More X-Plane Eye Candy!

[peroni 541]

15 hours ago, GoranM said:

Dark cockpits are very much known about and are scheduled to be addressed in 12.3.0. HDR10 is something we want (Although won't solve textures that are inherently in a 8-bit colour space)

Wow, 12.3.0 could be one or two years away.
Anyway, until then the RXP XP12 Enhancer does workaround this problem just fine. I hope the author keeps it up to date with every new version like he did so far. And thanks goes to @RXP

[Bjoern 1,157]

1 hour ago, The Seawolf said:

A quick check with X-Plane 11 will reveal how much the graphics has in fact deteriorated, if we not just look at clouds and colors.

Prove it. Water, trees, detail map on the ground, rain puddles, snow. GO!

 

1 hour ago, The Seawolf said:

X-Plane 12 broke most existing addons in the lighting department

Again: Prove it.

 

 

[strider1 575]

40 minutes ago, peroni said:

Wow, 12.3.0 could be one or two years away.
Anyway, until then the RXP XP12 Enhancer does workaround this problem just fine. I hope the author keeps it up to date with every new version like he did so far. And thanks goes to @RXP

Lots of cool stuff in the pipeline, but as say it's many months if not years away.

[UrgentSiesta 932]

31 minutes ago, Bjoern said:

Prove it. Water, trees, detail map on the ground, rain puddles, snow. GO!

He's talking about internal lighting, which was and sometime is plain to see.

I can remember early WIP shots of v11 aircraft brought into v12 and they looked horrendous - even on the outside.

Quote

Again: Prove it.

It's weird - were you not around in the early days of v12?

VERY few aircraft were ready on Day 1, many are still not available, some required upgrade fees, and my favorite helicopter required a full-price re-purchase.

[mSparks 2,086]

8 hours ago, GoranM said:

It has a darker albedo so not surprising

right, I showed this back in March last year making the sr22 albedo all white.

and also the kind of things that can be done to stop the sun blinding you that doesn't come as default

12.3 still isnt going to fix aircraft that need a brighter albedo, Id be quite surprised if it is much more than some minor tweaks to global illumination and proper guidance on calibrating the albedo.

Edited February 18 by mSparks

[2reds2whites 827]

On 2/17/2024 at 7:43 AM, GoranM said:

If you want to start your own thread about cockpit lighting, by all means, do so, and you might get a response.

 

On 2/17/2024 at 1:56 PM, GoranM said:

When you come across an issue in any flight simulator, it is important to convey your feedback in a constructive manner. Posting remarks such as "The pressure is on Asobo" or "X-Plane's lighting has always been broken" is unlikely to result in positive responses.

If you believe there is an issue with X-Plane's lighting, I recommend providing evidence to support your claim along with any suggested corrections. Presenting comparisons can also be helpful.

Simply stating that something is "broken" without supporting evidence is not constructive. It is merely an unsupported opinion that, if shared with Laminar, would likely be disregarded.

You always seem to come up with these bad-faith arguments, with unreasonably pointless bars to be cleared for you to deem them valid. Too dark is too dark. That in itself is perfectly acceptable feedback. It is an extremely clear description. It is also the description that the X-plane developers themselves use. Why are you not criticizing the developers in this thread stating that they need to provide evidence to support their claim? 

I'd also note that regarding your suggestion to start a thread - someone did. You spent the entire thread attempting to undermine any suggestion whatsoever that the cockpit exposure wasn't correct. You also stated that any criticism whatsoever of the lightning system was invalid unless people provided data - literally lux readings from the flight decks of airliners. Again it's funny - now you're posting statements from X-plane accepting the issues with no humility. Here's a few highlights of yours from that thread, by the way;

 

On 3/17/2023 at 2:30 PM, GoranM said:

So, the tonemapper problem, is distorting reality in a simulation(???), and therefore the entire software package is an unrealistic flight simulator. Let me get this right.  X-Plane is unflyable, because of the shadows?
Oh brother!  Are we being punk'd?  Is this actually legit, or is he just trolling for the sake of trolling?

🤦‍♂️

On 3/13/2023 at 1:00 PM, GoranM said:

Don’t get me wrong. It’s not the people refuting efis’ posts. I’m beyond stunned that he would go to such lengths, typing such enormous posts, for shadows. 
I do admire your patience, though. 

On 3/13/2023 at 3:36 AM, GoranM said:

Majority?  How many people have you surveyed?  What are the percentages?  We need figures and facts. 

I'll be eagerly awaiting your response, because if it's as you say it is, I'll be more than happy to go to Laminar with the figures.

