FlightGear Forum
Thorsten wrote in Fri Jun 13, 2014 12:55 pm:Thats exactly what I mean about this "mad professor" way of talking. Speak for yourself only ok!
So, first the whole bunch of people agreeing with my arguments does so because they are a 'sect', but then when I point out that they might do so for a reason rather than my weird psychic influence, I should speak for myself?
It was just a expression for some peoples lack of individual thinking and constructive criticism in here. Its not me telling who is in your "sect", but just keep on collecting votes.
You don't need to tell me who is in your alliance, thats up to myself to judge.
Thorsten wrote in Fri Jun 13, 2014 12:55 pm:Understanding that a relative brightness of 0.05 corresponds to about a factor 50.000 loss in true intensity after perception filtering, and that a scene in bright sunlight comes at 100.000 lux, that we have just 400 lux right at sunset, and that a full moon privides 0.25 lux, so we're not doing grossly wrong estimating the brightness with the sun somewhat below the horizon to about 2-5 lux (still 10 times brighter than moonlight).
"Ohh yes"....Thorsten...MORE MORE!!! Dont give me another "intelectual orgasm".. lol
But I do BELEIVE we found what the problem is. Finaly some healthy constructive criticism that might lead to something.
LUX is the word I was looking for. LUX as in scientific terms and LUX as in personal perception.
So, it is your "perception filtering" that makes it, aha. And that is what I've been trying te tell all the time!! But my lack of terms made me use other words.
Where can I easely turn of your "perception filter" so that I can fly in optical resonance with my own illusion of reality and not yours.
I will try to look into Austin Meyers and Microsoft perception of reality later tonight after midnight. Maybe they dont share your illusion of reality! But you will probably tell them they got it all wrong, right..
Thorsten wrote in Fri Jun 13, 2014 12:55 pm:No, I'm not speaking for myself here. I can quote others telling you that you got the facts wrong and don't understand what you're talking about:
That's ludomotico agreeing with me:
That's Hooray agreeing with me:
That's Erik agreeing with me:
We dont need to make this into a "Divide and Conquer" scheme. And that was a ridiculous attempt to try to make yourself look stronger. Realize there is probably hundreds of readers that dont find any reason to get involved in this discussion rather than just read and think for themself.
Actually it is 749 views at the moment minus your (3votes + yourself * views) to see this in perspective. I dont know your personal relation to either of this individuals. But that would be just a subject of more speculations (what you prefer to call "conspiracy theories"..lol).
If you are requesting this, then you do actually agree that there could be a need for some correction option at the same time telling me I dont have the skill to create "productive criticism". If we percive reality different because of various influences, then how can you at the same time say it is unrealistic option to have. Not logical!
Atlaest it has to be separate gamma option for sky, clouds, terrain, objects to make this most realistic.