I Shall Persist!

About a week ago, I posted 2 pix of the same place and time, one in MSFS2020, and one from P3D, and I asked if anyone agreed with me that the former looked washed out in comparison. None of the commenters did. So be it.

 

So here's a pic of the Na Pali Coast on Hawaii's Kauai Island, taken today in late morning. Is there none among you who can admit, like the child in "The Emperor's Clothes," that this is hopelessly overexposed?

 

Mac6737

 

Haha, I don't like commenting on anything MSFS as it appears one must say certain things.

 

And here is another reason I HATE the route MSFS has taken for terrain rather than opt for more traditional graphics. Yes, that looks like garbage as does most photo-realistic anything used in flight sims.

 

The scene was actually underexposed originally, why it looks like that and why it draws your concern in the final output, meaning MSFS.

I understand your exact concern don't get me wrong but you can only work with what you have to work with. Unless they are going to meticulously and professionally adjust every part of the MSFS world, you're going to get many, many areas that simply look wrong.

 

Majority of people don't have an eye for this and don't notice flaws. If they did, they wouldn't have been flattered by the MSFS promo videos nor any of the photo-realisitic stuff in previous sims.

 

The biggest selling aspect of MSFS to most of the world (the terrain) is one of the biggest drawbacks for me.

 

On your example, yes, I do agree with you, it ain't right but you can't expect it to be any better either.

Edited October 2, 2020 by Skywatcher12

Haha, I don't like commenting on anything MSFS as it appears one must say certain things.

 

And here is another reason I HATE the route MSFS has taken for terrain rather than opt for more traditional graphics. Yes, that looks like garbage as does most photo-realistic anything used in flight sims.

 

The scene was actually underexposed originally, why it looks like that and why it draws your concern in the final output, meaning MSFS.

I understand your exact concern don't get me wrong but you can only work with what you have to work with. Unless they are going to meticulously and professionally adjust every part of the MSFS world, you're going to get many, many areas that simply look wrong.

 

Majority of people don't have an eye for this and don't notice flaws. If they did, they wouldn't have been flattered by the MSFS promo videos nor any of the photo-realisitic stuff in previous sims.

 

The biggest selling aspect of MSFS to most of the world (the terrain) is one of the biggest drawbacks for me.

 

On your example, yes, I do agree with you, it ain't right but you can't expect it to be any better either.

 

"Trolling, trolling, over the bounding main ..." Garbage? Well, there is some around, for sure.

"Trolling, trolling, over the bounding main ..." Garbage? Well, there is some around, for sure.

 

OMG! Just given the OP the most accurate answer he could possibly ever get to his concern.

Sorry I post based on knowledge and experience and don't make stuff up as I go along like everyone else here.

 

Carry on, I'm so pleased I only need to listen to my own advice. lol

The landscape level of clarity looks like this in the distance in conditions of high humidity, high temperature and haze. Not ideal conditions for a landscape photo shoot.

I gladly yield to your discriminating photographic acumen and vision. To my aging eyeballs the pic looks just fine and dandy. I can discern nothing 'wrong' with it. In truth I think it looks amazing.

 

As with all things in MY life, I only gotta keep ME happy and to date anyway I find the scenery in this new sim to be rather stunning. But that is only how MY peepers see it.

 

If the pics are not to YOUR liking or quality standards? Then your opinion of them is beyond debate and perfectly valid. No harm, no foul. there is no wrong or right in a person's opinion.

Edited October 2, 2020 by chicagorandy

Steering away from cartoonish graphics towards ”photorealism” introduces new challenges. Like replicating human eye functions, which are impossible challenge even for high end cameras.

 

I agree that scenery in your image looks washed out, but cockpit panel is visible and readable. If view from the window would be correctly exposed, cockpit would be too dark to see. And vice versa. In many modern games and in MSFS this eye adjusting is somewhat simulated, but it is always a compromise for readability and realism.

 

All in all, this is very much nit picking atleast for me, I think new MSFS looks very beautiful most of the time.

As with all things in MY life, I only gotta keep ME happy and to date anyway I find the scenery in this new sim to be rather stunning. But that is only how MY peepers see it.

 

Correct. This is why you have bought it and I have not.

