR. OMG its amazing

VR + eye tracking -> something that can come when we get openXR

what is not a good solution is faking camera lighting so the whole display is rendered trying to cope with pupil dilation, they tried it already, literally everybody hated it and it completely destroyed VR.

 

 

Edited March 9, 20233 yr by mSparks

4 hours ago, mSparks said:

There are 3 solutions:

No mr Spark, there is only one: definitively fix this shameful dark booth bug... which I remind all readers... it appeared in Xplane 11 in the year 2017 and has never been fixed.
Today in 2023 we found the exact same bug in XP12, we're sick of it, and we want it permanently fixed. 👍

These irrefutable bugs-truths are documented in detail in years of topics in which customers and even aircraft developers have complained about these cursed dark panels caused by a BUG of the XP11-12 lighting system .
In my PC I have dozens and dozens of screenshots in my archive showing the XP11-12 dark panel bug, and I honestly feel a bit embarrassed to explain these elementary concepts to certain "XP fans" who - for reasons unknown to my intelligence and my scientific knowledge - they don't want to accept the existence of this bug, but they even defend it 😳 .... they defend the BUG of the dark panels by appealing to speeches/excuses imbued with an ABYSSAL ignorance regarding visual perception/representation about the huge difference in REALITY between the human eyes and a film camera!
Kind users who still haven't understood (1) what real world is and what a monitor is, (2) what the human eye/brain is and what a film camera is, they should kindly refrain from continuing this discussion and take refuge head down in the splendid advertising world of xplane in which everything is presented as perfect and functional, but above all... realistic... (yes of course, it's realistic only for fools who observe the real world with cameras attached to their eyes). 🤭

Here we are dealing with a 1000% verified bug, known for years, reported for years, waiting to be fixed for years.
Yet some say it's not true!
Someone says there is no bug!
I am appalled at this level of ignorance and inability to observe.
Exactly: inability to observe!
In my long experience (I'm 60 years old, of which more than 25 on simulators) I've realized that many users are unable to observe, unable to see the bugs before their eyes.
Some of these users are "community leader", so theoretically one would expect a very high degree of reliability in the topics they address and the things they discuss.
Instead?
Instead i find threads like this one ... https://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?/forums/topic/226792-cockpit-lighting/&do=findComment&comment=2040652 ... where a "community leader" says that panel is perfect, it has no lighting problems.
Don't you have problems?!? 
That panel is awful!!! 🤢 The lighting is completely wrong!!! 
And the ridiculous thing is that the bug is very evident ... it can be seen very well .... but hold on tight ... that user DOES NOT SEE IT !!!  ... he has the dark panel bug in front of his nose.... and he doesn't see it !!! 🤦‍♂️

From these experiences I understood that many users are literally incapable of observing, i.e. they completely lack the ability to objectively evaluate an object or a scene inserted in a XXX context and make an analysis of the light/shadow/color representation of what they have before their eyes in the scene itself.
If a user has this deficit he will never be able to find bugs.
So there are two cases, and only two:
*First case* - Anyone who claims that Xplane doesn't generate unrealistic dark panels is an honest user, but suffering from serious observation deficiencies.
*Second case* -  Anyone who claims that Xplane doesn't generate unrealistic dark panels is a dishonest user who defends Xplane "on faith" denying the existence of these bugs.

I remind you Mr. Spark, the dark panel bug was discovered in 2017, which is 6 years ago, I can provide all the evidence he wants.
So....
... You Mr. Spark, which category do you belong to? 🤔
To the honest pilots who know how to use their eyes and observe the world with their eyes... or to the dishonest pilots who (deliberately) close their eyes to defend a bugged simulator?
I would appreciate a kind reply because, excuse my frankness, it seems to me that you are doing your best to defend the dark panels bug.
And this is bad.
Not for her.
For Xplane! 
Do you want friendly advice, addressed by me, to you "xp fan", and to all the other "xp fans"?
Be serious pilots, and stop with this denialist recitation. ✋
After 6 years no one believes it anymore. 
Not even the Laminars (who know the dark panel bug better than you "fans").

Edited March 10, 20233 yr by efis007

I'll say this again, albeit in a different fashion.
The technological debt that LR has incurred (and still owes) due to inability/unwillingness to adapt to current (modern, not 2016) graphical rendering is the PRIMARY REASON X-Plane 12 is doing so poorly in the flight simulator marketplace writ large.
Unless and until this is addressed and overcome, this poor market performance (long-suffering X-Plane pilots either leaving, merely staying put, or already gone) will continue.
How long, Laminar Research, do you expect people to keep suspending disbelief?
p.s. Deflection and ad hominem attacks by your die-hard adherents do not work well to pilots with working eyes, by the way.
 

