7 minutes ago, mSparks said:

And why is that the X-Plane lighting and not the A320 albedo I already pointed out needs reworking for the new lighting?

Where did I say that X-Plane lighting needs a change? I said that tonemapping, which is a post-processing stage, needs a change, not the lighting. The HDR scene before the tonemapping is already accurate based on LR's real-world measurements and shouldn't be touched.

And to answer your question (but changing the word "lighting" with "tonemapping"), because this issue is not only in the A320, but also the default A330, default 737, Zibo 737, Rotate MD-11, FF A320 and so on, despite at least two of them having their cockpit textures made from scratch for X-Plane 12. As you can see, large aircraft with dark cockpits are disproportionally affected by the current implementation. Conversely, the small aircraft with light cockpits like the Cessna 172 look mostly fine.

Edited March 11, 20233 yr by Biology

Lol guys just enjoy the sim, if you can't see the dashboard just put a torch on it 😛

1 minute ago, Biology said:

Where did I say that X-Plane lighting needs a change? I said that tonemapping, which is a post-processing stage, needs a change

Same difference.

Why does all of X-Planes tone mapping need to change just because the A320 has to dark an albedo?

Just now, Humpty said:

Lol guys just enjoy the sim, if you can't see the dashboard just put a torch on it 😛

I see the outside, inside and everything in between just fine.

1 minute ago, mSparks said:

Same difference.

Why does all of X-Planes tone mapping need to change just because the A320 has to dark an albedo?

To find the answer, read my post again, which mentions how the issue is not just affecting the A320. Also check the A320 albedos yourself, they are correctly done.

Edited March 11, 20233 yr by Biology

5 minutes ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

I see the outside, inside and everything in between just fine.

Good for you, but it is not the case for anyone who doesn't use VR or eye/head tracking. Why not let us have the same experience, which would again have no impact whatsoever on your experience? I remember you complaining about people doing the same in MSFS forums, it's upsetting to see that you're ignoring the valid criticisms of the people the same way now.

Edited March 11, 20233 yr by Biology

5 minutes ago, Biology said:

Good for you, but it is not the case for anyone who doesn't use VR or eye/head tracking. Why not let us have the same experience, which would again have no impact whatsoever on your experience? I remember you complaining about people doing the same in MSFS forums, it's upsetting to see that you're ignoring the valid criticisms of the people the same way now.

Not due to the topic.

But if you want, use an opensource (and only a webcam) then opentrack + Aitrack 

Edited March 11, 20233 yr by Humpty

Re. the points of @efis007:

While I see where you're coming from, you are wrong that this is the same issue since X-Plane 11. In X-Plane 11 the issue was caused by the inaccurate rendering engine and a tonemapper with too low contrast. X-Plane 12 uses a completely new photometric rendering engine, so the rendering side of things is correct, which was verified by LR with real-world measurements. Also, diffuse ambient lighting is certainly taken into account using the cubemap. The issue now is the tonemapper, which was chosen in a hurry due to the mess the first attempt at implementing exposure fusion caused, in the future releases they will likely choose something that represents human experience much better. The current implementation looking like there is no diffuse ambient lighting is just a coincidence.

Edited March 11, 20233 yr by Biology

1 minute ago, Biology said:

Good for you, but it is not the case for anyone who doesn't use VR or eye/head tracking. Why not let us have the same experience, which would again have no impact whatsoever on your experience? I remember you complaining about people doing the same in MSFS forums, it's upsetting to see that you're ignoring the valid criticisms of the people the same way now.

If there was a shift away from eye adaption to tonemapping, my experience would be negativly affected.  I am not ignoring the valid critisicms of anybody, just expressing my own valid view about the pros and cons of eye adaption / tonemapping. 

6 minutes ago, Biology said:

how the issue is not just affecting the A320

obviously its not just the A320? that hasn't had its albedo changed in the last 3 months.

6 minutes ago, Biology said:

Also check the A320 albedos yourself, they are correctly done.

DO you mean 330? last changed 2021/2022?

that RHS looks far to dark to me, given it is the brightest it will ever get

 

4 minutes ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

If there was a shift away from eye adaption to tonemapping, my experience would be negativly affected.  I am not ignoring the valid critisicms of anybody, just expressing my own valid view about the pros and cons of eye adaption / tonemapping. 

No it wouldn't, because the eye adaptation would stay. The results would only be different when you're looking at the cockpit and the outside at the same time, which is not the case for VR or eye/head tracking people. And again, eye adaptation and tonemapping are not two separate things, eye adaptation is a part of the tonemapping process which changes the exposure to shift the HDR scene in the tonemapper curve. So it is not an either-or situation, both are used at the same time.

Edited March 11, 20233 yr by Biology

1 hour ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

In a real cockpit you are using eyes to view a massive dynamic range. In the sim you are viewing the scene on a monitor, which hasn't got a huge dynamic range.  I completely agree with everyone that says tonemapping has to be used, but I think LR has taken the correct route by utilising an eye adaption technique, rather than totally relying on tonemapping to get around the problem of low dynamic range on our display devices.

That is factually wrong. The dynamic range of a display has got absolutely nothing to do with the issue. On the basis that a monitor can aptly display almost anything between white and black with accurate colour rendition, it's completely possible (and simple) to replicate what the eye can see. The issue is that the sim is replicating what a camera can see, which is completely different.

Edited March 11, 20233 yr by 2reds2whites

3 hours ago, GoranM said:

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?

Why do you think you have some overarching authority which means you can dispel the opinions of others?

You constantly whine when others present their views. If you don't like it then don't post.

10 hours ago, mSparks said:

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

I personally think it's realistic because I have several thousand hours in that flight deck.

 

Edited March 11, 20233 yr by 2reds2whites

Triple posted - no idea why.

Edited March 11, 20233 yr by 2reds2whites

44 minutes ago, 2reds2whites said:

it's completely possible (and simple) to replicate what the eye can see.

Wow, a new winner of the

award, maximum internet points to you sir.

Meanwhile:

Vs

"I threw a lux meter in front of each of the two screens in front of me. Both read about 50 lux (+/- 4) at arm's length"

GLWT