Adamski_NZ 19 Posted July 27, 2018 Share Posted July 27, 2018 One of the things I like about PTA is the ability to tweak the shaders to fine tune the lighting on both the exterior and VC interior of an aircraft. It allows me to set decent gamma/brightness/contrast for the clouds and terrain then adjust the aircraft lighting to compensate. 99.9% of my P3D aircraft support these lighting tweaks, but every now and again I come across an add-on with what looks like an inconsistency in lighting parameters on certain sections of the model. I get this with the A318/A319 as well as the Aerosoft/Octopus An-2. Please login to display this image. Please login to display this image. It looks like the wings have the wrong parameters. Please don't tell me off for using esoteric hacks/tweaks ... I use PTA very carefully - it's a very useful tool for correcting what I believe to be deficiences in P3D lighting functions. I do NOT use it to produce "cheesy" or unrealistic lighting effects. Here it is in action: Please login to display this image. I'm not expecting Aerosoft to support unorthodox modifications or tweaks. All that is happening here is that PTA is showing up inconsistencies that would not be otherwise apparent - nothing more. These are relatively easy to correct, should the model(s) be recompiled at some stage. I hope these little niggles can be fixed at some stage, as the Aerosoft Airbus exterior model is highly detailed and a joy to look at! Adam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stefan Hoffmann 4160 Posted July 27, 2018 Share Posted July 27, 2018 "I'm not expecting Aerosoft to support unorthodox modifications or tweaks. " - We hope so too! Usage of 3rd party shader addons and their results is under responsiblity of the end user who installs them. " I hope these little niggles can be fixed at some stage, as the Aerosoft Airbus exterior model is highly detailed and a joy to look at! " - with the future addition of physical based shading this will be completed. " I use PTA very carefully - it's a very useful tool for correcting what I believe to be deficiences in P3D lighting functions. " - Only possible to certain stage, dont await too much. Currently the basic shader architecture is very much what FSX was - so called PHONG/BLINN shading. But it is a step by step journey into the future, we all should be thankful that such people like LM exist who give the evolution of our hobby that fresh drive. But not become to unpatient, its a huge pile of work they have to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adamski_NZ 19 Posted July 27, 2018 Author Share Posted July 27, 2018 I just knew I'd get this reaction! I repeat - *I'm not asking Aerosoft to support some whacky 3rd party black magic*. All PTA does is well within the P3D SDK. It simply allows you to change certain values within existing shader fx code. *BUT* my point really is that we're only talking about minor anomalies/inconsistencies within the materials lighting parameters that have slipped through unnoticed. No-one's asking any recoding to support features beyond core P3D. Basically - if you look at the surface lighting for the fuselage, it should be the same as the wings (or vice-versa) - it's as simple as that. I think something similar has already been reported (and acknowledged) in an Octopus An-2 thread, started by Matt Levi (Jeansy) I think. If I may take your last comment and turn it around .... we should all be grateful for 3rd party developers that shore up shortfalls to what is really a very old product - and forces LM keep to improving it. Sorry, Stefan -- I totally missed your "physical based shading" comment in my haste to answer. Could you elaborate? It sounds like it could be a solution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stefan Hoffmann 4160 Posted July 27, 2018 Share Posted July 27, 2018 "Basically - if you look at the surface lighting for the fuselage, it should be the same as the wings (or vice-versa) - it's as simple as that. " With the correct, build in shaders they look correct. With the reshading-plugin use they look incorrect. Implication from logical laws tell us, that a true statement implicated to a false statement never leads to a true formula again. Or simple as that: When you get a working system and introduce not supported changes to it, and it is broken afterwards, you should not blame the former working system, but the not supported change that corrupted its workings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adamski_NZ 19 Posted July 27, 2018 Author Share Posted July 27, 2018 Stefan, with the greatest respect, I'm sorry I just don't buy this. Are you telling me the P3D shaders are correct???? You must be joking!!! They contain all sorts of legacy code inherited from FSX. So ... you are saying that just because the parameters aren't applied consistently across the aircraft model that it's somehow the fault of "unsupported 3rd party mods"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stefan Hoffmann 4160 Posted July 27, 2018 Share Posted July 27, 2018 I say, Prepar3D shaders deliver the most flawless of all opportunities we currently have. As i stated in endless other mails to that topic already: Reshader may produce superior results in SOME situations for SOME parameters; i like also the more saturated color of the landscape etc. However in TOO MUCH situations they damage the output of the render pipeline, not to be spoken of the notorious over and underexposure in many cases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stefan Hoffmann 4160 Posted July 27, 2018 Share Posted July 27, 2018 "99.9% of my P3D aircraft support these lighting tweaks " This i did even overread! Then to the rest of 0.1% our product belongs. That would mathematically mean that you own at least 1.000 aircraft products for the brand new Prepar3D V4.3. Can this be valid? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adamski_NZ 19 Posted July 27, 2018 Author Share Posted July 27, 2018 Stefan - I think we're still at cross-purposes. PTA doesn't work like Reshade. Have you tried/used PTA at all? This is what I use it for: Please login to display this image. As I said, I'm all for more "realism" and not cheap saturation or contrast tweaks. Anyway - this is all besides the point. The Aerosoft models could work perfectly with PTA ... it's honestly just because the lighting parameters aren't applied uniformly to all the textures ... that's all!! If there was something basically wrong with the P3D/PTA combination then NONE of my aircraft add-ons would work properly. Please, Stefan - it's just those "odd" textures. It appears we're getting into percentages and semantics now. Do you not see what I'm driving at? For goodness sake, I worked with on the Aerosoft FSX A320 (PNF sound files etc.) - I'm on your side!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lennart1948 79 Posted July 27, 2018 Share Posted July 27, 2018 I also use PTA and nothing wrong for me. It looks normal. The problem will be with your preset maybe? Please login to display this image. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adamski_NZ 19 Posted July 27, 2018 Author Share Posted July 27, 2018 21 minutes ago, Lennart1948 said: The problem will be with your preset maybe? I promised Stefan to take a bit of a back seat, publicly ... please check your PM! Lovely pic, BTW! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lennart1948 79 Posted July 27, 2018 Share Posted July 27, 2018 vor 34 Minuten, Adamski_NZ sagte: I promised Stefan to take a bit of a back seat, publicly ... please check your PM! Lovely pic, BTW! Thank you. Just read it. I don't really know about your setting though Wish you guys a great day Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.