8 hours ago, mSparks said:

The cockpit in that picture should not be visible, it is in your peripheral vision, you are not looking at it, you are looking outside.

You are making your argument based on VR + eye tracking presuming you are focusing outside when the outside and cockpit panel are both in view on the monitor.

I keep a fixed cockpit view on my monitor much of the time and scan the outside view and inside panels.  Without eye tracking, the monitor cannot make the real-time brain/eye adjustments to change the lighting levels as we experience in real life.   So a "tone mapping" that brings more of the outside and inside view to what we experience over a scan (rather than point in view time) is more realistic in my estimation.

Edited March 10, 20233 yr by StuSpeed

1 hour ago, OlliePen said:

I'll say this again, albeit in a different fashion.
The technological debt that LR has incurred (and still owes) due to inability/unwillingness to adapt to current (modern, not 2016) graphical rendering is the PRIMARY REASON X-Plane 12 is doing so poorly in the flight simulator marketplace writ large.
Unless and until this is addressed and overcome, this poor market performance (long-suffering X-Plane pilots either leaving, merely staying put, or already gone) will continue.
How long, Laminar Research, do you expect people to keep suspending disbelief?
p.s. Deflection and ad hominem attacks by your die-hard adherents do not work well to pilots with working eyes, by the way.
 

I didn't know you had access to Laminars accounting books.  Thank you for your professional insight.  Technological and financial.

Edited March 10, 20233 yr by GoranM

6 hours ago, efis007 said:

Not even the Laminars (who know the dark panel bug better than you "fans").

I assume your phone has a torch on it.

turn it on and shine it in your eyes, look at how dark the rest of the room goes.

Only XP12 simulates that effect, its not a bug, while there is some tuning that could be made (although more so by the aircraft developers), the case for going back to having the cockpit the same brightness regardless of looking outside or not wont be made by screenshots showing how good a job they do of it.

 

 

3 hours ago, StuSpeed said:

keep a fixed cockpit view on my monitor much of the time

yes, this isnt really viable anymore, that headtrack download is likely the cheapest improvement. you could likely feed it into the exposure setting rather than view direction if you really want to keep a fixed view.

Once openXR drops, 2D is going to get left even further behind very quickly imho.

Edited March 10, 20233 yr by mSparks

I think it lacks global illumination. 

I use opentrack + Aitrack works flawlessly

Edited March 10, 20233 yr by Humpty

4 hours ago, StuSpeed said:

You are making your argument based on VR + eye tracking presuming you are focusing outside when the outside and cockpit panel are both in view on the monitor.

I keep a fixed cockpit view on my monitor much of the time and scan the outside view and inside panels.  Without eye tracking, the monitor cannot make the real-time brain/eye adjustments to change the lighting levels as we experience in real life.   So a "tone mapping" that brings more of the outside and inside view to what we experience over a scan (rather than point in view time) is more realistic in my estimation.

His argument is not even valid because apparently he thinks humans have tunnel vision and cannot see what's there in their peripheral vision. I absolutely can see what's there in my peripheral vision, albeit blurry. Same story with a real cockpit, I absolutely can see both the cockpit and the outside and perceive their brightnesses at the same time without an issue, and it certainly does not look like X-Plane 12. At worst case I can simply move back to fit both the cockpit and the outside into my central vision and unsurprisingly, I get the same result and it looks nothing like X-Plane 12. What's sad is that even the experiment he mentioned (shining a torch in eyes) shows how the perceived brightness barely changes thanks to the local processing our brains make and again looks nothing like X-Plane 12. So yeah, the exact same result I got when I looked directly at the setting sun (which again I do NOT recommend trying). But whatever, it's pointless to argue with him, you will just be wasting your time.

Edited March 10, 20233 yr by Biology

13 minutes ago, Biology said:

he thinks humans cannot see what's there in their peripheral vision.

not what I said. and you know it.

13 minutes ago, Biology said:

I absolutely can see both the cockpit and the outside and perceive their brightnesses at the same time without an issue

excellent, me to, so we agree X-Plane exposure is near perfect.

 

Edited March 10, 20233 yr by mSparks

Yes Mark, it is perfect and all of the screenshots I posted here demonstrating how X-Plane 12 looks very unrealistic especially when using aircraft with large dark-colored cockpits were actually from another simulator that happens to look like X-Plane 12, thankfully your one screenshot from an aircraft with a light-colored cockpit and overcast weather (which means a scene with a significantly lower dynamic range than usual) showed that I was not showing the true X-Plane 12 🙄. Have a nice day!

Edited March 10, 20233 yr by Biology