Murmur

Find all "hdr/use_post_aa 0" and change them to "hdr/use_post_aa 1", except the first one (leave it at 0). This way, FXAA will be added to any MSAA setting.

Same as 2X MSAA only (FXAA has negligible or null impact on performance)

I get the best results with FXAA + 2x MSAA (requires a simple settings.txt edit). I don't know if it's as good as TAA, but it's fully acceptable to me for the time being.

If you would like it to be fixed, there's an action you could do that would help in achieving that. It takes about the same time than writing a post on AVSIM.

So, you prefer to spend time complaining about a defect in a product you use, rather than using that time to help correct that defect. Wow, you're a very, very smart person, I tell you! 😄

Reporting it as a bug would have taken you LESS time than writing the original post AND would have been a concrete action to help resolve it (which writing the above post is NOT). Unless, of course, your only purpose is trolling. 😏

Have you reported it using the bug report page?

A big limitation of XP weather engine. It lost cirrus clouds as a separate cloud type back in X-Plane 7 or 8. From there on, "few cumulus" category is used to depict cirrus clouds. They should correct this.

Also, having a look in Plane-Maker, if I'm not mistaken the YD constants for the Airbuses seem to be fixed, while for other airliners they can be tuned.

Apparently it is due to the yaw damper. The default B737 does the same in turbulence, but the rudder doesn't move anymore if yaw damper is turned off. I don't know if yaw damper can be turned off in the default A330 though. I think the yaw damper is reacting to the rapid changes in yaw during turbulence. Infact, if there's no turbulence, I don't see any unusual rudder deflections. Probably it is moving too much and too fast though, I doubt the yaw damper of the real aircraft would produce rudder movements with such a high frequency.

What do you mean? Dutch roll?

X-Plane is currently using FSR 1.0, mSparks is talking about FSR 2.0 which will be much better, but apparently it will take some time until we get it in X-Plane.

The issue is not the lack of diffuse illumination (it's already there), nor the limited range of monitors. It's just the lack of a local tonemapper, which makes it seem like diffuse illumination is not there. Hopefully it's a relatively high priority item for LR.

👆👆👆👆👆

@Biology already explained to you why the issue is not cockpit shadows, and I agree with him. So as I said, we'll agree to disagree because I don't think you can be convinced otherwise after his explanation.

I've seen that pic, not objecting that at all. I just think a local tonemapper can give a more realistic perception of a bright outside and a darker cockpit.

E.g. that the cause of the issue is cockpit shadows. But I'll leave at that, we'll agree to disagree, since I think at this point further discussion on the issue is useless.

I'm content with a local tonemapper, and I reckon that's what we'll get (as LR originally intended: according to @Biology, if their first iteration of the local tonemapper wouldn't have been buggy, we would have never seen those dark cockpits).

No, different users. For example, I disagree with many things written by efis007, e.g. the comparison with XP11 lighting engine.

No 6000W light bulbs, just a localized tonemapper. More perceptually realistic for a portion of users.

Yeah, I think it comes down to a different idea of realism each side has. As I understand it, some form of autoexposure can still be used even with a revised local tonemapper, so maybe everyone will be happy.

Thanks @Biology for your technical posts on this issue, at least I found them extremely interesting, so your effort wasn't totally wasted 🙂. I'm afraid though, you won't convince those who think current cockpits are perceptually correct that they aren't, and viceversa I don't think they can convince us that cockpits are perceptually correct instead. I'm sure LR will do a good job with the revised tonemapper they're working on.

You actually wrote detailed explanations suggesting that the issue was due to cockpit shadows, whereas it's something completely different and not related at all to shadows, as Biology explained very well. Anyway, as Goran said, all these long discussions are a moot point now, because as we understand, LR is already working on a better tone mappjng algorithm that should improve the issue. Continuing to complain about the same thing and writing long posts on the issue is hence useless.

Here's a comparison between default and a composite image using 2 different exposure levels (default exposure for external world and a modified exposure for the cockpit). Looks like LR will be doing something similar with the upcoming local tonemapper. If they also add sun glare blinding (like in the previous IL-2 screenshot), we'll have the most realistic simulation in all lighting conditions. Default: Composite: