Author Topic: Work in Progress / 12  (Read 45829 times)

virtuali

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51576
    • VIRTUALI Sagl
Re: Work in Progress / 12
« Reply #30 on: August 31, 2011, 11:02:00 am »
I do like the night lighting FSDreamTeam has produced, because it is a first. But in my honest opinion, we still haven't gotten to the point where night lighting looks realistic enough.

It's always wrong to post night time pictures to show how a scenery should look like. This because, quite simply, night photos are always invariably wrong, because they don't represent what your EYE sees, they represent how the camera sensor records light, depending on the exposure/white balance settings, which are never correct if the picture was taken in automatic mode, and anyway almost impossible to get right setting them manually, because the digital sensors simply don't have enough dynamic to capture the big difference between dark areas and light sources. A camera exposure usually average giving preference to the center of the image, which means the dark areas are usually too bright, and the light sources are burned out of scale. And of course, the white balance of a night shot it's really a guess, because if the picture was taken with automatic white balancing, the camera will try to make the most dominating light color to be more neutral.

So, one should be very careful to use real pictures as a comparison, because a scenery should match what the human eye sees, not what a digital camera renders. But of course, since most of the users are not aware of how much a digital picture can be misleading, I guess that trying to match a photo instead of real like *could* be a sensible marketing choice, since most of the people will revert to comparisons with photos anyway.

Quote
We need a variety of different light colors to be produced, and they must actually be light sources to bounce off of objects. In addition, the light poles look like they are raining and they look too large when zooming out.

Having different light colors it's easy enough, and they ARE "light sources that bounce off of objects" already, the scenery it's already like this.

However, they can't bounce on ALL and EVERY object, they behave absolutely and utterly realistically on the main buildings, because they are all part of the same geometry+textures but, for example, it's not possible to have continuity with the jetways BOTH because the jetways are very few different objects repeated multiple times AND because they move!

Realistic light like this is not possible with animated objects, because the FSX engine doesn't really allow what would be *hundreds* of different light sources in realtime. We can have (and we DO have) hundreds or even thousands of light sources, but only at the static level, because they are not inside FSX, they are placed when rendering the textures.

Same as jetways, we can't have the light sources bouncing on all small detail objects like trees, for the same reason they live in a different texture space which is optimized for their small size. IF we would like to maintain the same resolution for all objects, and allow the whole coherent lighting, the texture memory usage would go up dramatically, because every single object should have its own texture space, since it might get slightly different lighting.

Instead, we usually save a lot of memory by, for example, reusing the same texture for an object (like a tree, a pole, a parked car) that is repeated a lot in the scenery.

So, the scenery HAS realistic lighting which bounce of objects, but not on ALL objects, those that are optimized to be repeated many times and the animated ones are not getting this lighting. But they have manually made night textures, as with any other scenery we and everyone else made so far.

IF we ran under a different graphic engine, we could have way better realtime lightning, but FSX is not really made for this.

OF COURSE, if the scenery wasn't KLAX or another big hub but, instead, something much smaller, we might at least get a fully coherent lighting for all objects (consuming the same or aven more the amount of texture memory of KLAX, on a small GA field), but it just can't be done for such a large airport.
« Last Edit: August 31, 2011, 11:06:03 am by virtuali »

virtuali

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51576
    • VIRTUALI Sagl
Re: Work in Progress / 12
« Reply #31 on: August 31, 2011, 01:40:37 pm »
You have clearly stated that only static objects will get this treatment, but I am left confuzed: isn't every scenery before this one like that? How would the poles be considered 'light sources' if they do not bounce off of moving objects such as aircraft?

The light poles are not light sources in FSX, but they WERE light sources in the rendering program so, the end result of what you see in FSX, for *static* objects, it's exactly the same you would see if they were light sources in FSX as well. So, at least for static objects, calling them light sources or not, it's entirely irrelevant, since the end result would be exactly the same.

Quote
They wouldn't be considered as actual 'light sources' if they only bounced off of static objects because you guys are just applying different texture coloring in order to create the look of lights shining on objects in the dark.

Which is the only possible way to get that quality, without impacting performances. It's the same concept of using pre-rendered shadows instead of realtime shadows, but here the performance difference between realtime and pre-rendered it's even more dramatic, since the computational impact would increase with the number of light sources (and there are hundreds of them in a big airport), while the impact of realtime shadows depends on the complexity of the objects projecting shadows but with a single light source (the sun)

I don't think there's a graphic engine capable of hundreds of real-time light sources, at the most, the smarter ones have some kind of LOD-like capabilities for lights and shadows, were only those closer to you are realtime, the ones farther away are pre-rendered, with some complex switching methods between the two. Engines like the Unity3d use these methods, for shadows only, to get it for light sources, there are very complex new techniques called "light probes":

http://blogs.unity3d.com/2011/03/09/light-probes/

Which is a combination of pre-rendered and dynamic light, using very smart calculation methods. There are also other rendering method, like deferred rendering, which at least try to keep under control the increase in computational power required to calculate lots of light sources in realtime, which is also used by recent engines like Unreal, Crytek and Unity too.

