FSX world scaling

[Squishy 0]

Hi.Every since i started using FS a long time ago I always thought that the world scaling in FS was way off.. Firstly the POV of the default VC view is way too narrow/zoomed in and doesn't come close to the view of the average human. To fix this I always zoom out to 0.50 (depends on A/C and resolution). However now the view of the pilot doesn't scale at all with the world. Let me show you an example:The building is WAY too small considering it's only a couple of meters away. The result is that, when flying over any city (as big as london) it looks as i'm flying the google earth flight simulator.. everything is flat (even with addon scenery) and it just doesn't give the feeling that you're in a city.Any thoughts?

[Blodwenblod 0]

well I had a little hunt around for you - not sure if this post from a while back is any use?http://forums1.avsim.net/lofiversion/index.php/t67807.htmlI'm sure I remember some similar tweaks a while back, but it may be as long ago as when I was FS2004....!

[Squishy 0]

well I had a little hunt around for you - not sure if this post from a while back is any use?http://forums1.avsim.net/lofiversion/index.php/t67807.htmlI'm sure I remember some similar tweaks a while back, but it may be as long ago as when I was FS2004....!

Your link doesn't work :(

[Kosta 122]

Link is working.And you can't change what you are wishing for. It's basically how the sim is working.

[Blodwenblod 0]

weird it didn't work for you Squishy. Try this instead (in AVSIM hifi-o-rama) http://forums1.avsim.net/index.php?showtopic=67807 If I read it correctly you should be able to change your viewpoint and save it as default, so you don't have to change the view each time you load the plane.Not sure if this is quite the same as changing what would be called depth of field if it was a real camera view though.Does anyone know whether the EZDok software does this?

[Squishy 0]

weird it didn't work for you Squishy. Try this instead (in AVSIM hifi-o-rama) http://forums1.avsim.net/index.php?showtopic=67807 If I read it correctly you should be able to change your viewpoint and save it as default, so you don't have to change the view each time you load the plane.Not sure if this is quite the same as changing what would be called depth of field if it was a real camera view though.Does anyone know whether the EZDok software does this?

Thanks, but my problem is not change the default viewpoint.My problem lies with the fact that FSX, in my opinion, doesn't scale the world properly regardless of viewpoint. Buildings are way too small resulting in huge cities looking like just another autogen village

[wombat778 0]

Thanks, but my problem is not change the default viewpoint.My problem lies with the fact that FSX, in my opinion, doesn't scale the world properly regardless of viewpoint. Buildings are way too small resulting in huge cities looking like just another autogen village

IMHO, what you are seeing is completely normal and a natural consequence of the limitations of simming on a PC. Every simulator I have ever used has the same issue. What you are doing by setting the field of view so wide is squishing a full human field of vision into a monitor that occupies only a small portion of your actual field of vison. The end result is a fisheye type view that makes everything look farther away than it actually is. Take a picture with a fisheye lens, or look in a curved mirror and you will get the exact same effect (the reason why car mirrors say "objects are closer than they appear")!I think the best solution is to zoom in to a more normal level (probably somewhere around 60 or 70 degrees FOV total), then use something like a Trackir. Treat the the monitor as a small window into the world, and look around at what you want to see. Obviously there is no peripheral vision that way, but at least the perspective is largely correct.

[Squishy 0]

What use is a correct perspective if you can only view through binoculars? I don't think its a limitation of simming on the PC, but because of the way FSX is programmed.Race simulations like rfactor have "virtual cockpits" in cars that are no smaller than a cessna yet don't have a any problem scaling the world to the viewpoint.

[Guest anthony31fs]

The building is WAY too small considering it's only a couple of meters away.

I'd sure like to buy real estate from you. It's probably at least 30m from the runway edge to the fence (which is anout 3m high) and it looks like another 30+m from the fence to the house (standard door height for a house is 2.4m) for a total distance of 60+ metres.It seems odd to be trying to compare the view inside a car on a narrow road with a 767 on a runway. Airports are huuuge! and everything looks further away because everything just is further away. To me the scaling in FSX seems fine (except autogen house which are usually a bit bigger than they would be in real life) and comparing real world photos with some airports I've noticed little difference.

[russert 0]

Interesting. I've always found the autogen buildings and trees to be grossly over-sized. I've been looking for a setting to actually scale them down. Also, it's kind of annoying departing generic airports and finding huge houses just beyond the runway threshold.Unfortunately, to get a realistic viewpoint (i.e. what you see is exactly what you'd see in real life), you will probably want to invest in a multi-monitor setup.

[Kosta 122]

I've been reading your posts concerning problems within FSX, I get the impression you are generally not satisfied with the FSX and would rather be without it. Is there really a reason for pushing things?

[HUSSAR 272]

I've been reading your posts concerning problems within FSX, I get the impression you are generally not satisfied with the FSX and would rather be without it. Is there really a reason for pushing things?

Word Not Allowed - With all sincerity I do not think squishy is pushing anything and his questions do not offend me in the least, he seems interested in ways of improving his view/perpective in FSX.Squishy - I asked the same question many years ago when FSX first came out, true there really is no way to change how buildings and other structures look at this time as far as I know. One interesting concept that I came across while searching for an answer was that to make FSX look more realistic it would require the addition of atmospheric rendering, which would add depth to ones surroundings. Do a google search for windwardmark for examples of what I am describing.Take for instance the pic in this topic, Orbx PNW looks promising and makes Seattle look really good, generally speaking the developers of this addon have created a gem, but imagine what it would look like if future development would allow for lighting effects which are influenced by weather and pollution (not to mention cloud shadows). Once you have that you will then have a true and realistic 3D based view from within the aircraft. On a side-note, I have scenery and weather enhancements installed and find these lend to a more realistic view of the "real world" and satisfies my personal taste for the time being.

[bob.bernstein 0]

I tend to compare fsx to my memory of afs2, and later fs3.0, and find it to be amazingly evolved. Squishy compares fsx to his most perfect ideal, and finds it lacking. Since it is what it is, I'd say my way of looking at it results in more happiness. Just my opinion, of course.

[WarpD 824]

As one person already pointed out... the actual distance from the cockpit to that building is closer to 300 feet, not 3 meters.As for your driving game image... a few points:1 - The left hand mirror is a reverse image of the rear view mirror. Literally from left to right, it's backwards... or is it the rear view mirror that's backwards?2 - When driving a real vehicle your seat is set so that the wrists on your arms rest comfortably on the top of the steering wheel.3 - At that position, you are ~1-1.5 feet from the gauges on the dash.4 - At that position, the rear view mirror is not in your view.5 - At that position, the side view mirror is not viewable, though in your peripheral.6 - At that position, the lower half of the steering wheel is not in your view.I could go on and on... but, bottom line... your idea of 'what you see' is rather skewed based on what you've said and shown thus far in your thread. :(

[Kogacarlo 0]

Actually I find the picture in the cockpit better than the picture in the car. In that car you definately can't tell how many meters it is to the next curve. It's more fish-eye than the cockpit.