Microsoft Flight Simulator Aerosoft Aircraft: CRJ

[Mathijs Kok 37049]

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.

[Flying_Timm 11]

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  

[Abriael 305]

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. 

[Flying_Timm 11]

I never mentioned its a texture issue from the CRJ itself. Its basically a "too hard" shadow produced by the engine itself. Sadly - on every plane.

Something they have to adjust.

[Abriael 305]

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. 

[Flying_Timm 11]

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  

[JRBarrett 231]

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. 

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

[Abriael 305]

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.

[RandallC 59]

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.

[Mathijs Kok 37049]

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. 

[Dave Gray 11]

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.  

[DaveCT2003 2486]

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!

 

[The Dude 6048]

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. 

 

[Flying_Timm 11]

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?

[PetterWS 12]

i hope crj come soon.. 

[Baseplate 0]

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?

[Tom A320 4601]

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.

 

[Mathijs Kok 37049]

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.

[FHSim 1]

Will we have the CRJ before the end of 2020?

[piotrmkg 7]

6 hours ago, FHSim said:

Will we have the CRJ before the end of 2020?

I think they said it’s delayed 6-9 months, so summer 2021.

[piotrmkg 7]

2 hours ago, Mathijs Kok said:

 

We said no such thing. The moment Asobo delivers the bits we need we can complete the project pretty fast. This year is very possible if the conditions are correct.

I thought that You are in the same boat as PMDG, sorry for misleading.

[FHSim 1]

3 hours ago, Mathijs Kok said:

 

We said no such thing. The moment Asobo delivers the bits we need we can complete the project pretty fast. This year is very possible if the conditions are correct.

Sooooooooooooo happy of reading this hahaha hope it gets out fast, i really like this plane... as the A330.

[asmit165 36]

Will we have a preview of the 900 or 1000 anytime soon? Would love to see how they look in the Sim 😊

[vladimir72 5]

Hi, thank you very much for your work. I loved the CRJ for FSX and can't wait to fly this one. I have one question on the autopilot, will it be custom or based on the MSFS one? One of the weakest points for me in MSFS2020 is that the autopilot is extremely buggy and totally unreliable. I am really hoping that the CRJ will solve this problem. I am sorry to say that Asobo doesn't seem able to address this. It gets worse at every release

[Batwingsix 2]

5 hours ago, vladimir72 said:

Hi, thank you very much for your work. I loved the CRJ for FSX and can't wait to fly this one. I have one question on the autopilot, will it be custom or based on the MSFS one? One of the weakest points for me in MSFS2020 is that the autopilot is extremely buggy and totally unreliable. I am really hoping that the CRJ will solve this problem. I am sorry to say that Asobo doesn't seem able to address this. It gets worse at every release

 

The AP system in MSFS is airplane to airplane, not like FSX where they all share the same coding. 320 AP is completely different than the 747, 172 is different than the 152, etc... so unless they are using one of the default airliner AP systems, it would probably have to be individual.