14 minutes ago, efis007 said:

... go play with your simulator ...

MY simulator? If you use X-Plane then it's also YOUR simulator, isn't it?

In any case, this proves (once again) that biting humour hurts trolls the most 😄. And now leave us alone with OUR simulator ... (if X-Plane isn't YOUR sim). 👋

14 minutes ago, efis007 said:

Did you know that discussing bugs on a FORUM - after having ALREADY reported them! - is used to DISCUSS the problem with others and verify with the help of others if the bug really exists, as well as verify if someone among the USERS has already found a possible solution or suggestion to give to the community for bug resolution and/or improvements?

The tone and attitude you use in your posts when "discussing" X-Plane bugs seems to me just aimed at complaining for complaining sake, not at achieving something constructive. That's probably the reason you get the reactions you get from other X-Plane users.

1 hour ago, efis007 said:

No human eye would see the runway become totally blinding white

XP doesn't do that either that I can tell and you provide no path to recreate it. I tried all sorts of ways to replicate your garbage/slanderous pic (please do note the vulgarity there). No luck. Closest I came to was a much more realistic and plausible:

1 hour ago, efis007 said:

No human eye would see the runway become totally blinding white while looking at the cockpit with a slightly lowered gaze.

Regardless of the slightly high or low gaze, the runway should always be well visible and readable (like in this image with a slightly raised gaze).

To fix this old and famous problem I had no choice but to modify the artistic controls to completely remove that effect. 😒
set( "sim/private/controls/autoexposure/gain_hi", 0)
set( "sim/private/controls/autoexposure/gain_lo", 0)

I would like to ask the Laminar Team (I know they read us):
Why don't you make that feature optional??
Not all pilots want to see their graphics completely ruined by those camera overexposure effects.

I remember that in the days before the release of 12.2 Sir Maya2 talked about the imitation of the human eye, highlighting a very famous issue, that is that the previous versions were problematic because they did not imitate the human eye, but imitated a camera (with all its defects).
My question is therefore very simple: Why in 12.2 did you keep the effect I showed above, which represents the old wrong overexposure of a camera instead of a realistic imitation of the human eye? 
As the improvements of the new lighting in subsequent versions progress, wouldn't it be preferable to get rid of that effect permanently?
At least make it unable/disable at the user's choice.

Umm...yeah, you would.

The "problem" is looking at a simplistic 2D emissive representation of a highly complex 3D reflective world, and having confirmation bias that what it used to look like on screen is what it SHOULD look like.

IDK how old you are, but i'm old enough to have used film-based cameras, and I can tell you how painfully easy it is to get the exact same effect (or worse!) as your first picture. Heck, depending on which smart phone you're using, it can still easily be done today, especially if you're sitting in a cave-like cockpit on a bright, sunny day. 🙂

Our peripheral vision and neurologic vision processing fools our brains, even in the real world, into thinking we perceive things far better than we do. What really happens is that our eyes are nearly instantaneously re-adjusting as we focus our attention on different areas of the world.

Gaming rigs are better than ever, but you can't expect highly realistic results from a highly unrealistic presentation medium like a 2D computer screen.

55 minutes ago, GoranM said:

I never said he didn’t see it. I said, I’ve never seen it.

So if you've never seen something, what are you waiting for to ask that user to tell you how to see it?
Do you want to see if the problem of overexposure of the camera exists?
You don't need my Log to see it!
What you have to do is simply ask me for the information to reproduce the event in photos and verify it.
And here they are, there's nothing secret:
-Airplane: A330 default
-Airport of the photo: ZUCK default (China), runway 20R
-Weather: Manual default, second preset "few clouds".
-Global scenario: all default.
-Addon: no addon (Note: I changed the art controls only after taking the photos, that is, after verifying that the problem of the overexposed camera still existed).

Now you have all the information you need to reproduce the experiment yourself.
Take that plane, get on that runway, move the camera as in the photo and you will see with your own eyes that the problem of camera overexposure still exists and is particularly annoying in specific cases like the one shown in the photo.