On 3/11/2023 at 3:57 PM, 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?

On 3/3/2023 at 3:46 PM, GoranM said:

You don't get out much, do you?

 

So my question now is, when can we expect the lux readings and data from the developers? After all their opinion is invalid by your definition until that data is provided.

[mjrhealth 820]

@2reds2whites and i wonder why we still have developers in xplane, lots of discussions about lighting. Not everyone will be pleased. Always be complainers, works fine for nr.

[2reds2whites 827]

On 2/17/2024 at 1:56 PM, GoranM said:

Simply stating that something is "broken" without supporting evidence is not constructive. It is merely an unsupported opinion that, if shared with Laminar, would likely be disregarded.

So why have you then posted a direct quote from Laminar saying that the dark cockpits are ‘very much known about?’ 

The cognitive dissonance is literally astounding. You can’t stand hearing criticism of anything x-plane even if the developers have outright declared validity of that criticism. 
 

 

[mjrhealth 820]

48 minutes ago, 2reds2whites said:

So why have you then posted a direct quote from Laminar saying that the dark cockpits are ‘very much known about?’ 

The cognitive dissonance is literally astounding. You can’t stand hearing criticism of anything x-plane even if the developers have outright declared validity of that criticism. 

Because it is, doesnt mean its wrong, just means people complained, and that is not everyone, everyone is entitled to an opinion, Im fine with lighting.

[Randall 82]

4 hours ago, peroni said:

Wow, 12.3.0 could be one or two years away.

Nope. Ben answered that question on his developer’s blog: “All this year – basically right after 12.1.” 

[peroni 541]

4 minutes ago, Randall said:

Nope. Ben answered that question on his developer’s blog: “All this year – basically right after 12.1.” 

Oh I've just seen that, thanks for pointing that out! Looks like a super welcomed change of pace then.
I was envisaging many iterations of 12.1.x and 12.2.x before seeing 12.3.x

[Murmur 3,944]

7 hours ago, The Seawolf said:

That sounded very different during the first year and at times it felt like being ridiculed. I remind you of "hardware calibrate your monitor" "you are not a pilot" "we measured everything physically and "cockpits are still not dark enough"

You seem confused and/or misinformed. I don't think that Laminar or its official developers (which is what counts) ever said anything like you're suggesting. Indeed, as i remember, it was not very long after XP12 launch that LR acknowledged that cockpit lighting needed further work.

Surely on the matter there were differing opinions by some in the community, but that is normal.

I for one am very excited that they are finally improving the issue for good, and doing that in a way to make life easier to aircraft authors, in that the upcoming changes are going to be of the "measure twice, cut once" kind, i.e. they should completely fix the issues once and for all.

Edited February 18 by Murmur

[GoranM 3,772]

7 hours ago, The Seawolf said:

That sounded very different during the first year and at times it felt like being ridiculed. I remind you of "hardware calibrate your monitor" "you are not a pilot"

 

I certainly didn't tell anyone these things.  Although I can see if this problem exists, changing the monitors calibration is a viable, temporary solution.  

7 hours ago, The Seawolf said:

"we measured everything physically and "cockpits are still not dark enough"

I've never seen this mentioned anywhere.  However, the staff at Laminar have, for years, been told things are "wrong" or "This doesn't look right".  Austin is more than happy to make corrections, but he'll only do this when he has facts.  Not opinions.  If he made changes whenever someone just told him what they THINK is right, he'd end up with a mess.  

7 hours ago, The Seawolf said:

A quick check with X-Plane 11 will reveal how much the graphics has in fact deteriorated, if we not just look at clouds and colors.

Incorrect.  But you're entitled to your opinion.

7 hours ago, The Seawolf said:

To me personally Laminar wasted my time for over a year with insincerity and at the end of they day need to deliver something.

How did LR waster a year of your time with insincerity?  Ben Supnik writes a blog on everything in X-Plane, along with what's coming up.  There is also a comments section where you can ask questions directly to Ben.  No one was insincere.

7 hours ago, The Seawolf said:

X-Plane 12 broke most existing addons in the lighting department and now it gets even more complicated with yet another announced 180 degree turn, now no one will work on their lighting at all, and those who did will have to do it all over again.

Nothing is "broken".  

Edited February 18 by GoranM

[GoranM 3,772]

This'll be fun one.

5 hours ago, 2reds2whites said:

You always seem to come up with these bad-faith arguments, with unreasonably pointless bars to be cleared for you to deem them valid.

He posted a question about cockpit lighting, which was posted almost a year ago by someone else.  I personally don't really like repetition.  Call it a flaw in my character if you want.

