Jeff_Fortuna

Members
  • Content Count

    14
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

24 Neutral

Flight Sim Profile

  • Commercial Member
    No
  • Online Flight Organization Membership
    none
  • Virtual Airlines
    No

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Jeff_Fortuna

    Environment Force Discussion Thread

    It is true, they probably overdid the blue tint a bit near the horizon at night. It is about 13/255 near the horizon in the image I uploaded. That image was with vibrance on because my monitor is a bit dull but it is likely somewhat overdone on my part. Now that you mention it, I could probably drop the blue a bit. At night, overhead, from the same scene, the blue value was 2/255. The clouds are a bit bright as well. They come in at a whopping 2/255 red, 3/255 green and 5/255 blue. That is for some standard cumulus. So is there a "problem"? No. It doesn't matter how your monitor is "calibrated". It also doesn't matter if you have "cat eyes". It is easy to check the values at each pixel in the game and that is independent of how you have your monitor "calibrated". Note that a small blue tint can easily be corrected for - and even then my monitor may not be calibrated - and neither are my eyes! That's the thing - I can prove that you are, in fact, picky about the looks of your sim. More importantly, your opinion about how it looks isn't more correct - it just is what it is. I don't think REX needs to fix much at all and I hope that they don't. Chasing opinions about visual appearance is not going to be productive. As I mentioned before, people are very particular about the way the sim looks and that has nothing to do with reality. The bottom line is that when no additional shaders are applied, short of it being a tad too blue and maybe a bit too much cloud illumination at night, there doesn't seem to be a problem. These are small things that can be OBJECTIVELY pointed out and fixed. Instead, there seems to be comment after comment of people using shader upon shader, setting things up for crazy results and then complaining that their sim doesn't look "right" with EF. If I were REX, I would totally ignore all of this, set it up to realistically depict a scene in auto mode with no additional shaders and leave it at that - and basically that is exactly what they have done. They have provided plenty of adjustments that can be made to compensate for monitor variance. After that, users should be on their own. I would argue that it is extremely rare that there is NO ambient light at night. Therefore, the sky should be blue tinted at the horizon due to Rayleigh scattering. Clouds should also be slightly visible for the same reason. Short of living in far northern regions or perhaps in the great plains (from a North American perspective), there is ALWAYS illumination at night (so called "light pollution) from below. The effect might be slightly overdone in EF due to HDR, but it is present and will be most visible on the horizon which will be brightest AND bluest due to the increased atmospheric scattering as the viewer looks through more air. In fact, I would be disappointed if the horizon was black and the clouds were not visible at night. It would indicate that the atmosphere and reflected light from ground illumination was not modeled correctly.
  2. Jeff_Fortuna

    Environment Force Discussion Thread

    Images are from version .0506 but it doesn't matter - I didn't have a problem with any version I have used. I have wave animations with ultra, as designed. I usually turn them off, because they aren't worth the CPU cycles, IMHO. KLAX day: KLAX night
  3. Jeff_Fortuna

    Environment Force Discussion Thread

    Note... almost - not all. Do you use TS or PTA or Envshade? If not, I'm very surprised that you ended up with a brightness problem. If I had to guess, the problem is with interactions with shaders - because modifying shaders is a lot of what EF provides. Given that I doubt the 4.5 hotfix affected the shaders in a significant way (although I could be wrong here), I would be even more surprised that the problem reappeared solely as a result of the hotfix. It will indeed be interesting to see if your problem can be fixed by something in EF other than just providing more brightness control (which is not fixing the "problem" at all - it is just masking the symptoms). I do think that using shaders upon shaders is a silly idea. Put simply, many shader operations are not linear - running a shader through a shader does not produce sensible results. I also do think that people are very stubborn when it comes to the visual appearance of their sim. Put these two things together and I think that has caused problems for Rex with EF.
  4. Jeff_Fortuna

