7 hours ago, efis007 said:

Just smooth the histogram curve to emulate the diffusion of the sky by eliminating the excess black shadows.

you think this is realistic why? because of a histogram you use to balance photos?

Edited March 11, 20233 yr by mSparks

Live example.   6:59 to 9:40  👇

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akmhl3czcAg&t=398s  

 

Edited March 11, 20233 yr by Humpty

2 hours ago, mSparks said:

you think this is realistic why? because of a histogram you use to balance photos?

I won't waste any more time with the "fans".

You have been told many times how a human eye works, and how a film camera works.
But you pretend not to understand. 🤫

It has been explained to you many times why Xplane spectacularly fails the lighting of the cockpits starting from the year 2017.
But you pretend not to understand. 🤫

It has been explained to you many times that the "eye autoexposure" feature implemented by Xplane (and also by other sims) is an unparalleled nonsense that destroys by generating black panels and overexposed skies.
But you pretend not to understand. 🤫

It has been explained to you many times that the dark panel bug is a BUG, we've known about it for 6 years, and it's been discussed and reported by many customers...
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/&
... but you pretend not to understand. 🤫

It has been explained to you many times that if you claim that XP12's dark panels are realistic, you are automatically stating that XP11 had the same exact realism as XP12, since XP11 generated the same dark panels as XP12. 😂
But you... still... pretend you don't understand. 🤥
And you will continue to pretend you don't want to understand even in the face of a thousand other irrefutable proofs.

The truth is that there are no valid explanations that can make you think.
For you xplane is an act of FAITH, you are completely addicted to Laminar advertising marketing!
Whatever the Laminars tell you is, for you, absolute truth, you are totally unable to separate the FICTION (xplane) from the REAL world, you are totally unable to interpret the world through your eyes.
You see the world only through Laminar's advertising nonsense and through the photographs taken by film cameras.

With such cognitive failings I am frankly surprised that aviation boards allow you to fly a real plane. 😳
They should withdraw your license.

Bye bye Mr Spark, be careful not to hurt yourself flying your plane with cameras attached to your eyes!
And now where is that button..... ah here it is. 

50 minutes ago, efis007 said:

You have been told many times how a human eye works, and how a film camera works.
But you pretend not to understand. 🤫

Not sure what that has to do with you posting a completely unrealistic post processed X-Plane image and claiming it solves a bug that you haven't begun to demonstrate to exist?

The cockpit was black, because the cockpit should be nearly black when you are not looking at it

50 minutes ago, efis007 said:

It has been explained to you many times that the dark panel bug is a BUG,

This is what Janov said back end of January

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

Quote

This is a design decision, and we have talked about the pros (and cons) for weeks. I get that you don´t like it, but it sort of comes with attempting to get lighting to be physically correct. I have taken light intensity readings for LR with a professional light exposure meter in the cockpit of my 747, as have Philipp and Austin in various GA aircraft, and the results have been used to set correct lighting levels. Only to find out that the brightness range of our monitors is (not surprisingly) not even a remote match to mother nature. Various attempts were made to "compress" the intensity range, with the results having dim and washed out views.

So a decision was made to mimick reality - in real life you can not look "outside at the runway" and "inside at the G1000 knobs" at the same time, unless you are a Chameleon or suffer some eye displacement that the FAA would certainly not let you fly with. So humans look down to the instrument panel whenever they want to see something there and they look outside when they want to see something outside. This allows the eye (and brain to some extent) to adjust to the different light intensity.

This only works partly on a monitor, because you basically need to swivel the view down (like I did in my pics) and then up again (like you did in your pics). This is a useability problem...that many people get used to, either by setting up views accordingly and/or 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.

So not a bug, a design decision, that mimicking reality was more important than meeting the expectations of moaning gamers who have never sat in a cockpit.

50 minutes ago, efis007 said:

I won't waste any more time with the "fans".

well, I'm fine with that, cos like, all else equal it's not changing, and I'm happy as larry with it exactly as is, and there are plenty of posts in here of people preferring their flight simulator to mimic reality rather than the expectations of the gaming hoards.

