Oh you hid that criticism so well in your sentences back there i didn't even notice!
So
"clearly the interior lighting needs a bespoke ambient term that better approximates the way light is reflected within it" in reply to
"GT5 and 6 doesn't simulates light scattering, even high end PCs cheat to simulate global illumination in outside scenes in real time and their approximation is still extremely poor. There is no real time graphical engine that can simulate a "fully lit" car interior properly, unless they program all the windows as light sources themselves and each vector; above, below, side, back and front, to give an amount of light representative of the outside luminosity." ; means: "Yes it's too damn dark!" in man language?
Maybe i'm just too dumb here so better keep it simple and straightforward next time, that way people will know what you are on about...
No, I'll never "dumb down" my posts - this is actually a very complex, technical issue, and to dumb it down is to miss the point. Feel stupid? I never intend it; it's your issue, you deal with it. If you don't understand, just ask for clarification - I won't ever begrudge anyone that; I love learning, and I love sharing information.
Lighting in games generally has two types of sources: direct, and indirect. "Global Illumination" is effectively the study of indirect lighting - advances in visual fidelity in the last 5 or so years, e.g. in Crysis 2 etc., have been due to near-real-time indirect lighting solutions, which are indeed only coarse approximations.
The "ambient" term is always there, as a "constant" and is the most basic approximation of the indirect light in a scene. It's what is left in the scene when there is no direct light, so in direct shadow, and is usually non-zero to avoid the annoying contrast you get from direct-only lighting.
What was being said is that the game models lights as direct sources only (no GI, no indirect light, no extra reflections), so the way that the light falls into the cockpit and illuminates it is unrealistic, and you get too much contrast.
What I was saying is that the cockpit needs a "bespoke ambient term", as distinct from the rest of the scenery, that removes that excessive contrast. There are numerous ways to do it, e.g. by simulating (e.g. by a
radiosity calculation - good link, very visual) the interior light bounces offline (in pre-production) and baking it in somehow - similar to the way games often use pre-baked ambient occlusion for dynamic lighting today. They could stick with a constant ambient term and just turn it up a bit, but that might look goofy in some situations, and as compared with the illumination of the scenery itself. It's a balancing act.
If you want to get involved in these discussions, there
is an element of learning involved. Having an opinion is fine, but if you don't truly understand what's going on, you can only go so far with it, in terms of the conclusions you draw. This applies to virtually everything in real life - I'd hate to think about your "method" of choosing who to vote for in government.
