Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 379
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Going to defend PMDG here. Robert is a good friend and PMDG and Aerosoft have been working together for a very long time.   Although PMDG and Aerosoft aim for different goals in aircraft sim

Some more images... nothing really new to see but do compare this to default aircraft and you see we are learning some new tricks.... Still a lot missing, but we are getting there! As you will see the

Posted Images

I know it is all rather subtle, but if you see these images at full resolution (click on them) you will understand why we do not rush this release. Graphically this is really a step beyond what P3D V5 can do. Not only in speed (measured in polygons per second shown) but the shading and lighting are on par with the best games at this moment. We REALLY want to use every option there is. 

 

But as Hans shown, we still need some love from Asobo to solve problems. But many (many!) issues have been solved in talking to them. The people at Asobo are really amazing and we are sure they will make our release using all the options the  new sim has to offer possible. 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Flying_Timm said:

Why is there such a heavy shadow on the wing-area like it has burned? Its also on the default A32N. Is that what you mean?

 

We do not use ANY burned shadows as was the norm in older sims.  It is all calculated light. Can you show is exactly what you mean? And do take into account the MUCH harsher light at the altitude the aircraft is at.  Contrast at altitude is several times higher than at sea-level.  If you compare images this with images at lower altitudes you are not doing it right.

 

A befriended pilot said it like this. "At 33.000 feet I can see my knees if conditions are right. Anything below that is just black. Most of the time anything below my navel just is invisible". 

 

Can you share any image taken at FL300 that shows the lighting to be different? If so we gladly share it with Asobo.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't share picture of an airplane from the angle you took the screenshot from the CRJ, I guess you can't either nor Asobo can.

But you should agree that the shadow above the wing on the fuselage is way too dark. You are even closer to the sun, white material, white paint,.. it will never be that dark.

It looks like I said: burned, but not only on the CRJ but also on the default planes. It seems to be just "too much".

https://i.imgur.com/WRcO6b3.png

Was not a negative comment to point on the CRJ development of your ability to make addons but more over to the engine of MSFS in general. I never saw a shadow of that on a airplane.

 

I am happy to see more, its impressive to see such a beautiful plane flying in MSFS :) 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm guessing you mean this. 

 

Considering the specific position of the sun, it doesn't look that innatural to me. But yeah, the other image shows that there's no baked shadow there. 

Screenshot - 10_20_2020 , 10_18_31 PM.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't personally find it too hard. Of course, these are real-time 3D graphics and not CGI or a photo.

 

Lighting is an artistic choice, and I find MSFS's to be spot on. Flatter lighting would likely make many aircraft look way too flat. There's such a thing as uncanny valley for aircraft as well. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Its probably not the spot to discuss the MSFS-based shadow generation but this is absolutely not what you get in real by natual light. I am a photographer and work with the natual light daily. I don´t say its bad but it needs to be adjusted :) 

However: Lets go back to CRJ - and this looks amazing :) 

  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Abriael said:

I'm guessing you mean this. 

 

Considering the specific position of the sun, it doesn't look that innatural to me. But yeah, the other image shows that there's no baked shadow there. 

Screenshot - 10_20_2020 , 10_18_31 PM.jpg

Adjusting “Ambient Occlusion” in the graphics settings menu controls shadow intensity. Perhaps it is set too high?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JRBarrett said:

Adjusting “Ambient Occlusion” in the graphics settings menu controls shadow intensity. Perhaps it is set too high?

 

I'm pretty sure the ambient occlusion setting doesn't control its intensity, but its quality.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Flying_Timm said:

Why is there such a heavy shadow on the wing-area like it has burned? Its also on the default A32N. Is that what you mean?

Isn’t that just the ambient occlusion setting in MSFS? Can’t that be lowered in the graphic settings page?

 

edit: sorry I was late to the party. I’ll have to check in sim. I was fairly sure that the effect could be reduced in the settings.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Flying_Timm said:

Its probably not the spot to discuss the MSFS-based shadow generation but this is absolutely not what you get in real by natual light. I am a photographer and work with the natual light daily. I don´t say its bad but it needs to be adjusted :) 

However: Lets go back to CRJ - and this looks amazing :) 

 

But how many images have you made at 30.000 feet where natural light is very different from what is on the surface. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've seen many images of airliners taken at cruising altitude.  What we are seeing at the wing root is not how it looks in real life at cruising altitude.  I'm sure they will get it worked out though.  

