Lower zoom levels also stretch the runway, which can really throw you off on visuals.

 

...but I'd imagine the people who truly want to see the whole flight deck on one screen are also the ones who routinely autoland everything, so I guess it doesn't matter.

 

Here's to hoping they don't ever get in a real plane...

I agree with you.....I allways approach and land with zoom at 100%

But without the PFD and ND etc on a second and third monitor that would be hard to do.

 

Suring cruise I zoom out a bit to see more of the cockpit or surroundings.

 

But I think everyone should simulate how he likes it best.

Which is why I presented some ideas here like Wideviewaspect=false, zooming out, moving viewpoint aft, etc.

Closer to 100% zoom you can get the better in my view. Trouble is, there's only so far you can move the PMDG 777 eye point backward. go too far and you lose the mouse cursor on knobs and switches.

 

You can move back far enough though.

 

The trouble with zoom like 80, 70, 60% for me, is that you get an inaccurate impression of speed as you approach the runway. When I watch any cockpit video, the last few hundred feet, closing on the runway is rather sedentary. With a low zoom percentage, you appear to approach with exaggerated alacrity.

 

I'd be interested in whether Rob agrees with that compared to the real T7.

 

 

The trouble with zoom like 80, 70, 60% for me, is that you get an inaccurate impression of speed as you approach the runway. When I watch any cockpit video, the last few hundred feet, closing on the runway is rather sedentary. With a low zoom percentage, you appear to approach with exaggerated alacrity.

I'd be interested in whether Rob agrees with that compared to the real T7.

 

Nothing to do with the plane, specifically.  The impression of speed is simply one of perception based on how the image is presented versus how it is in reality.  Having experience in various real planes versus what you see at low zoom levels in the sim, lowering the zoom level definitely distorts too much (speed, line distortion, among other things) to consider it valuable time in the sim.

 

For what it's worth, I do the same as Rob: zoom back to 70 or 80 for most of the flight.  90 or 100 for the landing.

 

As I've said time and time again:

You don't need to see the whole entire plane.  I know simmers have gotten used to that view from doing it so long, but it's not realistic, and it's not actually helpful.  All you really need to see is airspeed (or better yet, your AoA indicator, if equipped).  Any failures, or other items will be immediately apparent by monitoring your sight picture and your airspeed.  Attention getters are up on the glareshield for a reason.  They'll alert you to look over at the EICAS if necessary.

When I watch any cockpit video, the last few hundred feet, closing on the runway is rather sedentary. With a low zoom percentage, you appear to approach with exaggerated alacrity.

 

I'd be interested in whether Rob agrees with that compared to the real T7.

I agree those flightdeck videos do look very slow. That's probably also an optical illusion caused by foreshortening due to camera lens zoom. My only experience with landing airliners is in full flight sims and it doesn't appear as sedate in that case.

Especially in the last few feet before touchdown.

 

In a 777, especially the -300, you are much higher off the runway as you land compared to a 737 so ground speed will appear less because the ground is further away. The angular rate the scenery passes by at is therefore lower so perceived speed is less

The trouble with zoom like 80, 70, 60% for me, is that you get an inaccurate impression of speed as you approach the runway. When I watch any cockpit video, the last few hundred feet, closing on the runway is rather sedentary. With a low zoom percentage, you appear to approach with exaggerated alacrity.I'd be interested in whether Rob agrees with that compared to the real T7.

That is 100% correct. With zoom at anything other than 100% you can not correctly judge height over distance. So no way to look out the window and judge that 3degrees path to the threshold for a visual. At 70% zoom, while looking outside, yiu would think hey yeah.....that looks about right......but if you look at your VS you will notice a much higher VS than that required for a 3 degrees glidepath.

You will in fact be doing 4 or 5 degrees!

(if you ILS coupled approches only then this does not matter much of course......but it kills a visual).

 

With speed it is the same, you cant judge it with zoom. (if distance is cropped the so will distance over time)

But in real life too, you dont notice the speed unless you are low enough to compare it to not moving object like houses and trees.

So not untill....I dont know the lest 100ft.

 

There is one more situation you would start to notice the speed of an aircraft in!

When you start getting behind the aircraft, lol ;-)

Nothing to do with the plane, specifically. The impression of speed is simply one of perception based on how the image is presented versus how it is in reality. Having experience in various real planes versus what you see at low zoom levels in the sim, lowering the zoom level definitely distorts too much (speed, line distortion, among other things) to consider it valuable time in the sim.

I know Kyle. That's what I was saying.

 

I used to be a professional photographer. Steepened perspective, flattened perspective, image principle planes of refraction, depth of field, depth of focus, D-log E curves, sensitometry... was exposed to plenty of that stuff. You guys have it easy these days. Fiddle with it on your PC and all is well. No more dunking your 5x4 film in dev tanks, or loading your 120 roll film in spirals, oh no.

 

Interestingly, Stanley Kubrick used to employ wide angle lenses in order to take advantage of the perspective distortion, and in addition give his cinematography a distinctive style. Others have too of course.

 

I often smile when I see wild life documentaries, with the deadly carnivore appearing very close to the presenter. Due to flattened perspective of course the animal is much further back than he appears.

 

 

I used to be a professional photographer. Steepened perspective, flattened perspective, image principle planes of refraction, depth of field, depth of focus, D-log E curves, sensitometry... was exposed to plenty of that stuff. You guys have it easy these days. Fiddle with it on your PC and all is well. No more dunking your 5x4 film in dev tanks, or loading your 120 roll film in spirals, oh no.

 

haha - while I do own a DSLR, I did come from an Olympus OM-1, and recently acquired my grandfather's old Minolta-something.  I can't find any of my OM-1 stuff online (used to have them up on webshots, but that died off as a hosting site in 2012...never bothered to put any of it back up), but that definitely taught me a ton about perspective, DoF and exposure.  I never learned much of the higher-order stuff you mentioned, though.  Looks like I have some new stuff to learn.  Thanks for that!

 

Here's something off of my DSLR, though (no idea why I decided to set up right in front of a tree...  :mellow: )

 

Ryan (tabs) is pretty epic with a camera, actually.

Olympus OM-1

Ha, the diminutive OM-1. Dinky little job isn't it?

 

This is what I used to use in the studio...

 

http://www.sinar.ch/en/category/products/cameras/p2/

 

An older version of course, this is the modern version. Stick that in your pocket!

 

 

Ha, the diminutive OM-1. Dinky little job isn't it?

 

It is pretty small, yeah.  Much easier to carry around than my DSLR (yes, I'm purposely avoiding the make of said camera to avoid the Boeing/Airbus-like battle), but much more complex (and usually carried complaint about how long I was taking to set up the shot - haha).

 

 

 

This is what I used to use in the studio...

http://www.sinar.ch/...cts/cameras/p2/

An older version of course, this is the modern version. Stick that in your pocket!

 

That looks pretty cool, actually!

 

 

no idea why I decided to set up right in front of a tree... 

 

Love the tree! It adds a lot of interest to the shot.

The tree was essential, it was on a ley line.

 

 

In a book called The View Over Atlantis (1969), the writer John Michell revived the term "ley lines", associating it with spiritual and mystical theories about alignments of land forms, drawing on the Chinese concept of feng shui. He believed that a mystical network of ley lines existed across Britain.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ley_line

 

When I created Kyle 1.01, I included a back up generator. Ley lines are powered by psychic energy you see. Kyle 1.01 can draw psychic energy from the ley lines and then pass it through his convertor and transform it into electrons. The tree provided the perfect conduit.

 

Does concern me that his primary power source was depleted though. He probably needs a 24 month service.