hope can help everyone
some comparison
Medina, Saudi Arabia
25 august
2 november
25 august
2 november
25 august
2 november
25 august
2 november
2 november
2 november
2 november
8 Likes
Is there a way to rollback to the previous version???
1 Like
Sadly nope. At least not officially 
Wear a tinfoil hat and I assure you that growing conviction will vanish. 
No, that’s not all of it. We now have millions of lightbulbs “hanging” 100m above ground, it looks asolutelly ridicioulus.
I strongly disagree that the “overall lighting amount is more realistic” now. There is way too much light on many streets. Every little country road has been turned into a 6 lane highway basically ^^.
5 Likes
I agree. It doesn’t look realistic. I hope they will correct it. Or, as an option, they will give a selection button.
Asobo. Please return the lighting previously or make a selection switch.
1 Like
I am so sorry that I have to “repost” this kind of comparison between:
- Real Photo of Rio de Janeiro with similar conditions/area. **(EDIT : I changed the photo with another one of the same spot, since some people here didn’t quiet understand why I used the previous photo and all they saw was simply the “edited” part of the photo without reading my whole post first.)
- Alpha Version.
- Pre Patch
- Current version.
Things got better in terms of individual light draw distance(mainly for highways/boulevards) ,because as you can see in the Alpha version screenshot, draw distance was even better especially for smaller streets. You can even see myriads of lights in the horizon if you look closely. We don’t know exactly how they did it in the latest version, or what parameters they’ve changed, but they need more refinement in a few areas to reach the “Alpha” look. Right now they look huge and extremely uniform, there is no vibe, no character since everything is perfectly placed with no variations.
Generally, the Alpha version lighting is closer to the real deal. Of course, I know well myself that real photos can’t be the only guide to help us understand how the sim should look like. Different exposures and various details(atmospheric conditions etc) could make a significant difference in perspective as well , when comparing a real life photo with a screenshot. The reason I have a real photo in the comparison, is to show that light sources look like small dots from afar and certain directions. They certainly don’t look like big disks and their positioning is really organic and “chaotic” in a way. In the oldest Alpha versions of the sim distant lights look very organic and tiny, like in real life. Two things that we don’t even see in the Alpha screenshots and could really make the night lighting of the sim “shine” would be , color variation for light sources and a “rural darkness mask” that would filter out unrealistic lights in rural areas and national roads and highways. Some effects like slight trembling for distant light sources, whilst making them a little more “dazzling” to the eye but not tiring at the same time, could really be a secondary, next level overhaul for nightlights.(but, not even essential when the basic corrections will be made.It is more of a personal suggestion/artistic matter.)
These are the main problems that need to undergo further improvements and changes. With some tweaking , the night lighting system can become the best one we’ve seen yet.
-
Light Source characteristics.
Problem: Lights look fuzzy-big and uniform. Very artificial looking.
Possible solutions : Smaller sized lights, better scaling, light coloration , organic positioning, improved ground splashes to cover road surfaces. This includes tweaks for all the above as well as different textures & LODs. -
Rural darkness mask.
Problem: Lights in rural and dark areas.
Possible Solution : Many intelligent suggestions have been made in the forum and should be taken into account. Black Marble dataset should be seriously considered as a method to mask/filter OSM data. Approximate distance calculations between objects,buildings,business/urban districts etc, could be made for better light placement too. -
Sepia mask usage.
Problem: Radioactive and overbright yellow terrain textures
Possible Solution : Reworking and tweaking all of the things above, would make the usage of the sepia mask obsolete for cities and towns close to our point of view. We don’t know what the (optimised performance-wise) limitation is, but the Sepia mask should be pushed as far as possible from the point of vision. It is the last visible LOD of a city or a region that contains night lights in general. Cities in the horizon should use the sepia mask, or when flying high in the stratosphere. The optimum point when switching between rendered light sources and the sepia mask should be around there(if possible). Higher resolution data for this mask would make it more useful for even closer distances, but not that
nearer to our point of view. -
Resolve double-triple lights in road data
**Problem: Double or complex duplication of lights over roads etc **
Possible Solution : Asobo has to find what went wrong with this one, since it can make a nighttime landscape look horrid. This could even be a performance killer with the overload of light sources in some areas.
