Again, have you read the tutorial? Please just answer me that first...All it does is give you the equation between transferring a 1.0 zoom of a 4:3 monitor to 16:9 or 16:10 widescreen and giving you the correct FOV. It also CLEARLY states you do not adjust zoom levels for different situations as that is creatinz false zoom, false fov and false depth perception...What does Quantum physics have to do with that? What does quantum physics have to do with the fact that at 1.0 on 4:3 you are getting the "true" zoom level and that equates to .76 or .84 on 16:9 or 16:10? What does Quantum physics have to do with debating Tom Gibson's (a LEGEND in flightsim) entire tutorial or what iFly developed panels to as the correct zoom levels for 16:9 and 16:10...Again, agree to disagree Mitch but I am going to stick to what the experts say thanks... I am reiterating their findings, not stating my opinion at this point... However, my opinion is that I agree with their findings...Cheers

I guess that was a no on the QP.Anyhow, you sound like your getting miffed at me every since I disagreed with you. Paul my intention was never to upset you. And yes I have read that thread and it does offer several intelligently worded explanations. Having said that, I know of nothing that qualifies any of them as "experts". Perhaps you qualify on a different scale than I. You can yell 16:9 4:3 all you want. There is no "true" view provided by MSFS that will render real world views 100% of the time. It is just impossible. And for someone who claims to have visited our training center in Atlanta as I have on many occasions, I just can't seem to understand your position. And by the way, I did agree with you that a high percentage of the time or more that the .80 does provide a good view. Anyhow, I got what I needed from Johan. Good night.

Not miffed at all, sorry if it comes across like that but i have to question some of your comments...Tom Gibson not an expert? Intelligently worded explanations? iFly doesn't get it either???Seriously? Tom Gibson, the author of that tutorial who directly counters what you are saying about different zooms for different situations is not an expert??? Do you know who he is? By your logic of you visiting the training center qualifiying you more than Tom who knows the inner working of FS development probably as well as anyone out there then the 25 times I have sat on the real 76/77 flightdecks makes me an expert too :) (Not)All the tutorial is describing is the mathematics behind transferring 4:3 to 16:9 or 16:10 to present the same image...What the tutorial is stating is that .76 or .84 on 16:9 or 16:10 is the equivalent of 1.0 on 4:3, that's it... basic IF/Then logic... If you use 1.0 on 4:3 THEN you use .76 or .84 on 16:9 or 16:10 to present the same image. Glad you got what you needed from Johan but if you are disregarding the tutorial he pointed us to then you are not even listening to him in the first place... So you got half of what you needed from him and disregarded the other half of everything he said...Not miffed at all, just curious why you would demean Tom's knowledge level and dismiss everything he says for your own claims based on time in the training center.... i just can't seem to understand your position....Regardless, I wish you the best, if you feel altering the zoom for different situations is the way to go then more power to you. I have ALWAYS stuck with one zoom level throughout all phases of flight and will continue to do so backed with the knowledge of the "experts" in my back pocket. BTW, no I do not understand QP, I do watch Big Bang Theory though!!! Please tell me what that has to do with the tutorial? How well do you understand the inner workings of an LPR, or CJIS requirements for LEO or CISSP requirements? They are as relevant to the referenced document as QP...Seriously, regardless of us not agreeing on this ( a stupid FS'ism)Happy and Healthy New Year to you and everyone else Mitch, all the best,-Paul

Hey Mitch, i found us a compromise... If we all get these then we don't have to worry about all that 2D/VC garbage and can just worry about the external view!Who is throwing down the first $7,000 :(

Would $7000 even cover the deposit? LOL No fair taunting us with something like that!!! Most of us are members of the "99%" and can only dream of owning a system of that quality... :Shocked:But dreams are free and as I look at the "rig" I currently now have and the quality of the FS experience I now enjoy, I am looking at something that would have been "just a dream" ten years ago. So --- life is good!!!!!CheersIan

Paul, for crying out loud, I never demeaned Mr. Gibson. And yes I do know who he is (LOL) probably a lot better than you. Regardless of the fact he is a well known and gifted developer, what qualifies him as an expert ? The mere fact he wrote the article? Where I come from the standards for qualifying one as an expert require much more than what you've provided. Having said that, Tom may very well be an expert I don't know. What I do know is I disagreed with you, not Tom. Your so confused on the matter it's somewhat comical. I could careless what zoom level you use on your flat screen 16 by whatever. As well I could also careless about virtual cockpits which you do not use in a real simulators. Perhaps I worded my earlier questions incorrectly buti am attempting to find the proper FOV for a total of 6 displays in a real sim. And as some have pointed out, it's impossible and you have got to settle on a compromise. Your one screen setup would benifit greatly from Tom's instructional. It does not however work in our situation as Ian has intelligently pointed out to you and everyone else (including me).Oh yes, those 737 MIPS & Quadrant look very nice. I maybe wrong but that looks like some of Pete's work at FDS. The best no doubt.

