I had to do a double take, to make sure I was in the msfs forums. 

It's interesting some people saying how much better MSFS lighting is and XP12 lighting is subpar, low standard, blah blah blah.

Would it surprise everyone to know that both X-Plane 12 and now, MSFS, are both coded from the same equation for photometric/physics based lighting?

🤯

 

Edited June 3, 20233 yr by GoranM

10 hours ago, Noel said:

I do know it's now best ever.

Hmmm….personally I disagree with this. Can’t add anything to the XP debate as I haven’t used it since 10 but in my opinion MSFS’s lighting was at it’s best upto - was it SU5? - the update that allowed them to shove the sim into the Xbox environment.

Since then it’s been something of a white washout for me. It’s been improved but in my opinion there is still a way to go before we get back to what we had before.

The same can be said for distant LoD and the night environment too.

 

5 hours ago, Sethos said:

My only wish for MSFS was some sky tuning based on region. Living in a nordic country and watching those bombastic colors, especially during sunrise and sunset, looks off. Rarely to never see those full fat tropical orange skies. Always a lot more muted and subtle here, with a very brief window of colors in a limited area.

How very true. It would be great if, like tree biomes, areas of the MSFS world could be given different tones for the sky (and colours for different bodies of water).

There used to be lots of texture replacement add-ons in previous sims, though they tended to give global, rather than local, results.

3 hours ago, GoranM said:

I had to do a double take, to make sure I was in the msfs forums.

Here's how you can tell Goran:  Murmur appears to endorse your post 😉

3 hours ago, GoranM said:

Would it surprise everyone to know that both X-Plane 12 and now, MSFS, are both coded from the same equation for photometric/physics based lighting?

I would assume they both start with data from real world physics just like flight models will look at the physics of flight as a starting point so no surprises there.  Tell us what YOU think the implications of that are.  Are you implying lighting is the same in both sims?  And if not, why did you make the comment?

Edited June 3, 20233 yr by Noel

3 hours ago, GoranM said:

I had to do a double take, to make sure I was in the msfs forums. 

It's interesting some people saying how much better MSFS lighting is and XP12 lighting is subpar, low standard, blah blah blah.

Would it surprise everyone to know that both X-Plane 12 and now, MSFS, are both coded from the same equation for photometric/physics based lighting?

🤯

 

Would it surprise you to know that means absolutely nothing in terms of the final output? Also why these two sims look different. Everything from render techniques, color grading by the developers, environmental effects and setup changes the final output we see on the screen. It's about as silly as saying Fortnite and that upcoming NOR military simulation look the same because they are on both on Unreal Engine.

4 hours ago, GoranM said:

I had to do a double take, to make sure I was in the msfs forums. 

It's interesting some people saying how much better MSFS lighting is and XP12 lighting is subpar, low standard, blah blah blah.

Would it surprise everyone to know that both X-Plane 12 and now, MSFS, are both coded from the same equation for photometric/physics based lighting?

🤯

 

Well, how about explaining to us why XP looks like word not allowed, then. 

42 minutes ago, Bobsk8 said:

Well, how about explaining to us why XP looks like word not allowed, then. 

No, let's not. We know his M.O. when it comes to threads on his favourite sim.

Back on topic:

@MrBitstFlyer did you perhaps turn on the bloom effect in MSFS this time round? That would have a noticeable improvement in night lighting compared to having it turned off.

1 hour ago, F737MAX said:

@MrBitstFlyer did you perhaps turn on the bloom effect in MSFS this time round? That would have a noticeable improvement in night lighting compared to having it turned off.

No, I didn't change a thing.  I just did my monthly load of MSFS to check it out and do some maintenance on it.  Previously I haven't liked it after getting into XP12, but this time it didn't look bad at all.  I even wondered if XP12 lighting had changed for the worst, but XP12 is still good and the lighting the same.

Previously the ground textures in MSFS looked far too bright and contrasty (after starting to use XP12).  I have aslo discovered the Map enhancement tool has built in brightness/contrast/saturation for the streamed tiles, so that has improved the ground textures towards my preference.

Both MSFS and XP12 have good & bad points, but I am pleasently surprisede MSFS has lighting/haze and colouring I do like.

6 hours ago, DD_Arthur said:

Hmmm….personally I disagree with this. Can’t add anything to the XP debate as I haven’t used it since 10 but in my opinion MSFS’s lighting was at it’s best upto - was it SU5? - the update that allowed them to shove the sim into the Xbox environment.

Since then it’s been something of a white washout for me. It’s been improved but in my opinion there is still a way to go before we get back to what we had before.

The same can be said for distant LoD and the night environment too.

 

'White washout' describes my previous thoughts accurately.  On release, XP12s lighting was less 'white', better at portraying different atmospheric conditions.  Before XP12 I was used to MSFS lighting, but even so I used Reshade to tone down the whiteness and contrast.  XP12 lighting at release didn't require such tuning for an overall better effect to my eyes.

I've spent a few days in MSFS and haven't had the same negative opinion on the lighting.  A simple change to the colour temperature and toning down the ground textures with the Map Enhancement tool have produced a pleasing effect in MSFS.

I have installed all MSFS updates at release, but not explored them, so I am seeing better haze and visibility effects too since I stopped using MSFS last September.

Too bright and washed out?

MSFS does have a too bright washed out look since release in both 2D and VR during middle of the day clear weather hours.

It's pretty much the equivalent of jumping out of a pool as a kid with chlorine still in your eyes on a hot sunny summer day.

This was solved with VR thanks to OpenXR Toolkit image/contrast/brightness settings.

For those who never leave the virtual cockpit the default Longitude's darker cockpit glass tint would be great across multiple other default and addon aircraft.  

13 hours ago, Alpine Scenery said:

However, XP looks terrible in general, so even if it did look better at night, it looks worse in every other way.

To you.....

I am so pleased I like both again 😎

XP12's lighting doesn't look realistic to me compared to MSFS. The 3rd party planes still look extremely low quality as well doesn't help it much either.

If some of the people here at Avsim frequent the flightsim subreddit at Reddit, people frequently post pictures comparing MSFS pictures to real life pictures in that subreddit. Here is an example of such a picture comparing MSFS to real life from a thread there:

There are giveaways that this picture is not real life, but for most people, with a casual glance, it's not obvious. People post pictures of MSFS, comparing the pictures to real life, all the time in the flightsim subreddit. Few, if any people, will try to post the same pictures comparing XP 12 to real life pictures in that subreddit, because they will probably get laughed at for posting such pictures.

That's how good MSFS lighting is compared to XP 12 lighting. It's not even close.

 

 

Edited June 4, 20233 yr by Flightsky

Not to be a devils advocate (context which forum this is). But XP12 has at times extremely believable "atmosphere", just as MSFS.

The XP12 colors are natural (neutral even?), While MSFS has this greenish tint, or at least did have. There are plenty of nvidia freestyle presets out there which corrects this (YMMV). 

But in all honesty, accusing XP12 for having inferior colors, I simply don't agree with it. It's a very balanced palette imho. However the interior lighting (cockpits are usually way too dark, even in clear daylight) needs some work. Right now it's sort of mimicking the exposure behavior of my GoPro mounted in the cockpit (which is incorrect vs human eye, even while inverted)