If you zoom out far enough, sure, you can get something closer to what your peripheral vision sees in real life as far as the outside scenery, but you're necessarily distorting things closer to you with that fisheye lens type effect.

Agreed. Running three 26" side by side by side at 1.00 zoom seems accurate when looking forward, but it does distort the sides with the fisheye lens.Ryan, off topic and just out of curiosity, do you fly out of Chandler a lot? Since I go to Arizona State @ Tempe, I checked out CHD and SDL for rentals. Flown out of CHD a few times, but not a fan of the aging fleet they have at Chandler Air Service. Nice airport though, and it's in a great location to travel south or to do the Sky Harbor transitions up north.

Yeah, my guess is that it actually was done because of the fact that there would be so many more objects required to produce an actual real world look with autogen, so they made the objects bigger, which makes the ground look more covered with less total objects.Focal length on that shot was 50mm btw (shot with a Canon 30D), which is a decent approximation for the human eye's.

This vid is excellent for comparison(and the next parts)

Yeah, my guess is that it actually was done because of the fact that there would be so many more objects required to produce an actual real world look with autogen, so they made the objects bigger, which makes the ground look more covered with less total objects.Focal length on that shot was 50mm btw (shot with a Canon 30D), which is a decent approximation for the human eye's.

Ryan, what freeway is that below and what dirction where you flying in the pic you posted? I was trying to figure out where it is so I could compare with photo scenery.

Not a good comparison for when on the ground, as the MD-80 sits very very low compared to a 767

TRAFFIC! TRAFFIC! HOT AIR BALLOONS AT 2000 !Just stooging around Phoenix comparing FS9 scenery with the prior pic by Tabs and the FSX Screenie by Kogacarlo, when to my amazement I spotted three AI hot air balloons !!!! See centre left of the 1st pic/right view- A yellow, a red and a blue hot air bag! Then I couldn't resist buzzing them for a closeup.I have only default FS9 AI set @ 79%.Has any one else seen this in either 9 or X ? Looks very small in these reduced screenshots which you will be viewing on a single monitor. MUCH more impressive when the whole scene is 45"wide. Each balloon in the distant first pic is actually about 1/4" wide for me and the gondolas are visible. The close up is really impressive when it occupies 100% of your lateral vision!!! Hope the balloon pilots don't report me for reckless endangerment!Alex ReidDiscontinuities between screens is caused by screenshots eliminating bezel separation between monitors and presenting outer mons in a flat plane rather than at a 40

He's on crossing Superstition Fwy/ S Val Vista DrHere it is on Googlemaps.The picture was taken aimed west.

He's on crossing Superstition Fwy/ S Val Vista DrHere it is on Googlemaps.The picture was taken aimed west.

Thanks, i'm gonna check it out.

TRAFFIC! TRAFFIC! HOT AIR BALLOONS AT 2000 !Just stooging around Phoenix comparing FS9 scenery with the prior pic by Tabs and the FSX Screenie by Kogacarlo, when to my amazement I spotted three AI hot air balloons !!!! See centre left of the 1st pic/right view- A yellow, a red and a blue hot air bag! Then I couldn't resist buzzing them for a closeup.I have only default FS9 AI set @ 79%.Has any one else seen this in either 9 or X ?

They're not AI aircraft but scenery objects (so they don't move) and yes, they were in FS9. Haven't got around to checking if they are in FSX as well.

He's on crossing Superstition Fwy/ S Val Vista DrHere it is on Googlemaps.The picture was taken aimed west.

Yep, that's US 60 that divides Mesa and Tempe from Gilbert and Chandler, we're flying south toward KCHD. The aircraft is Angle of Attack owner Chris Palmer's incredible Bonanza G36 btw.The main N/S road in the middle (just east of the small lake on the north side of the 60) is actually Gilbert Road though, the aircraft position is west of Val Vista Rd.http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=33....mp;t=h&z=15Here's what the TCAS traffic looked like on the G1000 MFD just after we crossed the 60 (the 60 is the double blue line in the lower right corner)

Ryan, off topic and just out of curiosity, do you fly out of Chandler a lot? Since I go to Arizona State @ Tempe, I checked out CHD and SDL for rentals. Flown out of CHD a few times, but not a fan of the aging fleet they have at Chandler Air Service. Nice airport though, and it's in a great location to travel south or to do the Sky Harbor transitions up north.

I don't have a license myself (yet), this was kind of a special thing, Chris was down here on business and we took the plane out for the day.Rest of the photoset is here - took some really awesome shots up north around Lake Powell and Page:http://www.flickr.com/photos/24615118@N04/...57608100649524/

One more point. It's not only the view angle but the correct sense of speed is important as well.I've did numerous approaches with a 767 in FSX just to compare them with my RW every day approaches.Doing that I ended up with a zoom of 0.5 (22" widescreen) which seems to produce the correct sense of speed at very low altitudes, when crossing the threshold, during the landing run, etc...Also the VOW 'feels' realistic at 0.5. Flying at 1.0 is not only like flying in slow motion but the VOW feels way to limited as well as is the proximity of the panel in VC view.BTW, the autogen trees and houses are definitely WAY oversized. Park your 172 (or even a 747) near a tree and look at it from the external view....

Here's an interesting comparison between Ryan's real world shot and one from my sim. As you can see the little bit of autogen there is, is a little bigger than it should be, namely the trees. It's always cool to compare the real pics to the sim. Mine was taken at 2500' which after looking at his may have been a touch low, and I was using the zoom of .79 which is what I usually use in the VC. I was trying to use the little pond on the North side (right side) of the freeway as a reference point. If I tried again I could probably get a better vantage point, but this is pretty close for a quick try.

cmpbellsjc, nice comparison shot there. one of the advantages of photoscenery. i think it has been discussed many times that FSX autogen scenery is scaled way too big but it is just the way the sim is. someone would have to make all new autogen replacements in a different scale to replace what FSX offers now, and i dont know if that is even possible unless you know the hard coding for the program.

One more point. It's not only the view angle but the correct sense of speed is important as well.I've did numerous approaches with a 767 in FSX just to compare them with my RW every day approaches.Doing that I ended up with a zoom of 0.5 (22" widescreen) which seems to produce the correct sense of speed at very low altitudes, when crossing the threshold, during the landing run, etc...Also the VOW 'feels' realistic at 0.5. Flying at 1.0 is not only like flying in slow motion but the VOW feels way to limited as well as is the proximity of the panel in VC view.BTW, the autogen trees and houses are definitely WAY oversized. Park your 172 (or even a 747) near a tree and look at it from the external view....

sg38- Yes, the wider Field of View that is generated by Zooming Out is what changes the sense of speed. Your Zoom of .50 increases the FOV from 45

It's still pretty amazing that the sim is that good that we can make comparison shots like that where small features like that pond are actually recognizable!