Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Donations

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

898 Excellent

1 Follower

About Biology

  • Rank
    Enhanced Skyscapes & Enhanced Cloudscapes

Profile Information

  • Gender

Flight Sim Profile

  • Commercial Member
  • Online Flight Organization Membership
  • Virtual Airlines

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. I also want to mention that your example regarding failure simulation is misleading. While X-Plane has more built-in failure options, a lot of high-end add-ons (like the Challenger 650 by Hot Start) don’t use default systems and instead they provide their own fully custom systems, which means they are not even tied into the built-in failures. Similarly, while MSFS’ built-in failure system is more limited and it would be really nice if they improved it, most high-end add-ons don’t even use it. They provide their own custom systems and failures instead. It is already done in MSFS and it will likely be taken to the next level once A2A releases their aircraft.
  2. Meanwhile at Asobo: https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/release-notes-1-30-5-0-aau-i-dec-5th-2022/562540 Now all of the built-in avionics of MSFS (including the G1000 and GNSes) are much more accurate than their X-Plane counterparts. They certainly care about simulation as much as Laminar does.
  3. Don't think so, no. But if the sun, the glow around the sun or the glow that descends to the horizon becomes magenta while everything else is fine, it likely is caused by Mie scattering. I never had the magenta, so I don't exactly know when and where it occurs.
  4. I definitely want to give it a try, but as I've said it seems like they are not hiring anyone for atmospherics or lighting, at least they weren't mentioned in yesterday's livestream.
  5. This is actually something I've always wanted, but based on the announcement it seems like they're not hiring anyone for atmospherics or lighting 😞. Not even mentioning the fact that they already have 2 very skilled developers (Ben and Sid) working on atmospherics, lighting etc. and I don't think there's anything I can do that they wouldn't be able to. I mean if anyone from Laminar is reading this and is fine with me being nowhere near Ben or Sid in terms of graphical programming skills, I certainly would love to work for Laminar.
  6. I'm sorry to break it for everyone, but this has nothing to do with bright sun glare reducing visibility and it very likely is not intentional. Here's what's happening: Since X-Plane 12, the sky colors (and aerial perspective) are calculated at real time using physically based equations. In short, a light is casted for each fragment (or more loosely, pixel) and then scattered & absorbed light for each main color is calculated. Phase functions are very important in these calculations as they describe how much light scatters to a particular direction. The issue in X-Plane 12 is happens during the calculation of Mie scattering, which is exhibited by relatively large particles, like the aerosols in the atmosphere which go up to an altitude of approximately 2 kilometers, such as mist and pollution. Mie scattering does not depend on wavelength and it's known with its strong forward peak in its phase function. Phase function for Mie scattering also depends on a lot of factors like particle diameter. You can see a polar plot of Mie scattering phase function for various particle diameters below: However Mie scattering phase function is very hard to calculate in real time and due to how drastically it changes it is not feasible to bake it into an LUT either. Therefore, approximations such as Henyey-Greenstein phase function are oftenly used instead. It's normalized so that its integral over a sphere returns 1, which makes a lot of physical sense, given that phase functions give the ratio of light scattered to a particular direction and more than 100% percent of the light cannot get scattered. You can see a polar plot of Henyey-Greenstein phase function below for various directionality coefficients (analogous to particle diameter) below: Now here's the issue - there seems to be a bug in the X-Plane 12 so that the Mie scattering phase function returns abnormally high values when the scattering angle approaches sun angle. This overwhelms the tonemapper and clamps everything to white. Not only that, Mie scattering is not the main phenomenon that causes reduced visibility due to sun, it is the sun itself! Sun is extremely bright on its own and even without Mie scattering spreading sun light it is bright enough to overwhelm cameras or eyes looking at it, which is not the case with X-Plane 12, proving this is a Mie scattering issue, not a simulation of the effect of sun's brightness on eyes. While sun glare is partially caused by Mie scattering, it also happens without Mie scattering because of the nature of light itself - light behaves as a wave, therefore even parallel light rays create spreading out light waves when they hit an "aperture", be it a camera aperture or pupils in eyes. Otherwise neither sun glare nor the blinding / visibility reducing effect of the sun would exist in space or at high altitude, but obviously this is not the case in real life. Conversely this is exactly what happens with X-Plane 12, again due to the fact that this is a Mie scattering issue. Not only that, people who posted real-life photographs posted here as an evidence are missing one important point - eyes have a much higher dynamic range and while sun has a similar visibility reducing effect on eyes, it certainly does not look the way they look in those photographs. If anything, I think those photographs do a great way showing that the issue in X-Plane 12 is caused by something completely different. Here's a random screenshot from