Potentially good sign, a rumour that someone from Asobo has picked up the code from GitHub:

https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/replace-the-atmosphere-parameters-with-more-accurate-ones-from-arpc/607603/147?

1 hour ago, scotchegg said:

Potentially good sign, a rumour that someone from Asobo has picked up the code from GitHub:

https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/replace-the-atmosphere-parameters-with-more-accurate-ones-from-arpc/607603/147?

That is great news! I really hope Asobo will implement this sooner rather than later. Hopefully it won't be difficult to implement! Full credit goes to Biologic for sharing this valuable piece of information with the flightsim community!

“Someone on discord observed an Asobo employee forking your repository a few days ago…”

I know someone, who knows someone who might have seen …. Etc etc 🥳

Let’s hope that it’s for real 

2 hours ago, GSalden said:

“Someone on discord observed an Asobo employee forking your repository a few days ago…”

I know someone, who knows someone who might have seen …. Etc etc 🥳

Let’s hope that it’s for real 

The fork is real:

https://github.com/tcantenot/Atmosphere-Rendering-Parameter-Calculator

And the person who forked the repo is apparently a Senior Engine Programmer at Asobo:

https://theorg.com/org/asobo-studio/org-chart/thierry-cantenot

Of course, this doesn't mean that the modified coefficients will in fact end up in MSFS. But at least we now know that this has come to the attention of a developer at Asobo, and they're interested enough to be looking at @Biology's code.

Excellent news

Hopefully a step in the right direction

1 hour ago, martinboehme said:

The fork is real:

https://github.com/tcantenot/Atmosphere-Rendering-Parameter-Calculator

And the person who forked the repo is apparently a Senior Engine Programmer at Asobo:

https://theorg.com/org/asobo-studio/org-chart/thierry-cantenot

Of course, this doesn't mean that the modified coefficients will in fact end up in MSFS. But at least we now know that this has come to the attention of a developer at Asobo, and they're interested enough to be looking at @Biology's code.

I am not up to speed with the likes of GitHub and Discord etc.  Without being rude,   what's does 'forked' mean?

3 hours ago, GSalden said:

“Someone on discord observed an Asobo employee forking your repository a few days ago…”

I know someone, who knows someone who might have seen …. Etc etc 🥳

Let’s hope that it’s for real 

I mean, you can literally verify it via Github.

 

7 minutes ago, bobcat999 said:

I am not up to speed with the likes of GitHub and Discord etc.  Without being rude,   what's does 'forked' mean?

Boiled down, it's like someone copying the project and making their own project file that can be worked on etc.

or the official explanation;

Quote

A fork is a new repository that shares code and visibility settings with the original “upstream” repository. Forks are often used to iterate on ideas or changes before they are proposed back to the upstream repository, such as in open source projects or when a user does not have write access to the upstream repository.

 

Edited September 7, 20232 yr by Sethos

7 minutes ago, Sethos said:

Boiled down, it's like someone copying the project and making their own project file that can be worked on etc.

or the official explanation;
A fork is a new repository that shares code and visibility settings with the original “upstream” repository. Forks are often used to iterate on ideas or changes before they are proposed back to the upstream repository, such as in open source projects or when a user does not have write access to the upstream repository.

 

Excellent!  Thanks for that, and if this is the case it does look promising. 
If I was one of the MS / Asobo people, I would be looking at the comparison pictures and saying 'I want that in our sim'.
So with a lot of them being enthusiasts themselves, I can see this happening if it isn't too difficult for them. 
It might not even require a beta to implement if it is issued in isolation as a quick update!  

Edited September 7, 20232 yr by bobcat999

can you see now how important it is to have a MEGA campaign across all channels to make them hear us? I suspect if it hadn't been publicized, no one would have been interested in it....

 

Democracy in action. Brings a tear to the eye.

10 minutes ago, El Diablito said:

Democracy in action. Brings a tear to the eye.

  Well we are not quite there yet, but it stands a chance by the look of it.  We may have to overthrow Democracy by launching a Coup d'état if it doesn't work! 

I must admit, I tried a quick flight at dusk the other night, and the orange to purple sky looked just terrible, so hopefully we will have the new settings as a treat very soon.

Edited September 7, 20232 yr by bobcat999

I have a question on this whole subject...

MSFS has a procedurally generated sky (obviously the main object of this discussion), but FSX / P3D didn't as far as I know. I say this because I remember buying various REX / EnvTex programs that seemed to change the sky colours by use of a coloured image or 'tile', one for approximately every hour of the day and night if I recall correctly.

If this is the case, why is it that people say the 'horizon line issue' is carried over from FSX / P3D if those sky's weren't procedural generated, they are two entirely different things aren't they?

Edited September 7, 20232 yr by bobcat999

1 hour ago, bobcat999 said:

I have a question on this whole subject...

MSFS has a procedurally generated sky (obviously the main object of this discussion), but FSX / P3D didn't as far as I know. I say this because I remember buying various REX / EnvTex programs that seemed to change the sky colours by use of a coloured image or 'tile', one for approximately every hour of the day and night if I recall correctly.

If this is the case, why is it that people say the 'horizon line issue' is carried over from FSX / P3D if those sky's weren't procedural generated, they are two entirely different things aren't they?

Was there even a horizon line issue in P3D? I only have v4 and v5 so maybe it was fixed, but I don't remember seeing anything like that.

Regarding people saying that it's carried over from FSX / P3D - I think it's simply because when the bugs look similar people will naturally assume that they are caused by the same thing, but the way MSFS and FSX / legacy P3D (v5 and v6 moved into a physically based sky as well) skies work is completely different. FSX / legacy P3D used actual photos of the sky to render the sky, which had the advantage of looking exactly like real life and as they literally are photos from real life. It also allowed for lots of variation as the developers could simply add more photos of the sky taken at different conditions. However such an approach doesn't work well in an environment where everything else is physically based, as there is no way to get the actual brightness values from a photo, so the lighting calculations can't take the contribution from the sky into account. There not being a straightforward way to calculate aerial perspective was another major issue. Because of these issues, flight simulators, including MSFS, have all moved into physically based implementations. They might lack the variation of literal photos of the sky, but they are really consistent with the environment and they yield accurate brightness values.

The horizon line issue in MSFS is an artifact in Bruneton's model and there isn't a straightforward way to fix it. There is a recommended solution in the paper, but it didn't work for me in Enhanced Skyscapes and it seems like it didn't work for Asobo either. I'm sure Asobo would've gotten rid of it already if they had found a straightforward way.

Edited September 7, 20232 yr by Biology

 

 

The more typical Caribbean sunset.