Better cockpit lighting

Official Microsoft Flight Simulator Wishlist
,
1

I’d like to suggest a simple solution to the following well-known issue.

  • cockpit too dark
  • outside view too bright

Instrument readability / Cockpit too dark / Eye Adaptation
When will Asobo finally fix lighting inside cockpit?

The cause of the problem is the dynamic range between interior and exterior light being so much bigger than the dynamic range of any computer display. Therefore so called “eye adaptation” is applied to deal with it. When the virtual eye aims outside scenery and adapts to its high brightness, interior becomes look too dark. As soon as the virtual eye aims the relatively dark interior of cockpit and adapts to its low brightness, then the outside scenery becomes look washed out. You can’t see both clearly unless the dynamic range of whole lighting system gets reduced.

Though eye adaptation is well done (in my opinion) and realistic in theory, it is neither convenient nor realistic in practice.

Because,

  • Human eye can afford much wider dynamic range even without adaptation of pupils.
  • Where we (players in front of screen) intend to look at is not always the centre of the screen. The centre of screen may aim the runway outside, but where we really intend to see clearly may be the instruments.

My (simple) Solution:

!! Make pilot’s head a diffuse light source !!

I don’t mean avatar’s head should glow.
I mean the cockpit view camera should illuminate the cockpit like dome light does.
(must be a lot more brighter than a dome light)

Like this device:

Koenig-KN-RL60N-30115612-01
Koenig-KN-RL60N-30115612-011020×570 50.7 KB

With this one can take a nice portrait against a severe backlight.
An examplary result:
maxresdefault
maxresdefault1280×720 78.2 KB

source: https://youtu.be/wrK0fYEQefw
Let’s give our instruments a nice backlit portrait like this!

To work correctly, the intensity of light must be proportional to exterior brightness, so that it never illuminate cockpit at a dark night. It is not mean to be a substitute for flashlight or dome light. It must be there, just to reduce overall dynamic range of the scene. And the windshield of an aircraft might be a good reference point to define exact brightness of the light. (like airbus’s ice detector)

Last but not least, put this function as an assistance option since it is not realistic in a strict sense.
The proportional constant of brightness should also be selectable: off, low, medium, high.

Please consider this solution.
It does not need any serious overhaul of graphic engine,
and we already have pretty similar device with different purpose: flashlight.

2

Which plane and under which lighting conditions?

Which video card, what drivers, monitor calibration and which tool used … you’ve brought forth a question with countless variables on the user side and included none.

2 Likes
3

No, they bring a suggested solution to a well-documented dilemma unrelated to any of the pieces of information you ask for (see the threads linked near the top).

Personally, I probably wouldn’t use such a feature because the current implementation works well for me, but I can see why some would find it helpful.

4

Yes, I’ve come across a few forum posts about the cockpit being slightly dark too.

Not too sure how well this would play out in practice but it’s certainly an interesting idea which i’ve not come across before.

Thanks for posting :slightly_smiling_face:

1 Like
5

The 172 seems dark, then I press L two times and then it’s not.

6

Differences between aircraft and lighting conditions do not matter at all.

The culprit is not the brightness of cockpit itself.
The eye adaptation handle this pretty well.
The real culprit is the gap of brightness between interior and exterior.
Anything narrow this gap will be a solution.

For example reproducing 30%~50% of sunlight inside a cockpit will probably be a universal solution. Some severe cases like enclosed cockpit under a scorching sunlight will get strong remedy, while nonproblematic cases like bubble canopy cockpit under overcast cloud will get subtle remedy.

It is true that under a very extreme and rare case, where not a bit of shadow is laid on instrument in a fully open cockpit, instruments can be too bright: 150%(instrument) vs 100%(scenery)
However that gap is still smaller than the gap of currently available extreme case: 0%(instrument) vs 100%(scenery) Therefore indiscriminately illuminating cockpit interior can be a working solution if its intensity is proportional to external sunlight. (Dome light cannot do this because its intensity is static)

1 Like
7

Cockpit light switches are mainly there to illuminate cockpit, when the whole environment is dark (aka night). My suggestion is to remedy the relative darkness of cockpit, which is caused by too bright environment. Yes, dome light can reduce the relative darkness and used against thunderstorm in RW but it’s way too weak against the sunlight.