Now, I don't claim to be 100% correct, that is why I asked you to justify

3 hours ago, mSparks said:

you think this is realistic why?

and additionally

On 3/4/2023 at 6:38 AM, mSparks said:

Do you agree that the darkness of the cockpit and "washout" of outside should change depending upon if you are looking outside vs inside?

Those are the two fundamental reasons why it is what it is, that informed the design decision, if you can't explain why your post processing is more realistic it is going to stay as is. And like I said, I'm fine with that...

Edited March 11, 20233 yr by mSparks

👉https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TnaUdxOcLLg

3 hours ago, Humpty said:

Live example.

That's right, that video is a live example of how the human eye doesn't work, but how a camera works!
What you see in the video is the exact same BUG of the dark panel of XP, MSFS, P3D, etc.... that is, of all the simulators that have not understood how the human eye works, and insist on imitating the cameras ( with all the associated defects typical of cameras).
Let's analyze the scene.
We have a beautiful "open window" aircraft...

... which is flying elegantly in a beautiful clear day sky, and casting pitch black shadows inside.

Black shadows? 😳
On earth?
In broad daylight?
It's impossible!
We measure the value of these shadows with the powerful photoshop functions.

Folly. 🤦‍♂️
In that video the shadows are close to "absolute black", which is exactly the value of the shadows measured in the SPACE, and which (in broad daylight) are only generated on the Moon.
No human eye will ever see such black shadows - on Earth - in broad daylight - in a context equal to that of the video. ✋
Why?
Because in the video we have an "open window" airplane that is flying in a clear sky with a wide diffusion of light at 360°...

... so it is impossible to generate such black shadows EVEN if the airplane is facing the opposite side of the Sun.

That is that the videos show us ... it is NEVER the real vision of a human eye, but it is always the artificial and bugged vision of a camera!
Those black shadows are the result of a total forgery by the camera.
All cameras are stupid, they are not able to imitate our real vision! Cameras are blinded very easily, resulting in overexposed white skies and completely black shadows.
Simply put, what the camera shows is always IRREALISM compared to the human eye, they are always FALSE images.
The real human eye would have seen that scene (and the cockpit!) completely differently.

This is how our eyes see, here on Earth!

Perhaps XP11-12 believes that we are astronauts flying in the Space with the Apollo missions. 🤭
Well she got the wrong planet, it's better that she wakes up and brings us back the terrestrial shadows.

 

7 minutes ago, efis007 said:

This is how our eyes see, here on Earth!

And if the C172 looked like this in X-Plane

You might have a point.

But it doesn't,

So you dont.

I have never sat in a pit of a plane, so I can't say what's right and what's not. Nor I understand the camera stuff.

I can only give an example ie. when you are driving, for me the dash board is always visible, Never ever had a problem of the dash not visible when the sun was direct. Maybe it's different up in the air.

The other thing we have to consider is the lens flare due to glass. The lens flare can interfere for a moment.

 

 

6 pages of posts, about light and shadow in X-Plane, mainly from someone who has enough time in his days to make posts that are almost as long as Harry Potter novels, including comments about X-Plane 12 having the same lighting engine as X-Plane 11 (it doesn't) and repeating the same thing, over and over.

Why?

How many different ways can the same opinion be told?

19 minutes ago, efis007 said:

This is how our eyes see, here on Earth!

And I'm still not getting your point.

Why do you think this is unrealistic?

Just now, mSparks said:

And I'm still not getting your point.

Why do you think this is unrealistic?

Which aircraft is that ?

1 minute ago, Humpty said:

Which aircraft is that ?

The default cub, closest I could grab quickly to the Mustang.

12 minutes ago, mSparks said:

The default cub, closest I could grab quickly to the Mustang.