However, this is all academic, since FSX doesn't allow any of this.

Quote
Is it not possible to create code for each pole to contain a 'miniature Sun' to shine on moving objects, therefore eliminating the technique of rendering textures?

That would equate to real-time lighting. Just keep in mind that it takes *minutes* to generate a SINGLE frame with realtime lights on a rendering program so, instead of "frame per seconds", we would get "minutes per frame"...

Silverbird

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 650
Re: Work in Progress / 12
« Reply #32 on: August 31, 2011, 02:36:32 pm »
Umberto have you seen this? http://www.wimp.com/gamesrealistic http://www.euclideon.com with that kind of thinking I believe is the way of the future for gaming and computer  graphics. can you imagines a flightsim with this kinda tech?
« Last Edit: August 31, 2011, 03:58:49 pm by virtuali »
Cesar

New Jersey EWR

virtuali

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51576
    • VIRTUALI Sagl
Re: Work in Progress / 12
« Reply #33 on: August 31, 2011, 04:08:26 pm »
Quote
can you imagines a flightsim with this kinda tech?

It's been more than a year that video is around, and many respected developers in the gaming community believes it's not more than hype to get some funding, see this post here by Notch, the creator of the highly successful "Minecraft" game:

http://notch.tumblr.com/post/8386977075/its-a-scam

John Carmack also said there's no chance it will run on any system before several years, but the most difficult issue is producing content for that engine.

In any case, there are lots of engines which are far more capable of advanced rendering compared to FSX BUT, the issue is, they aren't suited to most of the flight simulation needs, like large visibility, no preset path, different light and weather conditions, ease of expansion, etc. In fact, I believe the Aerosoft flight simulator project has stopped now, because they weren't able to find any engine which has the capabilities needed for a full flight simulator program.

cmpbllsjc

  • Beta tester
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 948
Re: Work in Progress / 12
« Reply #34 on: August 31, 2011, 04:10:54 pm »
Looks absolutely amazing.

I am just hoping the lights on the poles are like KDFW where they always stay on regardless of where you are on the airport, unlike JFK, ORD, FLL, where the lights dont come on until you get within a certain radius and even them sometimes they dont all turn on.


That is exactly what we must AVOID. You never see lights in the day time, take a look:
http://www.airliners.net/photo//1705490/L/&sid=43de533904f993680a17eed8b89ad5d0


I though it was obvious that I meant at night time, not during the day. The lights at FSDT'd KDFW that I refered to as having the lights all on regardless of where you are in the airport aren't on during the day in FSX.

More specifically what I mean is that I hope the lights on the light poles at LAX are done in the same fashion as they are at DFW, were they all come on and stay on regardless of if your 100 feet away or 500 feet away.

Yes, I dont want them on in the day time and that wasn't what I was hoping for.

Umberto, comments on the lights being KDFW style?
« Last Edit: August 31, 2011, 04:26:03 pm by cmpbllsjc »

virtuali

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51576
    • VIRTUALI Sagl
Re: Work in Progress / 12
« Reply #35 on: August 31, 2011, 05:02:44 pm »
More specifically what I mean is that I hope the lights on the light poles at LAX are done in the same fashion as they are at DFW, were they all come on and stay on regardless of if your 100 feet away or 500 feet away.

Yes, I dont want them on in the day time and that wasn't what I was hoping for.

Umberto, comments on the lights being KDFW style?

They are entirely different to KDFW, they show up from a large distance and of course they appear at night only.

member111222

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 38
Re: Work in Progress / 12
« Reply #36 on: August 31, 2011, 06:13:59 pm »
Soon we will have three airports with outstanding night lighting.

For me the best looking addon is

upcomming KLAX FSDT,
then KSFO X and third YBBN.

Silverbird

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 650
Re: Work in Progress / 12
« Reply #37 on: August 31, 2011, 07:08:55 pm »
Quote
can you imagines a flightsim with this kinda tech?

It's been more than a year that video is around, and many respected developers in the gaming community believes it's not more than hype to get some funding, see this post here by Notch, the creator of the highly successful "Minecraft" game:

http://notch.tumblr.com/post/8386977075/its-a-scam

John Carmack also said there's no chance it will run on any system before several years, but the most difficult issue is producing content for that engine.

In any case, there are lots of engines which are far more capable of advanced rendering compared to FSX BUT, the issue is, they aren't suited to most of the flight simulation needs, like large visibility, no preset path, different light and weather conditions, ease of expansion, etc. In fact, I believe the Aerosoft flight simulator project has stopped now, because they weren't able to find any engine which has the capabilities needed for a full flight simulator program.


Thank's Umberto what a shame! but I still believe that genuine thinking like this is the way of the future hopefully someone does it for real this time, the  large visibility in a flightsims engines  is amazing hopefully someone comes out with something great we have to many things that are sort of  preemptive tech wise.