    Environment Force Discussion Thread

    Interestingly, I have used AS and EF since EF was released and never had anything be overly bright. The adjustment provided for the exposure was sufficient. It is a bit better now that we have a bit more control over exposure - I can make it quite dim if I want. Further, the P3dv4 hotfix fixed the problem with low frame rates for Orbx complex sceneries. In short, everything works exactly as expected. I think the big deal here is in using third party shaders. I made sure that I stopped using PTA and returned my shaders to default before installing EF because I was sure there would be a problem with mixing automated shader adjustment in EF with static shaders from PTA. In fact, I don't think mixing the two makes much sense at all - with only a couple of small exceptions - specific VC and shadow adjustment come to mind. I would be willing to bet that almost ALL problems described above are a result of using other shaders or having used them in the past and not returning to the default shaders before using EF. I would also bet that those that are using third party shaders are not willing to stop using them - even if it creates problems with EF. People are very particular about the way their sim looks. I can't count how many times I have seen images posted with thick overcast and vibrant colors and high contrast terrain and aircraft. For some, this is perfect and exactly how things work in reality!!! I have become convinced that some folks see the world in a way they want to see it, not the way it is. No amount of convincing will change their minds. I would then argue that EF is probably not the right tool for them. That said, EF was promised to be "compatible" with other shaders and, to be honest, I don't think it is - at least at present. I don't know what it means to add shaders on top of shaders, but some folks seem to be insistent on doing this. I just hope that Rex isn't wasting time chasing their tail to "fix" a problem that isn't a problem for any use case that makes sense with EF. An ancillary worry would be the bad "press" that results from these rapid "fixes" giving the impression that the software was "rushed" to completion. I just don't see a problem with the release... Outside of the grey VC problem with TS, I think this software delivers exactly what is promised provided it is used in a way that makes sense. I would go so far as to say this the FIRST time I have seen an environment presented as it should appear given lighting conditions in a game. As such, EF has transformed the look of the sim and for the first time I would say that it, in many ways, surpasses the visual appearance of X-Plane. Night lighting is still better in XP, but it is becoming a pretty close race.
  5. Jeff_Fortuna

    Environment Force Discussion Thread

    As someone with a LOT of experience in manipulating visual scenes - including PhD and postdoc work in graphics and machine vision - it amazes me how particular people are about the visual appearance of a scene. People seem to be incredibly defensive about their particular choice of shaders and settings. People often post "tweaked" images using Tomatoshade or PTA to show how "fantastic" they look and the vast majority of them are hyper-realistic (too much contrast and vibrance given the lighting). I think this is the beauty of what EF has to offer - the scene looks appropriate given the lighting conditions. These changes are applied with respect to the atmospheric conditions present at the time. Now, if you want highly vibrant scenery with a high contrast at all times - including under conditions of diffuse lighting (heavy overcast), there is no value in the dynamic lighting offered by EF. This is all highly subjective... but if your objective is realism there is NO question that EF is a step in the right direction. On top of that, the dynamic cloud growth and changes in textures adds a lot to the immersion. Even in the half hour I left the sim sit at KDFW with severe thunderstorms nearby it was great to see these storms evolve over time - the shape and texture of the cloud base evolved in quite a realistic way. Is it perfect? No, but this process in real life is extremely complex and there is a severe limitation of what can be done with 2D sprites. Overall, however, I feel this was well worth the $25 US I spent. Again, if you want static, high contrast, "pretty" scenery at all times under all conditions, this product will disappoint. I feel that Rex has been more than clear about what the product delivers - and I think it does a reasonable job. I do have PTA and I use it to make subtle adjustments to the scene - mostly to fix inadequacies in my monitors - and it might be nice to use these shaders as a base upon which EF could provide adjustments. Perhaps this is why so many are pushing for compatibility with PTA and Tomatoshade. Certainly, advertising compatibility and then running into obvious bugs upon release is a bit embarrassing. However, overall, either you have realistic dynamically adjusted shaders according to conditions or you have static definitions over all conditions, "tweaked" to how an individual "likes" them. In many ways these are mutually exclusive. Perhaps that will help some that are trying to decide whether this product is appropriate for them.
  6. Jeff_Fortuna

    GTN 750 keyboard shortcuts do not work in P3D

    For now I will implement it as Bert suggested above. I am indeed surprised that no one has noticed this sooner... Oh well, thank you so much for looking into this!
  7. Jeff_Fortuna

    GTN 750 keyboard shortcuts do not work in P3D

    Guess I should have looked more closely at panel.cfg - I have a lot more time in X-Plane than P3D. Thanks so much for the help! That solution works nicely... It is a bit of a pain to do it for so many aircraft but I have found the popups are disorganized for many of the planes so this gives me an excuse to rearrange all of them to my liking.
  8. Jeff_Fortuna