What I will say is that there are ways to speak to people without becoming insulting and demeaning. Up until that last post we had managed to achieve that. I Wish you the best Mitch, you did not word anything incorrectly although yes, I was debating what is best for most of us and you were apparently debating your setup so perhaps there was some confusion. I also think the whole topic of zoom level is questionable as I was never trying to figure out the correct zoom level but the 1.0 Zoom equivalent on a widescreen monitor... So some poor wordingon my part calling in the correct zoom level instead of accurately describing it as the 1.0 zoom equivalent for widescreens... Mea Culpa...What irks me though and why I did get bothered is that while I went through the effort of deciphering the tutorial and breaking down the numbers for everyone which you yourself concede on the first page of this thread you did not understand, you do nothing but counter me without ever justifying it...You could careless (care less) about the difference between 16:9 and 4:3 WHICH IS GENUINELY HALF OF THE POINT OF THE TUTORIAL and what I am trying to point out to everyone here, you belittle my single screen setup, you dismiss VC's, but most of all you never clearly stated what you disagreed with; Was it the tutorial, Was it my interpretation of the tutorial? You never provided ANY of your own Math to discredit anything I say, you just disagree...At least I took the time to try to decipher the doc for everyone and didn't just sit there disagreeing... In fact, the tutorial could be used to figure out your 1.0 zoom equivalent on your screens as well but one of the factors is indeed 16:9 or 4:3...Come on, at one point you are talking about VC, at one point you are talking about 1440x900, then you are talking about three monitors, then six, forgive me for thinking we were debating the document in question, not YOUR setup!!! And now you want to start speaking down to me, good day sir....I said Good Day! ;) (damn, this has been killing me now, what show was that from!!!)And in all seriousness Mitch, I give you full credit for what you are building, it looks to be a spectacular setup and for that I absolutely take my hat off to you...And I will further concede one more thing, on YOUR setup trying to compare is pointless, what is going to look correct sitting behind a life size cockpit is going to be COMPLETELY different than trying to superimpose the cockpit and scenery onto the screen.... So yes, you are certainly correct there as well...

Edited January 2, 201214 yr by psolk

Well I re-read what I posted and yes I see what I wrote was demeaning. I guess I felt much the same way when I wrote it. I am sorry.

Hey Mitch,Not to dredge this back up but you were definitely right... :drinks:Despite the tutorial's recommendation of .76, after flying with it for ~10-15 flights it did feel a bit too stretched or zoomed out.... For my system only (I know yours is much different) 1.0 means the VC fills too much of the screen so I have found that .86 is the best compromise.... Close enough to 1.0 to allow things to seem in perspective but that teenie bit of zoom out to allow me to move the eyepoint to the correct spot in the cockpit and still see some panel and some horizon. With 1.0 I was sitting behind the pillar that spilts the two side cockpit windows. That was just too far back so at .86 I am now in front of the pillar :)But to your point I agree that .75/.76 is too zoomed out. :(

Edited January 14, 201214 yr by psolk

Besides all this, I like to have your attention to 2DSince I use the calculated value, 3840x800 with 0.31, yes should be a tad less, I still have the feeling it looks further away that it really is.But I am not sure, just a feeling.Mitch will you please try an approach somewhere and see what your feelings are? You have the same resolution.. so..Its difficult, 0.50 seem too close, 0.31 seems streched, I am really puzzled here. But, its just a feeling, I might be completly wrong!Please let me know.

It is SOO hard to get it just right... Johan, would you mind trying something for me... Give .43 a shot... I found .860 to be ideal for 2D and VC on my setup. (read on)I love this part "in theory" the # of monitors shouldn't make a difference but 3840 is double the resolution of my 1920. So "in theory" if you divide my zoom in half it would be the equivalent of yours at 2x the resolution. :( B) At my old zoom of .750 the equivalent for you would have been .375 which I found too zoomed. .31 is running about .62 on a single 1920 monitor which would be way too zoomed. I am wondering if theory = reality and .43 looks good on 3840 as .86 does on 1920 (2D and VC) If not try .375 which would equate to .750! The easiest way for you to equate your zoom to the equivalent 1920 *xxx resolution would be to divide the 1920 zoom factor in half or reciprocally multiply your zoom x2 and you will get what it would be on a 1920 monitor (I think :( ) :( If that is correct .50 for you would equal 1.0 for me which I too found a "bit" too zoomed. It was like that girl with the porridge... This one is too hot, this one is too cold, this one is just right and then a bear eats you...-Paul

Edited January 14, 201214 yr by psolk