#271 c172p - unrealistic panel shadows

[Anonymous]

Originally created by: goo...@mgras.net
Originally owned by: goo...@mgras.net

The built-in shadow in the texture of the C172 panel - especially in the upper part - looks silly. I do acknowledge the intention of making the panel look "nicer" by adding some "eye-candy", but this one is overshot - by far. Heiko's previous version was much more realistic.

[Anonymous]

Originally posted by: cumuluni... (code.google.com)@gmail.com

Gijs, can you lighten it up while you are at it? It's indeed very dark

Labels: Priority-Low
Cc: gijsrooy
Status: Accepted

[Anonymous]

Originally posted by: goo...@mgras.net

As far as I remember, Stuart (Cc'ed) is the person who had been committing this update. BTW, the yoke is affected as well, to me it looked more realistic without the current texturing. I'd propose to roll back both texture changes.

Cc: stuar...@gmail.com

[Anonymous]

Originally posted by: gijsrooy

I am currently re-modeling the panel (as it was quite inaccurate and missing important switches). Due to some mapping-changes the panel texture will be redone; replacing the shadow with something less dark.

I do like the yoke textures though. With a little smoothing of the square/center part (don't know if there's a name for that) it'd probably look even better. Martin, maybe you can give a clue on what aspect of it you don't like. Are there too much reflections? Is the color not right?

Status: Dev

[Anonymous]

Originally posted by: goo...@mgras.net

Given the fact that the _entire_ panel of the real C172 has the same colour, "less dark" is still pretty unrealistic. There is no built-in shadow in the panel, not a single one  ;-)
The yoke of a C172 is not that shiny, reflective as the one currently in FG's C172 and it also doesn't have this artificial look of a non-existing PTT button where a real PTT button would be.

From my perspective it's more appropriate to have less features compared to real life and to add the missing ones when the time is right (maybe via close-to-realistic shadows plus surface reflection in FG some day) than to add artifical features (panel as well as yoke) which look precisely like that: "artificial".

[Anonymous]

Originally posted by: gijsrooy

Ah, good catch. I never noticed the PTT to be honest O_O
I'll see if I can do something with the yoke as well then.

[Anonymous]

Originally posted by: goo...@mgras.net

Note: I'm not asking anyone to perform any work on this model, I know every of the 'active' developers is having a pile of items on their TODO list. I'm just asking for consensus for rolling certain changes back.

[Anonymous]

Originally posted by: gijsrooy

No need to roll things back now. I already edited the yokes a couple of weeks ago, so they won't fit the "revert" anyway. :)

[Anonymous]

Originally posted by: gijsrooy

Please test and report: https://gitorious.org/fg/fgdata/merge_requests/108/

I did not alter the shininess of the yokes, as I do think they look realistic. Maybe it is a little overdone, but still better than the old yokes IMO. See http://jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=5728988&nseq=6 for an example of shiny-yokes in a real cockpit.

[Anonymous]

Originally posted by: goo...@mgras.net

In the same way as aircraft panel surfaces don't have built-in shadows, the yokes don't have built-in sunshine either. They're just a piece of black, ugly plastic  :-)

That's the usual trap with ostensibly "photo-realistic" textures: When derived from real photographs they just reflect illumination which had been specific to the very particular setup when the photo was taken - which is mostly wrong in most situations.
Therefore I think you're getting closer to the real look by reverting the textures to the state of Heiko's commit.

[Anonymous]

Originally posted by: stuar... (code.google.com)@gmail.com

As Gijs' changes aren't going to make the release, I've reverted the panel to the previous state.

I'll take a look at the yoke as well. I think the answer is to make the material shiny, but the texture just black.

-Stuart

[Anonymous]

Originally posted by: goo...@mgras.net

From my perspective I'd say the surface of these plastic yokes indeed are sort of 'reflective' - just think of a plastic grip which gets 'polished' simply by ongoing manual operation over the years. But they don't shine by themselves.

I've seen similar effects when people turned photographs of (overhead) panels into a texture - most prominently those photographs which were taken by use of a flashlight: This sort of textures also looks like they'd be shining from themselves, even though the respective surfaces are just a matt painted sheet of metal ....

I guess there are quite a few places in The FlightGear Hangar which deserve similar correction - I'm just picky about this particular example because I know the real one very well  :-))

[Anonymous]

Originally posted by: gijsrooy

We could use a chrome-shader on a black surface for some reflective effects. I use something similar on the 744's yokes...

WontFix, because we reverted ;)

Status: WontFix

[Anonymous]

Originally posted by: stuar... (code.google.com)@gmail.com

Gijs - no need for a chrome shader in this case - just adjusting the reflectiveness of the material should be sufficient.

I've now replaced the yokes with something that more closely resembles a p-model yoke.

The model isn't quite right, but it now includes a PTT switch, correct decals and textured surface.

-Stuart