Sim vs Real conundrum

[Splitpin]

Conundrum may be the wrong word .

I know that systems and dynamics can be replicated very well in the sim (fsx) , but visuals are still lacking (with regard to environment)..... but the gap is closing ... i think.
I'm too tired to get into some endless and pointless debate on the subject tonight .... but , as i have said before "horses for courses"

I think Charl touched on it the other night ..."Perhaps we just compensate in our minds for that light shift in the sim... " and i think we should (compensate , not complain) , this (sim) is far from a perfect science , but it is evolving .
I get frustrated when i try to replicate a photo in fsx ( a Virgo thing , I'm told) .... so i don't bother any more , I'm happy operating within the limits for now.

All of that aside ..... and , aside it should be fellow simophiles (add that to your dictionary) ......

[omitchell]

The real conundrum is when it becomes more expensive to cater for your sim than it does to actually board a real flight...

[Ian Warren]

Nothing like trying to get a great compare Sim vs Real .... think what another couple off years is going to bring .

[000rick000]

Marty, p3dv2 offers lighting which is far more advanced than fsx. small nuances is shadow and lighting are possible. Right now, today.

if you spend the $60 on the sim amd you will not be disappointed. I've got almost All my best aircraft working perfectly and I've not had to rebuy/upgrade but maybe 2 of them. All the A2A warbirds work perfectly. Warbirdsim works perfectly, Vertigo sim warbirds work perfectly. Realair, alabeo carenado. only a few complex coded aircraft do not work. there are a few quirks with some FX but about 95%flawless.

By the way, I think a photo/sim contest is in order! great idea!

[toprob]

Yeah, I've thought about this before, I think it can get easier once you get your head around the variables, of which there are far too many to control. But there are some things you can control. For example, matching the time/date -- the photo properties may give an accurate time taken, in fact the photo above says it was taken on 27 June at 12:12pm, so you could match that in the sim.

There's also some issues with photography which you can control, and some you can't. Generally a modern camera would do a lot of processing at the time the photo is taken, and this involves guestimating the colour balance. Since in the sim this is pretty much set (although there is a slight colour change depending on the time of day/season) it makes more sense to match the photo to the screenshot, rather than the other way around. So if you are taking your own photos, you should try and shoot RAW if you can, and then 'process' it yourself. The benefit is that you can taken a great photo, match the time/location/aircraft in the sim, take a screenshot, then reprocess the RAW image to match the sim colour/tones better.

That's the theory, anyway, I have to find a nice RAW image to try it on, but generally I don't take photos of aircraft...

P.S. forgot to say well done, Marty, that's a beautiful result, only spoilt by the fact that this particular airline always represents someone I love going away, so I have a bit of a dread of it...

[toprob]

Marty, p3dv2 offers lighting which is far more advanced than fsx. small nuances is shadow and lighting are possible. Right now, today.

if you spend the $60 on the sim amd you will not be disappointed. I've got almost All my best aircraft working perfectly and I've not had to rebuy/upgrade but maybe 2 of them. All the A2A warbirds work perfectly. Warbirdsim works perfectly, Vertigo sim warbirds work perfectly. Realair, alabeo carenado. only a few complex coded aircraft do not work. there are a few quirks with some FX but about 95%flawless.

By the way, I think a photo/sim contest is in order! great idea!

Just a reminder that we were talking about a visit here to check out P3D, although I don't have much in the way of nice liners... but to balance that, my flatmate is away this weekend, so I can be as flight simmy as I want...

[Charl]

The Real is often a very blue hue, compared with the sim, as seen above too.
I thought the sim clouds were better btw

FS2004 never gave me lighting trouble, but danged if I can find the original Real vs Sim topic?
I had it bookmarked but that was apparently another forum...

[Splitpin]

Marty, p3dv2 offers lighting which is far more advanced than fsx. small nuances is shadow and lighting are possible. Right now, today.

if you spend the $60 on the sim amd you will not be disappointed. I've got almost All my best aircraft working perfectly and I've not had to rebuy/upgrade but maybe 2 of them. All the A2A warbirds work perfectly. Warbirdsim works perfectly, Vertigo sim warbirds work perfectly. Realair, alabeo carenado. only a few complex coded aircraft do not work. there are a few quirks with some FX but about 95%flawless.

By the way, I think a photo/sim contest is in order! great idea!

Thank you Rick .

[Splitpin]

The Real is often a very blue hue, compared with the sim, as seen above too.
I thought the sim clouds were better btw

FS2004 never gave me lighting trouble, but danged if I can find the original Real vs Sim topic?
I had it bookmarked but that was apparently another forum...

Thank you as well Charl master (for looking)

[Naki]

The Real is often a very blue hue, compared with the sim, as seen above too.
I thought the sim clouds were better btw

FS2004 never gave me lighting trouble, but danged if I can find the original Real vs Sim topic?
I had it bookmarked but that was apparently another forum...

http://z11.invisionfree.com/nzff/ar/t118.htm