There is a big difference between expressing legitimate concerns without being called a troll because it is outside one's knowledge or experience range to understand the comments made.

He could've asked a question for further clarification but opted to simply slam. lol

 

When I say the image presented here is garbage, I mean it is absolute and complete garbage, bin/trash/delete job!

I am not wrong but I also see the imagery from a perspective of someone who fully understands what they are looking at. I understand the issues from the original digital capture process of this image to the final screenshot taken by the OP from a game that he has presented here.

 

I can see the issues it has, understand why it has them and why it cannot be expected to be eliminated in the final product. It is one of the restrictions of the path MS have chosen for terrain and why I am not a fan of it.

The reason is is overexposed is that 67% of the picture is the inside of the cockpit, which is a lot darker than outside. Any camera photo would do that. Go into external view from outside the plane, and see how it looks.

I have expressed the view previously that certain areas in FS20 look more like poster art than photo realistic. The training “dojo” around Sedona to my eye looked terrible, yet flying over the Scottish Highlands or Northern England Pennines looked startlingly realistic, apart from the tower blocks poking up in a rural village!

I think if there is anywhere you have to cut 2020 a break its the scenery. Its the first sim I have purchased in twenty years where true VFR flight is a reality right down to individual buildings that no add on for previous sims would ever think to place.

 

Most everyone here has come over from a previous sim so I think the best way to approach this is decide what type of flying session you are in the mood for.

 

VFR; load up FS 2020

IFR/ILS; load up xplane.

About a week ago, I posted 2 pix of the same place and time, one in MSFS2020, and one from P3D, and I asked if anyone agreed with me that the former looked washed out in comparison. None of the commenters did. So be it.

 

So here's a pic of the Na Pali Coast on Hawaii's Kauai Island, taken today in late morning. Is there none among you who can admit, like the child in "The Emperor's Clothes," that this is hopelessly overexposed?

 

Mac6737

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]222533[/ATTACH]

 

You need to fly more in real life and take pictures and not do bias comparisons...

 

Like your previous thread on this subject, where you compared orange to apples, a sunny cloudy washed out simulator with a SUNSET picture (orange shade included)...

 

Can you believe it??????

How can someone be such a ..... to compare two different things?

 

And i replied in the the thread with a real life washed out picture of a passenger window shot i was flying at that very same day posted from the airport lounge an hour later

 

It has nothing to do with being a pilot or not, flying a lot or not, it has to do with "memory perception" of what you THINK you saw, you can be a pilot that flew yesterday and still have a bad eye perception of what yoy see daily when comes to describing it. Of course its not like real life

 

You dont realize that sunlight and non-dense cloud thin haze do look in real life to be overexposed, though simulator is not a perfect representation of the human eye in real life, its bettet than any other simulator...

 

Take more pictures while flying and make honest comparisons (with other sims)

Edited October 2, 2020 by Kapitan

You know why Im jumping into this?

 

Because someone had this conversation before every time a new sim version came out fs2002, fs9, fsx, even xp... and it was always pointed out that the sim was too cartoonish clear vivid colors while real life was actually more washed out overexposed.

 

And now that a sim tries to make it more real comes you wishing it was more cartoonish!

Edited October 2, 2020 by Kapitan

Carry on, I'm so pleased I only need to listen to my own advice. lol

 

Maybe that's your problem.

In an airplane, wether cockpit window or passenger be it clear or cloudy, the brightness is so strong you need raybans. You try not to look straight at the window cause its painful.

If you do want to look outside, you put your face close to the window and let your eyesight adjust from interior to exterior

Have you tried taking a flight along the Na Pali coast of Kauai by chance to see what it looks like yourself? Pretending that there aren't issues with the scenery data doesn't help anyone. Having hiked one of those ridges along the coast myself, the satellite imagery being used in the sim is washed out. And no, this time it isn't just a case of atmospheric haze or moisture.

This is what it looks like for me...

 

 

 

 

Try flying low along the Na Pali coast itself though. Most of the island does look decent, but there a few spots that aren’t as good. Also take a Cub and get really close too.

Try flying low along the Na Pali coast itself though. Most of the island does look decent, but there a few spots that aren’t as good. Also take a Cub and get really close too.

 

Yes, not quite as detailed, but it's certainly something I could live with.