My suggestion of “glowing camera” is merely about an unrealistic subtlety, not a drastic one.

nioh_1996453b
nioh_1996453b1920×1080 169 KB

You see the face of character is illuminated by a diffuse light?
Most 3rd person action games put invisible light sources just in front of characters’ face.
It is not realistic but not an immersion breaker either.
I think we can have such subtle unrealism too.

9

I can certainly agree to the complaint, but not so much this proposed solution. I would rather eliminate the eye adaptation all together (or at least drastically reduce the effect) so you can still see the gauges at all times. Not just with MSFS, but I dislike eye adaptation in general and wish developers would stop being so heavy handed with it. There’s HDR, and then there’s “I can only make out half the screen because the lighting balance sucks.”

There’s likely a performance benefit from removing eye adaptation and balancing existing lighting better. By not having to process eye adaptation, it could theoretically put less strain on the graphics card. If anything, the proposed solution here of adding another light source would put more strain on the card. This matters in a sim where it seems everyone and their dog is trying to do everything possible to eek out a few extra fps.

1 Like
10

Real world light environment and its in-game counterpart, 3d lighting model, have way greater dynamic range than any HDR display device in the market. Even DR of our physical eyes, which is still greater than most HDR displays, is not big enough. That’s why our eyes adapt to light environment.

To render of uncompressed dynamic range, one might need a liquid nitrogen cooled display.

Therefore dynamic range compression is inevitable to render this “UHDR world/model” into those “not-so HDR displays”. Eye adaptation via helps this DR compression doesn’t look, well… compressed.

11

Especially in the 787 and 747 it is hard to get comfortable night lighting, the floods are way too bright even on minimum setting and then you can’t see anything outside.

(^This was moved from another post)

If we could have an option to set the dynamic range lower so this “eye adaptation” doesn’t happen that would be the best solution I think.

I do not like the idea of having a “backlight” in the pilot view, as it would make the situation at night even worse.

The lighting intensity in the cockpit could also be adjusted. I’m not sure how real world accurate it is but the floods seems far too bright.

12

Then turn then down.

Potentially (excuse PUN) they can be turned up HIGH, but then flying at night, the pilots will adjust the brightness to a level that works for them, and does not totally destroy their night vision.
After landing and parking , they may turn it up, as they clear up and vacate the cockpit, so the flood lighting needs to be able to be turned up than that required for normal night flying

13

I had the lights on minimum setting as it says in my post.

Maybe read the post you’re replying to before coming in with attitude and captain obvious observations.

A mod moved my original post into this thread however this thread does not quite line up with what my original post was about.

I do not agree with OPs idea for another unrealistic light source, and we already have the flashlight anyway which is basically what they described.

14

I do ---- Because I was able to find it and remove it !

15
  • Minimum or OFF. ?
  • Is there a difference ?

IF there is, then maybe minimum is not minimum enough.

Maybe you were not wearing your obligatory SUN GLASSES :sunglasses:

16

Exactly … 100% agree

17

Thanks for bumping the thread up!

My original point is, that the additional “backlight” should be proportional to the strongest external light source, so that it shouldn’t be lit up at night.

Though you raised good point. Because even a very small bit of additional light source on the panel will worsen the external visibility at night, a certain absolute value must be deducted from the brightness of additional “backlight”. The additional “backlight” is only needed, when outside is significantly brighter than inside.

So the final brightness should be like:
(proportion in %) x SUNLUGHT - (absolute value)

…
OR,

perhaps it even shouldn’t be 3D light source.
It is very easy image algorithm to separate the panel/inside and the windshield/outside from each other in the final 2D rendering with “automatic lasso”. Then just reduce brightness difference of 2 areas. I.E., two different exposure for two areas in one image.

Like the classic “zone system” in Ansel Adams’s photography.

Interzonnen81_Z