Extreme sun glare HELP WANTED

[Stig Bidstrup]

HI

I have a problem with extreme sun glare on certain tracks in assetto corsa....so I sometimes hardly can see the track
its only on these tracks: Imola , Monza , Magione , Vallelunga...in the video you can see Monza and imola...and my graphic settings in game...

1. is it normal ??
2. is it a setting in the graphic card that is wrong ??
3. or is it the time of day that is set on the track that is the problem on these Servers....12 30 or 13 30 in the video
My graphic card is Asus geforce 560 Ti with newest drivers and on default settings..

Stig Bidstrup

 

[Frank]

It is just an issue with HDR currently in some cars and tracks when you are in the car. Press Page Dwn a few times in a row or hold it till it is better. Nothing to do about it until Kunos fixes it.

 

[Georg Siebert]

Frank is right, HDR is mostly at fault here. You can also set the time of day later to reduce light on track.

 

[Bart Manski]

 

[mms]

Yeah, that is actually funny, I use HDR for my pictures, and don't understand why in the game it has an opposite effect, and sometimes way too strong...

 

[Bart Manski]

I do a bit of both and from my observations, in computer generated graphics the goal is in most cases to make it look as photorealistic as possible. HDR is so easy to implement and when overdone, it makes graphics look like crappy photo, but crappy photo is still a photo so mission accomplished... sort of. On the other hand in photography, you start with a picture that is, well, photorealistic, and you try to add some character to it, make it look less ordinary and more visually pleasing.

 

[Georg Siebert]

Euro Truck Simulator 2 looks very good with HDR on and really terrible without. AC is the other way around, maybe because AC has higher fidelity graphics overall.

 

[Stig Bidstrup]

HI

Many thanks for the Help !......the solution to my problem was,,Turn Off HDR...
......I now see the track clearly....in fact its a new game....GREAT

Stig Bidstrup

 

[mms]

I do a bit of both and from my observations, in computer generated graphics the goal is in most cases to make it look as photorealistic as possible. HDR is so easy to implement and when overdone, it makes graphics look like crappy photo, but crappy photo is still a photo so mission accomplished... sort of. On the other hand in photography, you start with a picture that is, well, photorealistic, and you try to add some character to it, make it look less ordinary and more visually pleasing.

I do only photography, and the goal is to make the pictures look more close to what our eyes would perceive in real life. The problem with pictures taken with a camera is that the camera cannot capture all the details (color shades among others) as the sensors are not capable to do that, and the monitors are not able to output all thos shades either. With HDR processing the shades from the two extremes (too dark and too bright) are brought within the range that the monitors can display so our eyes are able to see the most of these shades.

 

[Joseph Maxx]

I do only photography, and the goal is to make the pictures look more close to what our eyes would perceive in real life. The problem with pictures taken with a camera is that the camera cannot capture all the details (color shades among others) as the sensors are not capable to do that, and the monitors are not able to output all thos shades either. With HDR processing the shades from the two extremes (too dark and too bright) are brought within the range that the monitors can display so our eyes are able to see the most of these shades.

There are monitors on the market now that will reproduce about 98% of the Adobe RGB 1998 colour space but they are extremely $$$$$$$$$$.

Even then, that colour space is only a small fraction of what the human eye can perceive and when you consider that the human visual system (light gathering, eyes - information processing, brain) is constantly adjusting for optimum information gathering, the digital still camera doesn't stand a chance. HDR uses tonal compression (create a 32 bit image from multiple exposures then selectively compress tones to 16 or 8 bits) to get to something that approximates the human visual system but anyone who has worked extensively with it will tell you that even the very best HDR processing is pretty abysmal when compared to our visual system.

This is coming from a photographer www.vastphotostudio.com

 

[EIF]

HDR is a pain in this sim, parts of Imola in particular are blinding white in some cockpits, but I have to enable it for sweetfx to work.

 

[mms]

There are monitors on the market now that will reproduce about 98% of the Adobe RGB 1998 colour space but they are extremely $$$$$$$$$$.

Even then, that colour space is only a small fraction of what the human eye can perceive and when you consider that the human visual system (light gathering, eyes - information processing, brain) is constantly adjusting for optimum information gathering, the digital still camera doesn't stand a chance. HDR uses tonal compression (create a 32 bit image from multiple exposures then selectively compress tones to 16 or 8 bits) to get to something that approximates the human visual system but anyone who has worked extensively with it will tell you that even the very best HDR processing is pretty abysmal when compared to our visual system.

This is coming from a photographer www.vastphotostudio.com

That pretty much sums it up

Tonal compression is one of the HDR techniques, with today's camera sensors getting better each day, one can get a good result from a single raw shot too.

 

[Joseph Maxx]

That pretty much sums it up

Tonal compression is one of the HDR techniques, with today's camera sensors getting better each day, one can get a good result from a single raw shot too.

Acceptable result yes.. good result not so sure, but then again I've never been a fan of HDR so it all comes down to a matter of taste. Also, regardless of what the software calls the algorithm used to create the HDR image it's all tonal compression of one sort or another, That's the only way to get from 32bit to 16 or 8 bit.

 

[mms]

Acceptable result yes.. good result not so sure, but then again I've never been a fan of HDR so it all comes down to a matter of taste. Also, regardless of what the software calls the algorithm used to create the HDR image it's all tonal compression of one sort or another, That's the only way to get from 32bit to 16 or 8 bit.

What the sofware does is the tone mapping of the HDR images with different exposures so that lower range displays can still show them. Anyways this got way off-topic, wiki is a good starting point should anyone need more info

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-dynamic-range_imaging

 

[conosur1]

Me too have a GTX 560 Ti and i5. With HDR On I have a little lag, with HDR Off run great.
Whatever without HDR the graphics looks more realistic.

 

[Steve Pearce]

I've had the same issue, thanks for the above posts. Running with no HDR is therefore the way forward, though i note on some tracks I continue to get the sunglare effect (up the hill at Imola, etc.)

What am i missing out on by having HDR off?

 

[Frank]

If the sun goes in straight at your eyes you will still get it, as HDR doesn't equal sun glare. It is 2 different things.

 

[Stig Bidstrup]

I've had the same issue, thanks for the above posts. Running with no HDR is therefore the way forward, though i note on some tracks I continue to get the sunglare effect (up the hill at Imola, etc.)

What am i missing out on by having HDR off?

NOt really anything.....reflections may be more realistic.