Having said that, what you "fans" are grumbling about me is completely insignificant to me.
Since I know that this forum is observed by MAYA2, I showed those photos so that MAYA2 could discuss that issue with me, and only with me since I am the one who asked HIM the specific question "Why don't you make that effect optional instead of default"?
I would like to hear the answer to this harmless and simple question from Maya2.
Because I trust him blindly! 
Unlike you "fans" who, instead, for 2 years the only thing you have been able to do "well" was criticize me and him.

If you don't like me using the Avsim forum to publicly chat with an old adventure friend, that's your problem.
Leave me alone and stop always intervening on everything I post.

21 minutes ago, Murmur said:

The tone and attitude you use in your posts when "discussing" X-Plane bugs seems to me just aimed at complaining for complaining sake, not at achieving something constructive. That's probably the reason you get the reactions you get from other X-Plane users.

Your Honour!

Evidence:

5 minutes ago, efis007 said:

So if you've never seen something, what are you waiting for to ask that user to tell you how to see it?
Do you want to see if the problem of overexposure of the camera exists?
You don't need my Log to see it!
What you have to do is simply ask me for the information to reproduce the event in photos and verify it.
And here they are, there's nothing secret:
-Airplane: A330 default
-Airport of the photo: ZUCK default (China), runway 20R
-Weather: Manual default, second preset "few clouds".
-Global scenario: all default.
-Addon: no addon (Note: I changed the art controls only after taking the photos, that is, after verifying that the problem of the overexposed camera still existed).

Now you have all the information you need to reproduce the experiment yourself.
Take that plane, get on that runway, move the camera as in the photo and you will see with your own eyes that the problem of camera overexposure still exists and is particularly annoying in specific cases like the one shown in the photo.

Having said that, what you "fans" are grumbling about me is completely insignificant to me.
Since I know that this forum is observed by MAYA2, I showed those photos so that MAYA2 could discuss that issue with me, and only with me since I am the one who asked HIM the specific question "Why don't you make that effect optional instead of default"?
I would like to hear the answer to this harmless and simple question from Maya2.
Because I trust him blindly! 
Unlike you "fans" who, instead, for 2 years the only thing you have been able to do "well" was criticize me and him.

If you don't like me using the Avsim forum to publicly chat with an old adventure friend, that's your problem.
Leave me alone and stop always intervening on everything I post.

Evidence concluded.

46 minutes ago, efis007 said:

Since I know that this forum is observed by MAYA2, I showed those photos so that MAYA2 could discuss that issue with me, and only with me ...

Oh ... BTW ... you might have heard (?) that avsim offers the possibility for private messages. If you claim that you want MAYA2 to discuss ONLY with you - why haven't you chosen that possibilty? You're very welcome 😄 

You've just unmasked yourself.  You're very welcome 😄 

29 minutes ago, efis007 said:

-Airport of the photo: ZUCK default (China), runway 20R
-Weather: Manual default, second preset "few clouds".

Anyone needs to ask? But hey...baby steps. You also failed to list time of day and year.

 

31 minutes ago, efis007 said:

Leave me alone

Can't remember how old I was last time I heard this one... 10 maybe?

 

10 minutes ago, flying_carpet said:

why haven't you chosen that possibilty?

heh heh. Because these are the customers whose attitudes generally get ignored.

1 hour ago, Murmur said:

The tone and attitude you use in your posts when "discussing" X-Plane bugs seems to me just aimed at complaining for complaining sake, not at achieving something constructive.

Maya2 said that the main problem with the previous XP12 was that it mimicked the behavior of a camera rather than the human eye.
Version 12.2 has been redesigned to better mimic the behavior of the human eye, that is, to no longer mimic a camera (as in previous versions).
However, I noticed that in 12.2 there was still the old "human eye imitation" function made in camera style that lightens and darkens the image based on where you look at the panel.

So what did I do?
Nothing at all, I simply took two photos showing the phenomenon I saw yesterday on the default A330, and I asked here on the forum (knowing that Maya2 reads us) if in subsequent releases it would be possible to enable/disable that effect directly from the menu, rather than leaving the user the unpleasant task of messing with the art controls (if he does not want that effect).

