Interior Lighting - Engine Gauge Panel Lights

[amahran 608]

This has been bugging me for a while, and now just enough to make a post about it. Something about this lighting feels incredibly unnatural. The sharp edges look like haphazardly cut polygons rather than warm lights emanated from the stand-off light posts the lights are coming from:

Please login to display this image.

 

For contrast, here's a similar picture of an illuminated engine panel from a twin otter:

Please login to display this image.

 

Please login to display this image.

 

There is shadowing, but those shadows are those cast by:

• Standoff posts against other standoff posts
• The raised dial casting a shadow from the standoff posts' lights.

 

I guess I'm asking...would it possible to revisit the shadows and have them make sense? The first picture just feels...off and unnatural...

 

 

[mopperle 4162]

Dont think that this picture is a good example. First it is definitely an HDR picture using different exposure times to display  the light inside and outside correctly. Then it seems that 2 lightsources were used not at the same time, because the shadows point in 2 different directions. 2 lightsources at the same time would result in 2 shadows for each instrument, but there is only one shadow. All in all there is so much editing in this picture, that it is not a proof for looking natural.

[TheMarvinX 9]

I disagree regarding the shadows. The light posts only illuminate a small section and not 360 degrees. Thus you can see mostly only one shadow.

[amahran 608]

7 hours ago, mopperle said:

Dont think that this picture is a good example. First it is definitely an HDR picture using different exposure times to display  the light inside and outside correctly. Then it seems that 2 lightsources were used not at the same time, because the shadows point in 2 different directions. 2 lightsources at the same time would result in 2 shadows for each instrument, but there is only one shadow. All in all there is so much editing in this picture, that it is not a proof for looking natural.

Gotta agree with @TheMarvinX here, the lighting does make sense if you look at each point on the panel and evaluate what light sources are illuminating it.

Please login to display this image.

 

Not to mention, of course, I don’t know what the motive would be to manually stitch and edit such a photo. I’m inclined to say that the shadows were not doctored by the photographer (after all, what incentive would they have to discombobulate the shadows on an instrument panel?)

[mopperle 4162]

Sorry, I forgot that in the Twotter there are individual light sources for each gauge. But still I stand that this is an HDR Picture with lot of editing, otherwise you wouldnt have the balance between the lighting inside the aircarft and the lighting outside. The incentive of such editing is a nice look.

[amahran 608]

34 minutes ago, mopperle said:

Sorry, I forgot that in the Twotter there are individual light sources for each gauge. But still I stand that this is an HDR Picture with lot of editing, otherwise you wouldnt have the balance between the lighting inside the aircarft and the lighting outside. The incentive of such editing is a nice look.

 

Oh I totally agree that this is an HDR picture, no doubt about it. I guess I'm just moreso looking at the pattern of the shadows (rather than the tone and color). 

 

I'm totally okay with the colors of the lights on the panel and don't disagree with it. I'm just hoping the shadow pattern gets revisited to:

• Make the panel look less "flat", and make it "pop more" and give the panel more texture (more than the already-existing ambient occlusion shadows around each gauge)
• Eliminate the nonsensical jagged shadow edges all over the panel, which looks buggy and reminiscent of the Source Engine lighting bugs.

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

Sorry at this moment no changes planned for this. A lot of that is due to the graphics engine.