X-Plane.org, showing exactly what I mean: Notice how the overexposed part descends into the horizon and it gets laterally larger as it descends. This is because as I've mentioned aerosols (which mainly exhibit Mie scattering) tend to not go much higher than 2 kilometers. This is not the case for the photographs shown as evidence in this thread, because as I've mentioned it is mainly the sun's brightness itself that causes visibility reduction. Regardless, this issue has been known since X-Plane 12 was in early testing, it is acknowledged by Laminar Research and it will be fixed in the near future. It is not an intended feature and while there likely are plans to properly simulate visibility reduction by the sun, this is not one of them. It is not a feature, it is a bug that requires changes to the approximation for the Mie scattering phase function and the tonemapper.
  7. Looks absolutely gorgeous, love AviationLads trailers.
  8. Human factors - perfection is impossible to achieve and every implementation has its own shortcomings. I’m a huge Airbus fan so I tried all major Airbuses (Started with FF, got Toliss, FSLabs and now Fenix) and all had some shortcomings. FF was a huge disappointment as its ECAM and FBW implementations are pretty off outside normal use cases. Toliss was significantly better, however it was still disappointing in various aspects. I was quite impressed with both FSLabs and Fenix on the other hand - FSLabs has excellent navigational capabilities and flies by the numbers a bit more while Fenix has an excellent modeling of ECAM actions, failures and many edge cases which FSLabs simply didn’t get right.
  9. Definitely, Fenix A320 is not the best option if flight modeling is all you care about, X-Plane Airbuses would likely be a better option for that purpose. However for people like me who also value systems simulation, a more complete implementation of flight computers, practicing failures etc. Fenix is currently quite ahead of any Airbus available for X-Plane. So I guess it is a case of pick your poison - do you want better flight modeling or better systems modeling?
  10. LOL YaSim vs JSBSim arguments wouldn't surprise me at all.
  11. Then there are the users of both simulators who visit both forums and all they see are people telling how awful both simulators are. I guess I will just use FlightGear as both X-Plane and MSFS are awful and bound to die if I go by what I'm reading here 🤷‍♂️ I'm also pretty tired of the same people downplaying X-Plane in every single opportunity, but some of the X-Plane people here are not helping either.
  12. I think it is possible, however WASM modules still "link to" the inNative environment as inNative acts as a bridge between WASM code and the OS by providing "system calls", which means with every simulator update that changes the inNative environment, the compiled binary would need to be updated too, which is indeed the case for MSFS add-ons right now. If add-on developers end up having to provide pre-compiled binaries, they would have to do so with every update which is not developer friendly I guess. Of course Asobo can combine both approaches and allow add-on developers to provide pre-compiled binaries if they want, but I guess they didn't want to deal with possible complications. I'm not sure how much security plays a role in this case as Asobo could still enforce the pre-compilation to be occur in MSFS, maintaining the security provided by inNative. Also regardless a locally compiled binary could be replaced by a rogue software the same way if Asobo doesn't have checks preventing something like that from happening. It is an interesting topic indeed.
  13. I perfectly understand and respect the value of X-Plane for designing aircraft from scratch with no known performance numbers. However you should realize that your initial comment pretty much sounds like you were talking about the realism of a procedural simulation setup (which is the case for home and pilot training) that can be achieved with both simulators. Your initial comment pretty much reads as "All you care about is visuals, simulation realism doesn't matter to you" when this is simply not the case. Simulation requirements of a home / pilot training environment is completely different than an aircraft design environment. For a home / pilot training workloads MSFS can be as realistic as X-Plane, while for aircraft design workloads ESP simulators have traditionally been unsuitable as the flight model in ESP simulators require a lot of empirical data about the aircraft unlike X-Plane, which is obviously not available until the aircraft design is finalized. However this doesn't mean that MSFS is all about visuals and doesn't offer a realistic simulation experience that can even be used for pilot training, like your initial comment implied.
  14. Meh, I disagree with that one too. X-Plane 12 will feature a new shader-based sky, volumetric clouds, photometric lighting, 3D trees and water, weather effects like shader-based snow and water puddles, screen space reflections, improved night lighting, improved autogen, new default assets and much more. I wish both sides were more fair about strengths and weaknesses of both simulators.
  15. You definitely have all the rights to mention what you like more! Just keep in mind that you are in the MSFS forum, which means you will encounter much more people who prefer / use MSFS, which also means there will be a lot more people who will disagree with you. My "backlash" only comes from your remarks (which were phrased more strongly than an opinion) about MSFS SDK and avionics, which are frankly simply inaccurate and some of the evidence like Leonardo MD-82 speaks for itself. There is nothing wrong with expressing opinions, but basing these opinions on facts is very important.
  • Create New...