Do you see anything offensive or whining in this?
Who or what have I offended to deserve to be called a TROLL?
If you showed a photo of yourself showing a potential problem (that I don't have, or simply haven't seen it yet)... do you think I would publicly allow myself to call you a TROLL just because I haven't seen the problem you describe?!?

The public request that I made to Maya2, to option that function of the "Eyes camera exposure aperture", don't you think it's constructive?
What's more beautiful and constructive than publicly asking the developer to implement a small option?
What's more beautiful and constructive than seeing the developer publicly respond to the customers who, in an absolutely polite and transparent way, made that request?

I wonder why every time we "normal consumers" post something interesting or questionable, you "fans" immediately see the rot everywhere and attack the potential enemy who is not doing anything bad to anyone.
You and all the others who criticized me, can you please show me where I wrote something rude or offensive in this topic about 12.2?
Did I write that 12.2 is ugly and I don't like it?
No.
Did I write words similar to "it's ugly" "it sucks", "it's terrible"?
No.
So what are we talking about?!
Is it possible that you can never show anything without "the usual suspects" intervening to destroy the topic? 

Anyway, no problem.
I'm happy to leave the discussion.
Find some other troll to mock.
Have fun. 🍾

52 minutes ago, blingthinger said:

heh heh. Because these are the customers whose attitudes generally get ignored.

Well, keep insulting and mocking, you're doing great demonstrating your maturity to the community. 👍

4 hours ago, efis007 said:

graphics completely ruined

Yeah 'cause this is such glowing praise.

Let's pretend for a second that your screenshot is actually valid. You've cherry-picked the 1% scenario where the model might be less than optimal and made it very clear that it has "ruined" your life.

Time of day and month, please.

21 minutes ago, efis007 said:

Is it possible that you can never show anything without "the usual suspects" intervening to destroy the topic?

So, you are actually the victim???? I just took a second to feel sorry for you 😥 .
Have you ever heard of perpetrator-victim reversal? If not - you've just provided the proof yourself.

I suspect the free for all will get shutdown "AGAIN". when will the children stop fighting. Its about XPLANE improvements not you.

1 hour ago, flying_carpet said:

Oh ... BTW ... you might have heard (?) that avsim offers the possibility for private messages. If you claim that you want MAYA2 to discuss ONLY with you - why haven't you chosen that possibilty? You're very welcome 😄

Because it is not a "State Military Secret" to publicly ask something to a developer who works for Laminar.
I remind you that this developer who now works for Laminar was considered a "troll" by people like you. 
On the other hand, I have always shown him maximum respect and esteem for all the interesting notions that he reported and that united us from a purely technical scientific point of view. 
We both knew very well and irrefutably that XP12 had a serious lighting problem, we could have talked for hours or even entire days together about this thing, I could have provided him with tons of material, photographs, evidence, demonstrations of the phenomenon.
All documentation that in the end was not necessary because he knew very well about the problem, so it was not necessary to provide him with anything. 👍
We have always been on the same track.
Same path.
Same understanding.
Same awareness.
Same desire to never hide the truth under lock and key, but to face it and solve it, even going against all those who called us trolls or liars.
And what I just told you is proven history, dear "fan" friend! 😉
So I ask you, suppose that Sir Maya2 (old Biology user) wanted to come to this forum to entertain a nice public discussion about XP12, in your opinion, with whom would he want to pleasantly discuss lighting, lights, shadows, technical and graphic details of XP12 without fear of being attacked and humiliated?
With you... or with me? ㊗️

1 hour ago, flying_carpet said:

You've just unmasked yourself.  You're very welcome 😄

Masking?
It's funny that those who talk about "removing the mask" never noticed the bug of the dark panels and all the other related problems.
You must have worn that mask over your eyes very tightly if it even prevented you from seeing something so obvious! 😄

13 minutes ago, efis007 said:

All documentation that in the end was not necessary because he knew very well about the problem

blah blah blah

Time of day and month, please.