As the old saying goes- choose your own poison!!!45º Tunnel Vision OR 146º Normal Vision. (No panning or zooming, just Smooth Landings!)Both pics same location- Duluth R27 @1.0 zoom. If your medical vision test is similar to first pic, farewell to a flying career!Alex Reid

To be fair, in a single monitor setup the single monitor horizontal aperture is substantially larger than the 45º you mention: The one monitor is 1920 x 1200, i.e. 16:10 aspect ratio, not quite the 1280 x 1024, i.e. 5:4 you are showing.BTW, the peripheral view will not haelp you out on all occasions: You will have a hard time landing any tail dragger (B-17, P-47) as the snout comes up when slowing to VREF on final: With TrackIR you just move your head up and to the side, just like you would in a real taildragger. If you open the side window (alas, and also if you don't) you can move your head to the side and look down to see the left main gear touch the runway!So each scenario has it's pros and cons and which you prefer might be a question of taste.Cheers,- jahman.

As the old saying goes- choose your own poison!!!45º Tunnel Vision OR 146º Normal Vision. (No panning or zooming, just Smooth Landings!)Both pics same location- Duluth R27 @1.0 zoom. If your medical vision test is similar to first pic, farewell to a flying career!Alex Reid

January, I have been following your multi-monitor posts for a while but I foget, are you using FSX or FS9 with your set up?

To be fair, in a single monitor setup the single monitor horizontal aperture is substantially larger than the 45º you mention: The one monitor is 1920 x 1200, i.e. 16:10 aspect ratio, not quite the 1280 x 1024, i.e. 5:4 you are showing.BTW, the peripheral view will not haelp you out on all occasions: You will have a hard time landing any tail dragger (B-17, P-47) as the snout comes up when slowing to VREF on final: With TrackIR you just move your head up and to the side, just like you would in a real taildragger. If you open the side window (alas, and also if you don't) you can move your head to the side and look down to see the left main gear touch the runway!So each scenario has it's pros and cons and which you prefer might be a question of taste.Cheers,- jahman.

jahman- in FS9 (and I assume FSX), anyway you slice it, each view @ 1.0 zoom, displays only a 45º slice of the world - it still takes 8 different views to complete the full world circle. As far as I know, doesn't matter whether your monitor is 4:3 or wide profile- the latter simply shears off some top/bottom to fit whatever screen ratio. (again- there are 8 different FS views: Divide the full world of 360º by 8 = 45º)Of course nothing wrong with applying some zoom to increase the field of view- as long as one is aware that this affects distance perception. (Simulator TIME does not change even though distance seems altered with zoom.)In the final analysis, each system does the job well. The only question is which approach is closest to the way humans actually see the world. And I guess the answer is "Personal Preference".Anyway; as my Scots ancestors would say today- "Happy Hogmanay!Regards Alex ReidPS- the pics were shot at my standard 1024x768 producing an integrated scene of 3072x768 running smoothly thru the magic of synched multi mons on my ancient AMD 1.8 CPU ! At 1.0 zoom, each screen spans 45º for a total of 135º. The bezel pairs are the eqivalent of about 5.5º so the outer views are both shifted outward in Panel Config by that amount, bringing the total FOV to 146º.

jahman- in FS9 (and I assume FSX), anyway you slice it, each view @ 1.0 zoom, displays only a 45º slice of the world - it still takes 8 different views to complete the full world circle. As far as I know, doesn't matter whether your monitor is 4:3 or wide profile- the latter simply shears off some top/bottom to fit whatever screen ratio. (again- there are 8 different FS views: Divide the full world of 360º by 8 = 45º)...

Indeed there are only 8 views, so that's 45º per view... But in VC if your screen is "landscape", the horizontal viewing angle must increase commensurate with the aspect ratio to keep round instruments from turning into ovals. Am I missing something?Have a superb 2011!Cheers,- jahman

