best zoom compromise?

[flyinion 280]

I've been running .70 zoom with wideaspect = true in my fsx.cfg.  Just wondering what people feel is a realistic zoom or the best compromise between real and functional in FSX without a Track IR investment?  Seems like with .70 I can easily tilt the view down just a hair with the hat switch to bring the HSI (or electronic variant on a glass cockpit) into view enough to keep track of my pitch and fpm during landing or takeoff.  1.0 zoom I know is supposed to be realistic but it looks like my chin is on the glareshield at that point.  That's on my QW Avro package even and eyepoint is not a great solution since more than about 6-8 notches back and you are behind the seat in the VC in that particular plane for instance.

[FloG 148]

I use zoom settings between .5 and .7 usually. For some planes, higher zoom factor are necessary on my machine, though, in order to read the displays completely. One example is the AXE, where I can't enter anything into the FMS without zooming in to 1.0

[flyinion 280]

I use zoom settings between .5 and .7 usually. For some planes, higher zoom factor are necessary on my machine, though, in order to read the displays completely. One example is the AXE, where I can't enter anything into the FMS without zooming in to 1.0

 

Yeah I should clarify, I'm talking about "normal use" zoom like looking out the window while flying.  I have no problem zooming in farther for something like an FMC (though I guess I just cheat on the QW Avro and use the 2D panel) but of course zooming in doesn't work at all for normal flying.  Sounds like I'm about right on though with my .7 zoom.

[AlbertM 32]

I usually use 0.8 - 0.9 depending on the aircraft. I prefer to rather move the viewpoint back a bit than zooming out more than 0.8, because to me the distortion occurring at zoom levels of 0.7 and below just ruins immersion.

[FloG 148]

 

 

I guess I just cheat on the QW Avro and use the 2D panel

I do that too, whenever a 2D FMC is available, which isn't the case in the AXE, and I wouldn't really call it cheating.

 

To add something to what I previously posted: At first, when I switched to the VC from 2D, I used to use .3 zoom, because I found it easier to have a n overview over the cockpit and I'd be faster changing AP settings, because I only flew with the arrow keys and the mouse in order to control my view direction. When I switched to using a joystick, I was able to use higher zoom factors, because I was able to make control inputs and still look around at the same time.

[AviatorMan 253]

If you want it to be similar to the view you would get if you were in a real airplane, you don't want to zoom back very far.  The reason we zoom back in simming is so that we can see more of the panel, but if you are actually in a real aircraft, your view will be of the panel in front of you, and it will appear close.  You see the rest of the panel by turning your head and looking to the right.  I have started lessons in a PA-28, and this was certainly my experience,  Also, it is not that dissimilar to what your view would be when you are the wheel of your car:  you see the panel in front of you behind the steering wheel.  I use a zoom of about 0.70 - 0.80 depending on the aircraft.

[wims80 121]

I usually use 0.8 - 0.9 depending on the aircraft. I prefer to rather move the viewpoint back a bit than zooming out more than 0.8, because to me the distortion occurring at zoom levels of 0.7 and below just ruins immersion.

Yeah, I can't stand the fisheye distortion I get with high levels of zoom. Anything less than 0.8 looks horrible in my opinion.

[flyinion 280]

Thanks guys, looks like I'll stick with .7 for now, maybe .8 once in a while depending on the plane.

[stretch1365 40]

Hi all,

 

I was just browsing through your comments here on zoom ratio's in the VC and wondered if anyone has seen this video on YouTube about the same subject, all be it using TrackIR which I know your not, but it might be interesting. 

 

 

I took the advice in the video and keep my zoom at 1.0, which took some getting used to, but the thing is, these planes we're all flying round in, even the airliners don't have huge spacious cockpits we think they do, they are all cramped tiny affairs.. So at 1.0 Zoom that is the most realistic view of instruments and outside really. Although I realise it might not be practical if your not using TrackIR!

 

Happy Flying.

[SimonC 116]

I use 0.6 with WideViewAspect=True in the cfg. Found to be the best compromise altogether. Also makes ground textures less blurry.

[mosteen 111]

0,59 with wide on the U3011 30" and res. 2560x1600x32 in FSX, is the best for me and my viewing distance.

[mganz121 159]

Leave it a 1 and neither zoom or reduce view. That is the closest you will get to being in a real aircraft. With some practice, you will get used to panning around the cockpit with your hat switch (head movement, left, right, up, down) just as a real pilot has to do.

[LHookins 3,102]

I think a zoom of 2.0 gives the most realistic views, but that's a bit too close for me. I use a zoom of 1.5 with TrackIR. I've tried 1.25 (use shift with + or - for fine control) but it makes things a bit small.

 

I try to get things in the cockpit to look actual size.

 

Before I had TrackIR, I used a zoom of 1.0. This was on a narrower CRT monitor, too.

 

Hook

[flyinion 280]

Leave it a 1 and neither zoom or reduce view. That is the closest you will get to being in a real aircraft. With some practice, you will get used to panning around the cockpit with your hat switch (head movement, left, right, up, down) just as a real pilot has to do.

Yeah I think my issue with that is it makes it hard to see the gauges (glass or steam) that show fpm up or down while landing without using the hat switch and tweaking the out the window view angle.  Maybe I should just suck it up and try out zoom 1 for a bit and see if I can get used to it.

[odourboy 1,288]

Doesn't this depend on your screen size and how close you sit to it also? I use a 43" screen positioned where I'd place a desktop display and 0.7 seems about optimal.