5 hours ago, 2reds2whites said:

That in itself is perfectly acceptable feedback. It is an extremely clear description. It is also the description that the X-plane developers themselves use.

Which is why I suggested he start a new thread, where someone may reply.

5 hours ago, 2reds2whites said:

Why are you not criticizing the developers in this thread stating that they need to provide evidence to support their claim? 

I'm confused.  Which developers?  Laminar?  Why would I criticize them in here?  They don't come here.  I've provided feedback to Laminar, several times, in the Slack group.  That's what it's there for.  Otherwise, I'm not really sure what you're asking.  You want me to publicly bash the staff at Laminar in here?  

5 hours ago, 2reds2whites said:

I'd also note that regarding your suggestion to start a thread - someone did. You spent the entire thread attempting to undermine any suggestion whatsoever that the cockpit exposure wasn't correct.

Undermine?  Do you know how many times commercial devs get told something is "wrong" in their add ons, with no supporting evidence?  Someone told me the winglets of the 650 were wrong.  I asked them "How are they wrong?  Which part?".  Response?  "I don't know.  They just look wrong."

Well, that's no help.  If something is wrong, PROVIDE EVIDENCE.  Cockpit's are too dark?  Provide information that makes them right.  Without information, nothing gets fixed.  No one at Laminar is just going to say "Ok, brighten it up by 50%."

They do things properly, with numbers to back them up.  The numbers were found.  

And if you're going to quote me, please make sure you quote me with full context.

5 hours ago, 2reds2whites said:

You also stated that any criticism whatsoever of the lightning system was invalid unless people provided data - literally lux readings from the flight decks of airliners.

Well, yeah.  Again, they don't guess this stuff.  Now they have information that goes even deeper than lux readings from the cockpit.  That's how this stuff SHOULD be done.  

5 hours ago, 2reds2whites said:

Again it's funny - now you're posting statements from X-plane accepting the issues with no humility.

Absolutely!  Again, they know precisely how to fix the dark cockpit, instead of taking shots at a dart board, without someone telling them "A little more to the left."  I'm not sure where you want the humility?  If I get something wrong in an add on I make, and someone points it out, I look into it, and if it's something that needs fixing, I thank the person for pointing it out, and get to work fixing it.  I've spent the last 2 years+ working on updates to 3 add ons.  Updates that equal errors in the work I've done.  If you want to put me on a platform and hang an imaginary sign around my neck that says "I'm wrong!", I would ask why.  Do I make mistakes?  Sure I do.  Do you make mistakes...even in these very posts you make?  Absolutely.  When it comes to the cockpit lighting, did I make a mistake?  No, because I never claimed to be a lighting maestro, and my suggestions were to contact Laminar with the right info.  

5 hours ago, 2reds2whites said:

So my question now is, when can we expect the lux readings and data from the developers? After all their opinion is invalid by your definition until that data is provided.

Please, feel free to read what I said here.  No need for lux readings.  It goes deeper than that.

5 hours ago, 2reds2whites said:

So why have you then posted a direct quote from Laminar saying that the dark cockpits are ‘very much known about?’ 

I don't read emails that go to Laminars inbox.  If someone sent them lux readings, that would've been a start.  Perhaps a pilot sent photos, and they could see something was wrong when comparing.  It's a lot better than reading an email from John Smith saying, "Cockpits are too dark."

There was a time people were complaining of too much P-Factor on take off in single engine GA's.  Austin disregarded every single one of those.  Until, I think it was @Murmur who provided actual data on it, and why it was wrong.  Austin looked at it, agreed his information was accurate, and fixed it.  

X-Plane's critical Mach info was wrong.  Mike Vivaldi, a physics professor, sent in the relevant information to have it fixed.  There's even a video on it.  I spoke to Mike about this (He's in our discord).  He told me he sent several emails to Austin, telling him the critical Mach was wrong.  With each email being ignored.  Until he finally put together the information proving it was wrong.  Austin replied, within a day.

I'm not really sure why you want things done by guesswork.  I love the fact they do this all properly, with the right information.  It's the very reason I wanted to make add ons for X-Plane.  

5 hours ago, 2reds2whites said:

You can’t stand hearing criticism of anything x-plane even if the developers have outright declared validity of that criticism. 

I literally quoted a developer from X-Plane confirming the cockpit lighting was getting fixed less than 48 hours ago.  

 

Edited February 19 by GoranM

[The Seawolf 18]

You don't need to quote every single sentence in the forum @GoranM as if every word needs your approval 😉