Indeed there are only 8 views, so that's 45º per view... But in VC if your screen is "landscape", the horizontal viewing angle must increase commensurate with the aspect ratio to keep round instruments from turning into ovals. Am I missing something?Have a superb 2011!Cheers,- jahman

jahman- to maintain round gauges on a wide aspect monitor, I believe the view remains as the default 4:3 ratio but with some of the top sky & bottom ground trimmed off to fit the wider profile. That yields a "wide" scene while maintaining a 45º view @ 1.0 zoom. (see the right & left monitors in the screen shot below- the side edges don't change even when the top bottom edges are trimmed to produce very different profile ratios.)Any chance you could place an airplane at Duluth R27 and (@ 1.0 zoom), compare the side edges of the scene with the pics I posted earlier in this thread? I would expect that the left/right edges of the view will be the same as in my screenie - whether 2D or virtual & regardless of 4:3 ratio vs wide monitor in use.I often adjust the height of the outer views in Panel Cfg. to align these horizons with the centre horizon and still keep instr.panel components in reasonable alignment across the monitors. That effectively makes those outer views VERY wide screen physically yet NOT changing the limits of the outer/side edges.This is why I believe any view retains a 45º Field of View @ 1.0 zoom- regardless of monitor ratio.And the top of the New Year to all! Alex Reid

I never understood the appeal of widescreen until I got one!!! I went from a standard 17" LED monitor which I had for a year (before it was CRT) to a 24" LED Syncmaster BX2450. No regrets. When you get used to the size. It's not so big that it's huge, but big enough that you can see everything. Watching movies and playing xbox on the same screen makes it worth every penny because the widescreen format ends up being the same size as the standard 28" television I have in my room, plus the bonus of clarity.If you're going big like this LED is best IMO. I got lucky: $350 monitor on sale at Future Shop for $270; $50 trade-in for my old CRT; acquired some old car parts from someone that I sold for $110. Including a 6 foot HDMI cable, I only spent $170 after tax!!!!! I couldn't resist.

I never understood the appeal of widescreen until I got one!!! I went from a standard 17" LED monitor which I had for a year (before it was CRT) to a 24" LED Syncmaster BX2450. No regrets. When you get used to the size. It's not so big that it's huge, but big enough that you can see everything. Watching movies and playing xbox on the same screen makes it worth every penny because the widescreen format ends up being the same size as the standard 28" television I have in my room, plus the bonus of clarity.If you're going big like this LED is best IMO. I got lucky: $350 monitor on sale at Future Shop for $270; $50 trade-in for my old CRT; acquired some old car parts from someone that I sold for $110. Including a 6 foot HDMI cable, I only spent $170 after tax!!!!! I couldn't resist.

LEDs are actually known for poor light uniformity (unless you can get an edge-lit model).

LEDs are actually known for poor light uniformity (unless you can get an edge-lit model).

Ah, no, LED's ARE uniform lighting, and that's why they are superior. They produce brighter sharper images (whiter whites, blacker blacks like plasma TVs) because of the back-lighting technology all around the screen. If one LED fails, the rest still work and it won't be (if at all - depending on the tech) noticeable (and considerably cheaper to fix). LCD's use flourescent tube backlighting (esp. the older ones were problematic - tech development for these took a long time) hence the old "LCD screen burn-out". There are two versions of LED that samsung produced: the superior 'backlit' model with LED all being behind the screen across the entire expanse (LED's actually turn OFF to produce the black colours), and in my monitor's case (which is far SLIMMER and cheaper) LED's across the EDGES of the screen (where if one fails you might notice a dark spot, but image integrity through the screen is maintained unlike LCD). LED tech has been in DEVELOPMENT for 10 years before hitting the market, so the tech is proven reliable.

Ah, no, LED's ARE uniform lighting, and that's why they are superior. They produce brighter sharper images (whiter whites, blacker blacks like plasma TVs) because of the back-lighting technology all around the screen. If one LED fails, the rest still work and it won't be (if at all - depending on the tech) noticeable (and considerably cheaper to fix). LCD's use flourescent tube backlighting (esp. the older ones were problematic - tech development for these took a long time) hence the old "LCD screen burn-out". There are two versions of LED that samsung produced: the superior 'backlit' model with LED all being behind the screen across the entire expanse (LED's actually turn OFF to produce the black colours), and in my monitor's case (which is far SLIMMER and cheaper) LED's across the EDGES of the screen (where if one fails you might notice a dark spot, but image integrity through the screen is maintained unlike LCD). LED tech has been in DEVELOPMENT for 10 years before hitting the market, so the tech is proven reliable.

That's correct. I meant to say back-lit, not edge-lit.I believe some of the newer LGs are back-lit as well.