Aircraft using PBR?

[Javis]

Jan-

I am in agreement. There is a lot of fuss about PBR atm, and it definitely shows promise, however, there are miles to go before we sleep. ATM developers are waiting for fixes from LM (hopefully in v4.5). Yes, I am all for PBR in the VC where I would actually enjoy it throughout my flight.

Actually i can't wait to see a screenshot or video of a PBR textured VC. It might be that vintage and/or fighterplane VC's will make better use of PBR than modern airliners will.. Imagine f.i. all these little glints on gauge bezels, knobs and switches..

Not just when capturing screenies. The pictures from "modern" games with current graphics engines are truly incredible. For me, the closest I get is DCS- and that too is leaps and bounds ahead of P3D. Perhaps one day...

Is DCS using PBR too you think, Carl ?... I bought it thru Steam (actually just for the F-86) but haven't activated it for a loong time. The cockpits certainly look the beez kneez.

On a much more important topic, I will take your update with PBR or without PBR, with lettuce and pickles or without, with ketchup and mustard, or not.... you get the idea, nicht?

Selbstverständlich. We'll have to see first to transfer the external model from Gmax to Max too so it can be turned into a proper DC-3. We'll see about PBR... In any case lots of bare metal, that's true... ;-)

Tschüss!,
jan

 

[TuFun]

PBR seem to dark to me so far in the pics I've seen. Don't know why a blue sky reflects black with PBR. I like how PBR looks in War Thunder, looks natural.

 

[cavaricooper]

Ted-

Re. BOTH items in your signature- Edel und Wundebar! Simply stunning mate!

C

 

[bazzar]

As modellers and texture artists get used to PBR workflow, things will improve. The great temptation with anything "new" is to slap it all on and hope for the best. There are multiple channels to deal with that must be tuned to get the results you want. Just having a channel handling reflectivity is not enough. Each channel has its own set of parameters like roughness, height and specularity, density and hue. Unless all of these are in correct balance with each other, one can get somewhat surprising results! Time is the problem. It will remain to be seen whether the end user can tolerate the timeframes required for PBR development over conventional processes. Believe me, the extra time allowance is more than considerable.

Lighting plays a massive role in all of this. Remember that true PBR has been around a long time in AAA gaming. And if you look at the majority of those games, they all exhibit a "darkness" . This is because of the way PBR materials need to react with the environment in which they are displayed. Bright lighting can wash out subtle reflective effects and create havoc with normal (bump) effects. So, HDR lighting in P3D really needs to be on and that means a darker, more drab appearance to the world. Maybe V5 will be different.

Developers will eventually come to the conclusion that PBR is not always the solution for a given style they want to achieve. A mix of the two is often a good way to go and sometimes a fresh look at the conventional techniques as used in FSX can produce effects which are just as good. Dynamic reflections is a case in point. You don't need PBR to achieve those.