4 minutes ago, Biology said:

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/

Pardon my naivete, but shouldn't it be relatively trivial to "fuse" different exposures to obtain a realistic looking, HDR image? Here are a couple examples:

LDR:

HDR:

Example 2:

9 minutes ago, Biology said:

@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.

where have I said they look like X-plane12?   I have already agreed on what @mSparks mentions.  

I am just posting what effects the dashboard has. I have zero real world cockpit experience. 

I think you are mistaking me thinking I am siding with the user who is just bugged that he feels its bugged  😛

But if you are referencing my car dashboard than that's what I see in real. But I have also mentioned  it's probably different up in the air. I don't know how it would be up in the air, so I tend to watch these videos and just post them.

12 minutes ago, Biology said:

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.

Real life and real eyes do not have the restricted dynamic range of a typical monitor, so the sim will never look like reality.  I for one would absolutely hate any attempt to flatten the dynamic range and contrast.  LR have taken the decision to maximise dynamic range, so the eye adaption technique works very well for me.  An easy fix is the TrackIR because the head has to be moved inside/outside so dark cockpits are not a problem.

5 minutes ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

Real life and real eyes do not have the restricted dynamic range of a typical monitor, so the sim will never look like reality.  I for one would absolutely hate any attempt to flatten the dynamic range and contrast.  LR have taken the decision to maximise dynamic range, so the eye adaption technique works very well for me.  An easy fix is the TrackIR because the head has to be moved inside/outside so dark cockpits are not a problem.

It's very different in real life. 

I agree to the head tracking, just a while back used opentrack + AItrack and the pit was visible

For LR the cockpit view is probably through a camera.

Edited March 11, 20233 yr by Humpty

8 minutes ago, Murmur said:

Pardon my naivete, but shouldn't it be relatively trivial to "fuse" different exposures to obtain a realistic looking, HDR image? Here are a couple examples:

The examples you posted look nothing like reality. They compress the colours and contrast so look nothing like what a human eye would see.  This is the effect @efis007 wants in the sim.  The only way to maximise dynamic range on a monitor is to do exactly what LR and MS have done - an eye adaption technique to set the brightness correct for what you are looking at.

5 minutes ago, Murmur said:

Pardon my naivete, but shouldn't it be relatively trivial to "fuse" different exposures to obtain a realistic looking, HDR image? Here are a couple examples:

LDR:

HDR:

Example 2:

This is indeed what LR did during the release candidate period, but their exposure fusion implementation had a lot of issues so they had to pull it back. One major issue that affects almost all local tonemappers is halo artifacts and indeed their implementation had that too, the cockpits looked like they were smeared with vaseline. Another issue was that the trees were disproportionally affected and looked really bad. They're going to implement a much better version of it and they're likely only apply it to the cockpit this time, so hopefully it will be better next time.

18 minutes ago, Biology said:

I'm sorry but real-life videos taken with cameras do not reflect human experience

well, yes, and also no.

true, because they are limited by the display you view them on

false, because you are viewing X-Plane on exactly that display.

So something has to give, the design choice was to base the exposure on where you are looking, to adequately deliver the full range of brightness, therefore a pitch black cockpit looks realistically pitch black in your peripheral vision when you look out of the window, but you can still see it realistically when not looking out of the window.

Your problem is afaict you do not accept that the only way is that darkness of the cockpit and "washout" of outside should change depending upon if you are looking outside vs inside.

You want to crush the entire range into that of the display

The outcome then,

is either,

to dark cockpits, (what you are complaining about now)

or

to bright/washed out outside (what you will complain about if the cockpits are brightened to that of outside)

Basing it on where you are looking allows both a decent view of the cockpit, and a decent view of outside, you just have to tell XP which you want.

No algorithm you can concoct is going to allow your display to pump out 100,000 lux

3 minutes ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

The examples you posted look nothing like reality. They compress the colours and contrast so look nothing like what a human eye would see.  This is the effect @efis007 wants in the sim.  The only way to maximise dynamic range on a monitor is to do exactly what LR and MS have done - an eye adaption technique to set the brightness correct for what you are looking at.

So I assume you see the world like -2.0 EV or the +2.0 EV options and nothing like the combined exposure option? This couldn't be further from my experience.

6 minutes ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

The examples you posted look nothing like reality. They compress the colours and contrast so look nothing like what a human eye would see.  This is the effect @efis007 wants in the sim.  The only way to maximise dynamic range on a monitor is to do exactly what LR and MS have done - an eye adaption technique to set the brightness correct for what you are looking at.

What I see in RL is much closer to the left image than the right ones:

14 minutes ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

Real life and real eyes do not have the restricted dynamic range of a typical monitor, so the sim will never look like reality.  I for one would absolutely hate any attempt to flatten the dynamic range and contrast.  LR have taken the decision to maximise dynamic range, so the eye adaption technique works very well for me.  An easy fix is the TrackIR because the head has to be moved inside/outside so dark cockpits are not a problem.

I don't claim that a simulator can look exactly like reality, there indeed always will be a compromise. But this doesn't mean there can't be better compromises. There are certainly much better compromises than the current implementation, without sacrificing much contrast. As I said before, a good local tonemapper would not affect VR or head/eye tracking users while making the experience much more realistic for people who use neither. So yeah, the point is subtlety.

Edited March 11, 20233 yr by Biology

16 minutes ago, efis007 said:

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.

A monitor has a restricted dynamic range, much less than natural light.  Your monitor has one light source inside, so the option is not there to insert more lights.  Sure, software tricks can be used for the diffuse light to replace the real lights the architects use, but the result of that will be an image with less overal contrast.  I for one would hate such a compressed image when there is a simple way to remove 'dark cockpits' - use a TrackIR so you have to move your head around the cockpit to look at switches, screens etc.  as your head moves the lighting adjusts to to where you are looking.

You keep talking of cameras, but we all know how a camera and eye see the world because of the big dynamic range difference.  There are two fixes, either to flatten the image to see everything at a similar brightness, or use an eye adaption technique plus other technology (like the TrackIR) to maximise the dynamic range available in the sim.  I propose LR have taken the correct option to maximise dynamic range.

4 minutes ago, Biology said:

As I said before, a good local tonemapper would not affect VR or head/eye tracking users while making the experience much more realistic for people who use neither.

Wouldn't the better solution be for simmers to move with the times and embrace a high dynamic range display by using something like a TrackIR?

1 minute ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

Wouldn't the better solution be for simmers to move with the times and embrace a high dynamic range display by using something like a TrackIR?

Why would a solution which would have literally no impact on VR and eye/head tracking users but vastly improve the experience of people who don't use them be a worse solution? I don't think this is about "moving with the times", the truth is that a majority of users don't use either and they all come with their drawbacks.

12 minutes ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

There are two fixes, either to flatten the image to see everything at a similar brightness, or use an eye adaption technique plus other technology (like the TrackIR) to maximise the dynamic range available in the sim.  I propose LR have taken the correct option to maximise dynamic range.

This is exactly my point, you and Mark seem to think that this is a binary either-or situation, when it is not. In reality, a combination of both options can be applied together to replicate the real life experience much better than either options alone, all while not affecting people who use VR or eye/head tracking at all. This is what LR is trying to achieve and I'm sure when it's in the simulator you will understand what I mean.

Edited March 11, 20233 yr by Biology

5 minutes ago, Biology said:

the truth is that a majority of users

the vast majority of users use head tracking of some form or other.

1 minute ago, Biology said:

a combination of both methods can be applied to replicate the real life experience much better than either options alone

I'm intrigued. How can you make the cockpit brighter without making it more visible?