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I bet I have taken more photos of aircraft at around 30,000ft than most people here (unless we have some military aircrew guys floating around).

 

We used to fly intercepts and we were intercepted many times over and the cameras were always rolling and shooting.  Mathijs is correct, the light up there is not only very different than down on the ground, but also just as variable.  Plus you have all the different cameras, different camera settings, and back before digital camera we used something called film (which in retrospect isn't a very good or descriptive name) and that could affect how the image turned out (film processing too).  Yeah, I'm having some fun with this and you young whipper-snappers.

 

Something else. They way that our eyes work is different from one person to the next, and the way that our brains interpret what we see can also vary greatly.  Sound and how we interpret is (this is something which I have a lot of professional experience) is even more subjective from person to person, so much so that there is little sense in comparing it.  But back to vision, no doubt many of you would understand how important the color and shade of uniforms is to the military - it's an obsession.  Well, one of labs at the base where I most recently worked had a team of people who evaluated color and shade and before they were accepted into that position they had to pass a color and shade test, something like 97% of people who took the test failed.  I took the test on a whim and actually passed, however our eyes change over time and I doubt I'd pass it today.

 

Is there truly a graphics issue here?  I dunno, but if there is I have all the confidence in the world that it will be resolved, and I'm also sure that the team appreciates the feedback.  After all sometimes we loose sight of the forest when we're focused too intently on a tree, and I'd bet the work on the CRJ isn't too much different than that right now.  Feedback leads to a better product and is always, ALWAYS appreciated.

 

Best wishes!

 

  • Like 3
  • Upvote 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

My work is developed as a director of photography, and knowing the physical behavior of light in all its circumstances, I can bet on the light at 33,000 feet height does not produce that effect
There are thousands of captures of MSFS2020 with the same effect with the plane on the ground.

 

Please, speak with asobo, and tell them that this effect is unreal, they will pay more attention to you.

 

Edit: As you can see in real life, it is the opposite, the bounces of light in adjacent areas, cause more luminosity, as you can see in the last photo of vueling a320 made by me.

 

Regards.

Juan.

 

Screenshot(14160)-20201019-1658-3519.png

Screenshot(13344)-20201003-2144-2646.png

_DSC1196.jpg

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for that. I know Aerosoft is working closely with Asobo and I fully share your passion that MSFS is THE new flight simulator for the next years!

But, this effect I mentioned is NOT real. 

vor 5 Stunden , Mathijs Kok sagte:

 

But how many images have you made at 30.000 feet where natural light is very different from what is on the surface. 

Ok, I tell you: 0

How about you?

 

See here: JE9N1vZ2.png?width=1400&auto_optimize=me

And here we have a complete different case. No real natual light but different lights from the Hangar (which are a lot due to the fakt you have less shadows) and its even worse. How or from which source of light is this shadow created? 
I bet its not created by light but from a fire ;) :D 

As I said: Its nothing I want to complain about the CRJ in general. I know painting airplanes in flight sim quiet well and I doubt you added such a shadow effect into your livery/paintkit as this shadow is generated by the engine itself.

Its just something Asobo needs to be pointed at to fix.

Thanks :) 

  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Flying_Timm said:

 

Its just something Asobo needs to be pointed at to fix.

 

 

Maybe it is not Asobo but Gaya that needs to fix it ;)

 

Even the static aircraft in their V5 TXL have it. 

 

1.JPG

Link to post
Share on other sites

They probably use the models from MSFS as statics, don´t kno.

It looks horrible! Why would you work on a fantastic livery for an airplane if the shadow makes it look like a fire-training-plane?

  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if this has been asked before but will upcoming release of CRJ include all variants (550,700,900,1000)? since i only see teaser for 700. Also will those come with all airlines liveries?

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Baseplate said:

I don't know if this has been asked before but will upcoming release of CRJ include all variants (550,700,900,1000)? since i only see teaser for 700. Also will those come with all airlines liveries?

 

On 9/28/2020 at 7:18 PM, Mathijs Kok said:

In the end it will include 550, 700, 900 and 1000.

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Baseplate said:

I don't know if this has been asked before but will upcoming release of CRJ include all variants (550,700,900,1000)? since i only see teaser for 700. Also will those come with all airlines liveries?

 

We plan the same liveries as we have now. So a lot, but of course not all.

  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...