2reds2whites

It's amazing that you think that's anything like the same.

What a ridiculous interpretation. It is absolutely nothing like asking Pepsi to sell you a Pepsi without the logo. The equivalent would be after buying and then pouring your pepsi into a glass, every time you take a sip a pepsi employee pops up at your window holding a pepsi advertisement. Why do you need a way to identify it is your product? The person knows it is your product - they have literally bought it. Obviously I assume you'd be happy if overlaying your screen whilst flying you permanently had the logos of ORBX, Fly Tampa, PMDG, BeyondATC and FS2Crew displayed as they were all in use at that time? After all, how would people know that it was their products when they posted screenshots?

People seem to be talking at crossed purposes. 1. Yes the 777 flight deck is inherently 'outdated' in real life, and is a see of relatively uninteresting brown. However the OP isn't talking about that fact - he's talking about the fact that the aforementioned outdated flight deck isn't particularly well depicted. I must admit that having spent plenty of time in a 777 flight deck I do know what they mean - whether it's the material reflectivity, consistency of colour, the wear pattern they've chosen etc it isn't quite there in terms of the feeling of how the real thing looks. It's absolutely fine, just not industry leading like the Fenix for example.

For the love of god. That's because the camera is metering for.................. .........never mind.

So your answer as to why we need to maintain the luminance ratio is to post a link in which it explicitly states that a constant luminance ratio is completely irrelevant in how we perceive the world. No - your own link says completely the opposite - YOU PERCEIVE THE WORLD SIMILARLY REGARDLESS OF THE HUGE CHANGES IN ILLUMINATION. I am genuinely dumbfounded at how you've managed to interpret that as 'eyes are insensitive to darkly lit cockpits.' It's the complete opposite. It's saying that even if there is a huge change in illumination you DON'T SEE IT THAT WAY. You simply have to be a troll, or lack the ability to read. It's your own link. You posted it, you go and read it. I also love the idea that as of XP12 it's now a physical impossibility to expose a digital scene correctly, as if every other flying/driving/farming/boating simulator in recorded history hasn't done it already.

Literally the third line of your explanatory link; So your answer as to why we need to maintain the luminance ratio is to post a link in which it explicitly states that a constant luminance ratio is completely irrelevant in how we perceive the world. This shortly after your post about how dark a 747 flight deck is actually proves it's as bright as an operating theatre.

Why? Is this the basis of your opinion? Why on earth would that relationship need to be 'maintained?'

Including XP11 and every other X-plane release. I legitimately have no idea what he's talking about.

This is too perfect. I must be reading that wrong. Is that 1000 lux? Did you just attempt to make a point of how dark a flight deck is, with the ambient light meter at the darkest part of the cockpit, with the lumisphere facing rearwards - showing an ambient illuminance of 1000lux? 1000 lux...........https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/light-level-rooms-d_708.html SURELY I must be misreading the value on that monitor, otherwise you've just obliterated your own argument lmao. 1000 lux is the lighting in an operating theatre. On a sunny day? The top one, by a massive margin. I've never flown the 747 but have spent plenty of time on the jumpseat. Even the sim isn't as dark as the lower image lol.

Absolutely hilarious. This is a classic mSparks moment of comedy up there with 'mach number has nothing to do with temperature.'

Except he's talking about the flight deck illumination, which is far closer to reality than what XP12 has to offer. Simple as that. Source: spend lots of time in a flight deck. If you'd have read his post then you'd have known that. He literally states it very explicity; Regrettably you don't have any valid arguments so you just fabricate one.

Is there a better example of the clown show on display in this thread than below? This is apparently an example of a beautifully bright and contrasty image, both inside the cockpit and out 🤣 https://imgur.com/6QBioS4 The

I honestly didn't even think I'd have to explain that the images are an analogue for how the sim manages shadows and 'contrast,' but I suppose I should have expected that it would go straight over your head. Literally everything else does.

What on earth are you talking about? Software tricks? It's literally a digital depiction. The entire image is software generated. That's literally the entire point of the whole lighting engine. Just to be clear - I have employed 'software tricks' to make the whole scene visible - so you think the world looks flatter and duller as a result? Correctly exposing all parts of an image has nothing to do with your monitors brightness. Image 1 - How Xplane deals with it - massively underexposes the shadows so as to expose the sky correctly - because that is at the 'centre' of the image. Image 2 - How your eyes behave, appropriately exposing the entire image, and how the vast majority of digital lighting engines behave; https://imgur.com/a/ue2EtAx It is legitimately bewildering that people are arguing that 1 is correct. It's honestly like a group delusion. Have you actually forgotten what real life looks like?

Triple posted - no idea why.

Why do you think you have some overarching authority which means you can dispel the opinions of others? You constantly whine when others present their views. If you don't like it then don't post. I personally think it's realistic because I have several thousand hours in that flight deck.

That is factually wrong. The dynamic range of a display has got absolutely nothing to do with the issue. On the basis that a monitor can aptly display almost anything between white and black with accurate colour rendition, it's completely possible (and simple) to replicate what the eye can see. The issue is that the sim is replicating what a camera can see, which is completely different.