In the case of night scenery I remember posting something before about it, having worked at a real ramp at a small airport kpbi at night it came be very dark depending on the light sources other airports have more lights but there really isn't much light away from the terminal itself so in fsx I can understand designing it can be tricky since the lighting engine in fsx is not good so I'm guessing you have to tweak it for it to look good in the sim in artistic style to it. hopefully that will change a little bit in msflight at least I'm hoping it will great job on klax.
Cesar

New Jersey EWR

sjt375

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 149
    • Flight Director
Re: Work in Progress / 12
« Reply #38 on: August 31, 2011, 07:48:24 pm »
Quote
can you imagines a flightsim with this kinda tech?

It's been more than a year that video is around, and many respected developers in the gaming community believes it's not more than hype to get some funding, see this post here by Notch, the creator of the highly successful "Minecraft" game:

http://notch.tumblr.com/post/8386977075/its-a-scam

John Carmack also said there's no chance it will run on any system before several years, but the most difficult issue is producing content for that engine.

In any case, there are lots of engines which are far more capable of advanced rendering compared to FSX BUT, the issue is, they aren't suited to most of the flight simulation needs, like large visibility, no preset path, different light and weather conditions, ease of expansion, etc. In fact, I believe the Aerosoft flight simulator project has stopped now, because they weren't able to find any engine which has the capabilities needed for a full flight simulator program.


Ok, but for Flight, maybe I was just seeing things in trailers 3+4, but it looked like the shadows were dynamic and changed based off of where the sun was in relation to the aircraft and actually received shadows from surrounding mountains (trailer 3). I am aware that Flight is a totally new engine, but this is just in response to the light path mentioned at the end with the aerosoft problems and this is not at all related to KLAX.

Silverbird

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 650
Re: Work in Progress / 12
« Reply #39 on: August 31, 2011, 08:15:35 pm »
Quote
can you imagines a flightsim with this kinda tech?

It's been more than a year that video is around, and many respected developers in the gaming community believes it's not more than hype to get some funding, see this post here by Notch, the creator of the highly successful "Minecraft" game:

http://notch.tumblr.com/post/8386977075/its-a-scam

John Carmack also said there's no chance it will run on any system before several years, but the most difficult issue is producing content for that engine.

In any case, there are lots of engines which are far more capable of advanced rendering compared to FSX BUT, the issue is, they aren't suited to most of the flight simulation needs, like large visibility, no preset path, different light and weather conditions, ease of expansion, etc. In fact, I believe the Aerosoft flight simulator project has stopped now, because they weren't able to find any engine which has the capabilities needed for a full flight simulator program.


Ok, but for Flight, maybe I was just seeing things in trailers 3+4, but it looked like the shadows were dynamic and changed based off of where the sun was in relation to the aircraft and actually received shadows from surrounding mountains (trailer 3). I am aware that Flight is a totally new engine, but this is just in response to the light path mentioned at the end with the aerosoft problems and this is not at all related to KLAX.

That's correct Spencer I'm hoping they really revamp the lighting and shadow in the engine so far from what we have seen on the video is a sign there trying to get things like that working,  as for ms flight being a new engine I'm not sure don't remember the article but I believe its still based on the code from flight simulator Ill have to dig for that one and post it here and sorry to fsdt for getting a little off topic here.
« Last Edit: August 31, 2011, 08:49:07 pm by Silverbird »
Cesar

New Jersey EWR

virtuali

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51576
    • VIRTUALI Sagl
Re: Work in Progress / 12
« Reply #40 on: August 31, 2011, 08:38:39 pm »
Ok, but for Flight, maybe I was just seeing things in trailers 3+4, but it looked like the shadows were dynamic

Dynamic shadows are far easier to do than an arbitrary number of dynamic lights, because at least you know that with shadows the light source it's just one, so it's possible to optimize a lot based on that assumption.

And there are several games that have multiple dynamic lights, but maybe tens of them, not hundreds or more (not exactly sure how many were in KLAX, but it's possible they reach thousand or so)

jackhendricks

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 24
Re: Work in Progress / 12
« Reply #41 on: August 31, 2011, 09:25:51 pm »
Hey Umberto would you say that this is the last work in progress before release? ;D

altstiff

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 78
  • My F/O is a dog
    • Visit my flightsim blog..
Re: Work in Progress / 12
« Reply #42 on: August 31, 2011, 11:14:20 pm »
Just to give an example of what Umberto was saying with photo's, here is a shot I took of San Diego from Coronado at night, a few seconds apart...

One:

https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/V2WDN78gEpWRpq8rWpbhXQ?feat=directlink

Another:

https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/rS607Suoo1BpW59nDlAwjw?feat=directlink

So you can see how different settings on a camera (ISO speed, shutter speed and so on) can make the exact same image so very different compared to the naked eye. And for the record the darker shot is more realistic (close to what I saw with my eye).

I also did a similar shot of KSAN at night...

https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/YlQ9_1Goe5IJc4Y7tyNO9w?feat=directlink

On that shot I used a longer exposure (as you can see by the blurred tail lights on the car going down the hill)....
« Last Edit: August 31, 2011, 11:21:24 pm by altstiff »