13 Likes
(realized this post ended up way too long, light/design/realism theory, so I’d skip reading unless a true nerd : P )
Some really good points one some of the differences between eye and camera for sure, and lets not forget the huge difference in the dynamic range and the eyes ability “blend” very dark and very bright features in the same scene.
But, and I can only speak for the photos I post myself, this is not a factor when determining WHERE light comes from, what would IRL be visible or not. Eyes and cameras both record the same photons. While the camera would sooner or later overexpose the brightest lamps, clipping the brightness pixels loosing it’s color info in the middle (depending on well-depth), while the eye, although not able to “expose” long enough to pick up the faintest lights, would instead be able to see the scene in a wider dynamic range.
I definitely agree that this should be explained when posting photos for comparison.
A lot of people seem to be reflexively replying “that’s not what the eye sees”, thinking it invalidates the point being made without seeming to have much clue about those differences and how those differences doesn’t really impact the point being made, that it’s the light sources and illuminated surfaces being discussed, not how bright or colorful they are. So some clarification would help absolutely.
Similar to how a photo can be used for comparing if trees are too big in the sim, even if the photo being compared with happens to be over exposed. You can’t invalidate those comparisons just because of exposure, same with that light would mostly come from lamps along streets, parking lots and so on, and not glowing from unilluminated ground far from the closest lamp…?
But afaik I’ve never seen a photo-comparison where the cameras inability to capture the full range of light would impact the comparison being made?
.
I personally believe/guess many game developers tries to capture the feeling of a movie, many even implement “film-grain”, “camera-shake” and various lens defects, chromatic aberration, lens flares and so on.
But then again, simulating eyes, we would loose much detail for a dark adapted eye, loosing most of the ability to distinguish differences in color during night, having to use averted vision (look at the side of the object to see it slightly better) the need of sunglasses or for example holding your hand up to block the sun to be able to read the instruments in “headlight” conditions, very very slow dark adaptation after being blinded…
I like the idea in theory but have some doubts about the practical implementation going all the way. Some where in between I guess? Luckily a few of these lens defects can be deactivated.
HDR photography shows it’s quite possible to emulate a more realistic representation of reality in tricky lighting conditions, and for reproducing believable night scenes, we definitely need to make some compromises.
.
Think of a starry night in the sim.
Most people “knows” what a night sky “should” look like, they’ve seen it with their own eyes, right?
But how do we get the closest translating that to the sim, when the code-writers & graphical artists don’t have lots of firsthand experience?
Do we listen to the median value/opinion of all those amateurs just watching the night sky occasionally in their lives, or do we start with ask the pros who do this on a regular basics and understand the factors involved? What’s the limiting magnitude in given atmospheric conditions?
The milky way sure is beautiful, but should it really be visible from downtown Los Angeles before reaching astronomical darkness?
Almost all persons have their own belief what the “think” night looks outside the window, while just a minority do this regularly in the cockpit. And not only that, even though I’ve driven 100,000 miles with a car, it’d take more than that to be able to tell a PBR texture-artist the best Roughness, Albedo, Metallic, Normal and AO settings to make a realistic asphalt texture.
We definitely need to start from a common and solid ground, namely how light actually works, what’s being visible, how far, and so on… And from there, tune it and make it visually pleasing as well.
.
Because in no way, does unilluminated surfaces look brighter than surfaces illuminated by many lamps, a situation we often get with the Sepia Mask and lamps disappearing after just a few kilometers, while in reality often being visible more than 10 times as far.
4 Likes
Sorry dude, but this photo is so full of filters and post-effects that it can’t be brought here to be used as a real life sample. It makes your post irrelevant.
3 Likes
Do you really think it is a ‘‘problem’’? This Simulator was made using enough money for them to rent a plane and fly every season and time to have an idea of how it looks. I can’t see any excuse to make such a primary mistake like this. The title of this product has a simulator on its name and also a history of being (at least trying) authentic to the real world most basic characteristics.