    GTN 750 keyboard shortcuts do not work in P3D

    I don't think there is anything wrong with your product at all. It works perfectly in X-Plane and almost perfectly for me in P3D. And I'm quite sure keyboard shortcuts work fine for all of your other users in P3D. So you are right, I would be throwing away something that works quite well. However, the lack of a keyboard shortcut is frustrating. Unfortunately, I'm not sure I can fix this one. P3D offers little debugging info and, based on my complete lack of ability to set up keyboard shortcuts for 3D views in P3D - they simply did not work - I'm not holding out much hope here.
  9. Jeff_Fortuna

    GTN 750 keyboard shortcuts do not work in P3D

    That was my first attempt - which does work (sort of). The problem is, of course, that which key it is changes based on which plane I am using, because some of the shift+number combinations are used for aircraft pop-ups. In the case of some A2A aircraft, all of the popup windows are assigned and are no keys left. Therefore, there is no way to pop up the 750 window. This is what prompted the search for a universal shortcut. Perhaps I would be better off with the F1 750? Seems a bit of a shame to throw this one out in P3D because I can't get a keyboard shortcut to work...
  10. Jeff_Fortuna

    GTN 750 keyboard shortcuts do not work in P3D

    Well, the RXP .ini in the aircraft folder in P3D has no mention of popup settings for a keyboard. There is also no mention of this in the documentation. So, even if I could find a parameter to adjust, it would be set on a per aircraft basis? That would be a bit of a pain since I have about 30 payware aircraft that support the 750. I'd have to say that if the initial (global) method in the documentation doesn't work, then I'm likely not going to ever get this to work. Mucking about with this without any documentation is too frustrating to be worth the effort. It isn't a big deal - I can toggle the window from the main menu and I run P3D in a window. I have to admit to being a bit surprised that something as simple as setting a keyboard shortcut to hide / show the popup 750 is incredibly complicated or not possible at all (?) Thanks so much for the tip, though! It seems to me that popup windows and view changes via keyboard shortcuts are very easy to set up and simply work correctly in X-Plane. They simply don't in P3D. Thankfully, there is ChasePlane for handling view changes in P3D - that is all I will say about that.
  11. Editing shortcuts in RealityXP.GTN.ini in the Documents/Reality XP... folder using TOGGLE_WINDOW_1 = … does NOT work. It doesn't matter what key you use. I'm pretty sure that this file is completely ignored in setting shortcuts. I am using P3D v4.4. I can, of course, toggle the popup window from Vehicle->Instrument Panel->Reality XP GTN Unit 1 (managed). All is working perfectly with the 750, other than the keyboard shortcut. Does anyone have a suggestion as to how to troubleshoot this? Incidentally, the shortcut works perfectly in X-Plane by editing the RealityXP.GTN.ini file in the X-Plane preferences folder. My suspicion is that there is a bug in the keyboard shortcut handling for P3D. This would surprise me, though - I'm sure others are using keyboard shortcuts for a popup window in P3D (but maybe not in v4.4).
  12. Jeff_Fortuna

    Active Sky for XPX Released!

    I agree with the above... ASXP does a fantastic job of representing wind and turbulence IMHO. All that was good about this in P3D has carried over to X-Plane. And it plays nice with UWXP.
  13. It was midnight before I had a chance to try ASXP. I gave up at 3 am. I haven't had time to fill out a support ticket yet but will do so now. I have purchased AS and ASCA for P3D and have no issues whatsoever. That said, I do find it a bit unusual that it simply will not run on a system that has had no difficulties with any other XP related plugin and more surprising still that few others have run into problems. But, ya know, stuff happens... 🙂
  14. Doesn't really matter how it looks at the moment... It simply will not run on my system - it crashes X-Plane each time it starts. From the log, it seems to be conflicting with something X-Aviation related. I have no interest in debugging it at this point - I have already given it about 3 hours more than it is worth and removed every other plugin in the process. There is nothing unusual about my setup and I have set up and run HUNDREDS of aircraft and other plugins without difficulty on both X-Plane AND P3D. Since I am a hundred percent certain that a myriad of other users will be unable to get this running out of the box I will await a response from the developer. It seems clear to me that this was rushed and I think this was not fully baked on release.