Ah ok. Nice airplane

@Humpty I'm sorry but real-life videos taken with cameras do not reflect human experience, so if your point is "see, these real-life videos look like X-Plane 12, therefore X-Plane 12 is accurate", I'd argue such an argument is flawed. Yes, X-Plane 12 looks like these videos but that's exactly the issue - real life doesn't look like that.

Also, it was not a design decision to make the effect this drastic, instead it was a necessary evil as the other option was reducing the contrast too much. So LR is absolutely considering changing it, despite what Mark is claiming. See this recent post from Ben: https://developer.x-plane.com/2023/02/testing-12-01-12-02-12-03/

What Mark is also not understanding that this issue has nothing to do with photometric rendering and fixing it will not affect VR or eye/head tracking experience if done properly. LR is indeed not planning to touch the HDR scene because the rendering engine is already producing correct brightness values, so the rendering side is indeed mostly correct. The issue is the tonemapper which translates physical brightness values into the brightness values that can be seen by the monitor. This is why the effect is that drastic - the current tonemapper (Narkowicz ACES) has a "toe" which makes the eye adaptation effect much more drastic than it should be. This is also why large dark-colored cockpits are disproportionately affected.

Given that, let's establish a few facts:

1. In a real-life cockpit, let's say of a G1000 C172, while you are looking at the outside, if the sun is not in your visual field you will see the outside perfectly exposed. However, as our eyes have a really high FOV, you will also have the G1000 and rest of the cockpit in your visual field and they certainly won't look pitch black.

2. While you are still looking at the outside, move your eyes towards the G1000. You will feel the cockpit getting slightly brighter but it will be a subtle effect, not drastic like X-Plane 12 or a camera. As our eyes have a really high FOV, the outside will still be in your visual field and it certainly won't blow out to white.

3. If you move to the back seat, you will easily have both the G1000 and the outside in your visual field, and when you are moving your eyes up and down again you will only perceive a subtle change in brightness, not anything drastic like X-Plane 12 or a camera.

4. If the sun is in your visual field, you will perceive everything washed out due to bloom, but things will also feel much more contrasted at the same time.

I don't know about you, but this is what I experience. Mark can say that I am wrong as much as he wants, but it doesn't change the fact that this is indeed what I experience. Assuming I'm a healthy adult with a normal vision, even spending 5 minutes in a cockpit should be enough to see how inaccurate the current implementation in X-Plane 12 is. Just try the same things I mentioned above in a real-life cockpit, then try the same in X-Plane 12 using an aircraft with a large dark-colored cockpit. You will see how much more subtle the effect is in real life compared to X-Plane 12.

Edited March 11, 20233 yr by Biology

13 minutes ago, Humpty said:

I have never sat in a pit of a plane, so I can't say what's right and what's not. Nor I understand the camera stuff.

I can only give an example ie. when you are driving, for me the dash board is always visible, Never ever had a problem of the dash not visible when the sun was direct.

👍
No no, you are saying the right thing.
Our eyes have an ability to self-level and self-compensate for light that no camera has.
Our eyes are a miracle of nature.
Think for example how much you drive your car at night.
Your eyes are constantly blinded by the headlights of other cars, but strangely you can always see the road, you don't get dazzled / blinded like a camera would.

But apart from that, you must know that in professional renderings of "interiors" a single light source is never used, because the rendering result is very unrealistic for the human eye.
Example.

Since architects have to best represent the visual experience of the human eye, they deliberately insert other lights into the scene (these are invisible reflecting panels of diffused light) which have the task of making the scene more realistic and similar to what the human eye.

See how the scene has improved?
The glare effect of the window is always there, but the interior of the apartment diffuses light making it possible to see all the details present in the scene.
Just like a real human eye would.

What happens with XP and other sims is an error similar to the first image.
XP11-12 does not know diffuse light.
He uses only a single light source believing that that single source is enough to render the scene as the human eye would see it.
Nothing more false and further from reality. 😕
That's why all those brightness and "Nasa shadow bugs" are generated.