As for this paragraph: ‘‘Almost all persons have their own belief what the “think” night looks outside the window, while just a minority do this regularly in the cockpit’’
The minority that do this regularly on their cockpits are the ones to be taken seriously.
EDIT: Someone posted a washed picture above from Rio de Janeiro (a place that I do fly over sometimes, btw) and he really thinks that THAT IS how it should look. Which explains a very well why I said who needs to be taken seriously if you want an authentic night flight experience.
1 Like
Thank you for not even trying to read what I wrote on my post. It’s ok! I uploaded that photo for a specific reason that I described thoroughly. To see some specific characteristics the Alpha version got right.
- Draw Distance 2. Light Placement-Organic look 3. Scale of light sources.
***EDIT: I changed my first photo with another one, since some people lost the message and only saw the “edited” “overexposed” part of the photo. The thing is, lights are lights! Hope the new one is easier for you!
2 Likes
Try compare it to these and you might understand the point being made. Concentrate on distant lamp visibility range no matter if the photo is green blue or purple filtered. (which is why I took those screenshots):
Early Alpha:
Release version, up until Update 5:
No matter how much you liked the pre patch version as a whole, these pics makes it clear the lamp visibility wasn’t realistic in that version(s). And yes, by only increasing lamp visibility range (without including the rest required adjustments, this brought a whole bag of other things that makes the current look crazy. We all agree on that.
2 Likes
I totally agree that the night lighting looks much worse in Update #5. Reminds me of X-Plane now. The light orbs are way too bright and overexposed, you can see it even when doing high altitude IFR flights. This is totally unrealistic and is not what the actual human EYES see. Notice that I said eyes and not through the lens of a camera. There’s a big difference.
So for those who think the night lighting looks realistic, please stop posting those overly post-processed postcard photos and youtube videos showing off night lighting, because those are not reflective of what is seen with our own eyes in the real world.
Photographers and film makers should understand this better than regular people. Exposure can really change the overall look of the lights. When I fly in the sim, I want to reflect with what I see with my actual own eyes that I would in a real world flight and not what’s seen through the eyes of a camera.
Another issue is the blurry runway lights which gets more noticeably prominent as you up your resolution… 1440p, 4K, etc. Seems like the lights are fixed in size and are optimize to size correctly when viewed on a 1080p screen. But they look stretched and a blob of mess, especially on 4K screens. That’s a whole nother issue in itself which needs to be addressed along with the night lighting.
(Don’t know what the heck happen to the previous post, but trying again)
I think we all agree this was a poorly executed patch, for the reasons pointed out numerous times in this thread. Although, many people doesn’t seem to be able to identify the different factors required for realistic night flight, they can’t admit some of the unrealistic features of the “before patch” version, because it also have many good features. Me, I want to keep the good, and improve the bad. Not choose between the old and the new.
I see this “argument” over and over again, and can only speak for the photos/video-grabs I include for comparison, so apologies if it isn’t what you’re trying to adress, it’s for anybody else, then:
Your eye will see a lamp far away.
The camera will see the same lamp far away.
In MSFS lamps used to disappear after just a 10th of that distance
Your eye will see pretty much only darkness in non illuminated areas.
Your camera will see pretty much only darkness in non illuminated areas.
In MSFS you could pick up many many features that should only be visible during day.
Your eye will Never see non illuminated surface shine as bright as an illuminated roads
Your camera will Never see non illuminated surface shine as bright as an illuminated roads
In MSFS the daylight texture glow in the dark to “trick” users thinking its light, even when it fully illuminates unlit areas, roofs, even deserts to glow in the dark.
That’s what I’m trying to show with the screenshots, and the difference in sensor pixel well-depth + ability to “expose longer” and eye dynamic range doesn’t impact any of the points being made, making the “cameras and eyes work differently” completely unrelated. An over exposed photo of a giraffe, is still showing a giraffe, and would not be mistaken for an elephant.
Even if it’s “brighter than what the eyes sees”.