 

 

 

You need to fly more in real life and take pictures and not do bias comparisons...

 

Like your previous thread on this subject, where you compared orange to apples, a sunny cloudy washed out simulator with a SUNSET picture (orange shade included)...

 

Can you believe it??????

How can someone be such a ..... to compare two different things?

 

And i replied in the the thread with a real life washed out picture of a passenger window shot i was flying at that very same day posted from the airport lounge an hour later

 

 

Kapitan, you may be confused. My previous thread, started 09/25, did not compare the 2 pix you erroneously describe in your condescending post. I compared a raw screen shot WITH THE SAME SCREENSHOT after editing it with Picassa. So, I'm not sure how anyone can be "such a ..... to compare 2 different things," but it seems to me that (1) comparisons, by definition, are of at least 2 different things and (2) the comparison I made was fair.

 

As for my need to fly more in real life, I'll consider your advice. I do note, though, that I am an 80-year-old retired international lawyer. My first flight was a prop plane crossing of the Atlantic, and I have logged several miles since then.

 

Mac6737.

The reason is is overexposed is that 67% of the picture is the inside of the cockpit, which is a lot darker than outside. Any camera photo would do that. Go into external view from outside the plane, and see how it looks.

 

OK, a fair point. So here's an external view, at the summit of Kilimanjaro.

 

 

And, BTW, for others in this thread, I think much of the scenery in MSFS2020 looks fantastic. I also think it looks washed out too much of the time. The reason I have been complaining is because I had hoped this could be corrected in a subsequent patch. Maybe it can't be.

 

Mac6737

And, BTW, for others in this thread, I think much of the scenery in MSFS2020 looks fantastic. I also think it looks washed out too much of the time. The reason I have been complaining is because I had hoped this could be corrected in a subsequent patch. Maybe it can't be.

 

Mac6737

 

The issue comes from the source satellite or aerial imagery and can only really be corrected when the source data is updated (they can do some correction using Azure AI, but this can only go so far). This is where the world updates, such as the recent one for Japan, come in. As they get better source data, these places will be updated and improved. For most people familiar with satellite/aerial based imagery, it wasn't a surprise that some areas would have issues. I would recommend watching the latest developer interview for some more detail on the efforts they are going through to get better data.

Forgot to add that another route for better imagery may be through third parties. However, this would be risky as their efforts could be essentially negated if/when Asobo updates the base sim data.

Steering away from cartoonish graphics towards ”photorealism” introduces new challenges. Like replicating human eye functions, which are impossible challenge even for high end cameras.

 

I agree that scenery in your image looks washed out, but cockpit panel is visible and readable. If view from the window would be correctly exposed, cockpit would be too dark to see. And vice versa. In many modern games and in MSFS this eye adjusting is somewhat simulated, but it is always a compromise for readability and realism.

 

All in all, this is very much nit picking atleast for me, I think new MSFS looks very beautiful most of the time.

 

That would be a fair point if flight simulation were just the same as photography: if you set your exposure for a dark foreground, your light background will be overexposed. Yeah, yeah.

 

But I don't think the sim is a camera. I think the background is what it is, no matter the light value of the foreground. Don't think so? How about this cockpit view of the Na Pali Coast in P3D (with Orbx scenery):

 

 

I guess what is and is not a "nit" is a matter of judgment. The reason I complain here is that MUCH of the time I find my scenery looks washed out, and I was kind of hoping that could be fixed by the developers, who claim to follow these forums.

 

Mac6737

That would be a fair point if flight simulation were just the same as photography: if you set your exposure for a dark foreground, your light background will be overexposed. Yeah, yeah.

 

But I don't think the sim is a camera. I think the background is what it is, no matter the light value of the foreground. Don't think so? How about this cockpit view of the Na Pali Coast in P3D (with Orbx scenery):

 

 

I guess what is and is not a "nit" is a matter of judgment. The reason I complain here is that MUCH of the time I find my scenery looks washed out, and I was kind of hoping that could be fixed by the developers, who claim to follow these forums.

 

Mac6737

 

Asobo will certainly be aware of it and are working on getting better data through Bing. However, the world is a big place and acquiring better data isn’t always easy, or cheap. This isn’t a simple bug like a switch in the cockpit not working.