2 Likes
@Grinde81 please post your last one again if that’s ok, I was reading and it vanished. About the differences in between eyes/cameras and more.
Yup that’s definitely a thing requiring fixing, the lamp texture of early alpha was much better…
It looks like they’ve been using “out of focus background lights” as reference material when designing those fuzzy orbs…
3 Likes
Not too long at all, well said and enjoyable reading.
Agree when we talk about irradiance photos and the eye show rather similar things. My point about the point spread function is more about the size and shape (e.g., sharp vs. fuzzy edges) of distant lights. It could be that distant lights seen by the eye should be a bit bigger than distant lights seen by the camera. The diffraction limited size/angular subtense would come out of the pupil size, but I am less sure of how to compare CCD pixel bleed (if any) with retinal rods interconnects to get the full system point spread function. I am sure the math can be worked out and this must be covered in the literature somewhere. At sufficiently long distance, tens of miles, I think something like the sepia mask starts making sense in that regard when individual lights can no longer be resolved. But again, in terms of what photons can be seen I agree the camera pictures tell a great deal.
But then again, simulating eyes, we would loose much detail for a dark adapted eye, loosing most of the ability to distinguish differences in color during night, having to use averted vision (look at the side of the object to see it slightly better) the need of sunglasses or for example holding your hand up to block the sun to be able to read the instruments in “headlight” conditions, very very slow dark adaptation after being blinded…
I would be totally down with that! Especially with the ability to select or individually disable those effects while working out what is useful in a sim and what is not. The slow dark adaptation might have playability concerns and would probably not be popular, the sunglasses aspect is really intriguing and would be interesting if done well, losing color vision and details at night I think would be great to simulate. It would be an interesting area for Asobo to explore.
1 Like
(@TendedTundra5, Apologies mate, I accidently tagged you when writing a reply intended for another used)
Regarding your reply to me
I wholeheartedly agree, this change was pushed through too soon, I’m not defending that in no way.
Long range lamp visibility , (longer than “variation-introducing” obstructing trees & buildings) will require ways of varying light visibility / color/ brightness - noise to avoid artificial look, as well as ways of masking rural/non-populated area roads from lamp placement… Increasing lamp visibility range by an order of magnitude, before tackling the issues described above, is in some ways similar to putting in a new 3d object, but waiting until the next patch to add textures to it. Wouldn’t look all that great.
As for my argument of listening to the smaller group of pros instead of a much larger group of amateurs:
Same for flight models… Use manufacturer test pilots with sim-implementation experience bridging the two worlds, or at least pilots with lots of hours (not just a few hundreds).
Instead of armchair pilots(those without thousands of real world hours in real planes) saying “the flightmodel feels nothing like real”.
Thing is, the night lighting Asobo produced on their own before the alphas looked stunning, before letting aboard hoards of simmers and a few realworld pilots in december last year… Although the lights, while stunning, had the same problem of illuminating rural roads. Which caused many many gamers say “tooo bright, remoove lamps” instead of specifying / sharing ideas for improving.
Not long afterwards, lamp visibility range was killed (hiding both motorway and rural road lights until very close and low) , and implementing the simplified low res sepia mask as a substitute. And it was left as that until the release version. Then post release, more experienced eyes lifted this issue again and the sepia mask together with low lamp visibility ended up being voted to the top 5 of bugs. Now we’re back with almost as good visibility, but worse lamp texture and still some Sepia Mask
One could say we wasted close to a year filling the forums with exaggerated & hyperbolic statements instead of trying to break the problem down and identify solutions… Sadly many good detailed observations (instead of feelings) & solutions proposed by various of users drowns among “booo, bring the old back, this is nothing like real”.
“Wisdom of the crowd” works better with groups of equal field competence.
We all want awesome night lighting. Many is ok with a simplified version, but quite a few want more realism to match the visual quality of day. Kind of like 2d clouds of the old. Looked great for many accepting that “trick”, but when the volumetric clouds finally came, it changed the game for everyone’s benefit, even though it didn’t look all that great in the beginning.
3 Likes