Sign in to follow this  
JohnsonPBX

Is this view realistic?

Recommended Posts

Hello everyone. I used to fly with the default eyepoint until today. A few days ago when reading the 777’s Introduction manual, I noticed some tricks proposed there for camera adjusting, but I just didn’t pay much attention. Today, however, while performing a mid-range flight, I decided to try said tricks out.

 

Obviously, since it’s something new it looks weird to me, especially when landing, due to the fact that I have to totally move the camera up and leave my instruments behind when trying to visually line-up with the runway (that’s the way it’s supposed to be eh?). Also, when on the ground, if I focus on the instruments I can roughly see a few meters of horizon ahead, not the entire field as I used to.

 

However, I want your opinion (especially PMDG guys, real 777 pilots, and people who has flown the plane in the real deal simulator). For me it looks like the eyepoint was a little high, but I can’t really tell a thing since I’ve never been in the real plane, let alone its cockpit. Does my setup look realistic? I have a 19’’ Samsung monitor (8:5), resolution is 1440x900 and WideViewAspect=True. Introduction manual doesn't tell anything about moving the camera forward or backwards, which I don't know if it could also have an impact in the view's realism (logically it also should).

 

Some pictures attached (all of them in the 777-300ER):

 

1. 0.8 zoom, focused on the instruments (part of the horizon also visible though):

2014-8-8_19-58-29-571_zpsaed9eabe.png

 

2. View of both the yoke and the checklist holder as shown in the Introduction manual, although both don't match perfectly:

2014-8-8_19-58-45-634_zps43fdece6.png

 

3. Again focused on the instruments, this time with a zoom of 0.9:

2014-8-8_19-59-0-333_zps6a5bfbba.png

 

4. Focused on the horizon:

2014-8-8_19-59-4-956_zpsd5d808b1.png

 

5. Camera tilted to the right, to have a reference of its height compared to the first officer's seat:

2014-8-8_19-59-59-996_zps39ebdd1d.png

 

6. Yoke and captain's seat, looking well centered in the screen:

2014-8-8_20-0-10-828_zpsb13a2777.png

 

7. These last two now on the ground, with a zoom of 1.0:

2014-8-8_23-20-42-656_zps1e5413cd.png

 

8. And the horizon:

2014-8-8_23-20-46-83_zps0ecaba5b.png

 

One issue that became more evident after trying this, and worsened by the 777-300ER's length, is the with which camera drifts off-position even with a slight movement of the plane. It's really annoying and distracting to be constantly trying to move it back to where it should be. I'm seriously considering to purchase EZCA when I have some money. According to what I've read in other posts it seems to be really worth it when it comes to customizing views and assigning a specific camera location to a defined button.

 

Thanks in advance!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

Hi there. I'd recommend EZCA as pretty much prerequisite for any aircraft for which you use the virtual cockpit. It takes a bit of patience to learn but once you have, it offers you nothing short of limitless view possibilities. Combined with that, you have the ability to modify how your cameras behave, including subtle customisation of camera shake during your ground roll etc.

 

Basically, if you can imagine it, EZCA can do it. It's probably the single most useful and essential for FSX. Having used it for a couple of years, I wouldn't enjoy FSX without it.

 

When you get it, drop me a message and I'd be happy to share my configuration files with you.

 

Luke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OpusFSX is also worth more than a look for camera control AND it's in constant development.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

EZCA is well worth getting,just for being able to adjust your viewpoint on the fly.press one key and you can move your view and it's saved straight away.

add to that the turbulence and  ground effects and it is a must have for me.

 

   steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How high your eyepoint should be in the real aircraft is pretty much a matter of taste.

 

For IFR approaches into real low vis condidtions (Cat 1 minimums and lower I would say) one should stick to the eyehight recommendation of the FCTM (flight crew training manual). It will tell you to move your seat up and fwd untill you can see the white cross on the base of the yoke. That is uncomfortably high and fwd I tell you, but required if you want to see the runway lights or other visual clues during a low vis approach.

(if you sit lower, slant distance to the runway increases, and with the low visibility you might not see enough of the runway lights/markings/etc causing you to go around unnesessarily).

 

In better weather one would typically just sit in a way that is comfortable.

Which means that most pilots sit a lot lower than that recommended for low vis.

As long as you allways sit in the same position you will get used to how things should look.

And if you know what things are suppossed to look like it is more likely that you will notice being high/low on a visual approach and thus more likely that you take appropriate action.

 

The problem with flying at 100% zoom in FSX is that you either see the instruments or the outside world.

Track Ir can help you here, but I do not like that swooshing back and forth much.

 

I opted for extra monitors on which I drop the popup 2D PFD and ND.

 

More info here, where we had a similar discussion:

 

http://forum.avsim.net/topic/423686-help-in-optimizing-the-zoom/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Difficult but interesting subject.

The human field of view is almost 180 DEG horizontally and about 135 DEG vertically. That means it is actually 4:3 . The meanwhile common 16:9 wide aspect is a compromise to get closer to the 180 DEG horizontal viewing angle...

Looking on a computer screen was (and will always be) like looking into an aquarium. It is always only a narrow angled look, a fraction of the total view. Only devices like the Oculus Rift will change this "dogma" forever.

"In the meantime" I use TrackIR for actively panning my view AND change the position of my head inside the cockpit. BOTH orientational and positional headtracking "do the trick". In addition to that I use Nvidia-3D-Vision2 that transforms the view inside the aquarium into a three-dimensional world.

EZDOK's EZCA is great for adjusting the viewpoints to your individual needs. The soft transitions between e.g. the pilot's viewpoints can somewhat replace TrackIR. But EZCA is a matter of keystrokes while TrackIR is interactive/intuitive.

Regarding the T7 SP1B, PMDG (again after SP1) seems to have changed viewpoint matters. At least I had to adjust my EZCA settings. My personal impression is that they changed it more to the "Pilot Seat Adjustment" description that can be found here:

 

PMDG-777-FCOMv2.pdf, chapter 1.50.17, p.231

 

BTW: I use a viewing angle of 65%

EDIT: forgot to mention that the dynamic and random movements of EZCA add a lot of realism to the FSX standard "dynamics"...

 

Greetings,

Claus

Edited by vr-pilot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I use Nvidia-3D-Vision2 that transforms the view inside the aquarium into a three-dimensional world.

 

Hey cool 3D sounds like fun :-)

 

Never tried that. I would have to buy some glasses for my 46" Sony TV but that would work right?

(have an Nvidia GTX680)

 

How is 3D on performance?

fps?

Vas?

blurries?

stutters?

It mus be harder to render than 2D right?

 

And any other weird issues (CDTs etc) or is it safe to try?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How is 3D on performance?

fps?

Vas?

blurries?

stutters?

It mus be harder to render than 2D right?

 

And any other weird issues (CDTs etc) or is it safe to try?

 

 

I have an "old+small" machine (SONY i7 (2010) laptop with ASUS VG278HR 27" 3D 120 Hz monitor), but running 3D in "Small HD" (1280x720) runs fine on  it. Using TrackIR it is easy to move the head around in the cockpit to take "a closer look" at small letters and numbers.

I am not a fan of "pole-to-pole"-visibility and my settings are all only between 2/3 and 1/3. Since using FSPS FA there are even no periodic stutters in very complex scenarios anymore...

Summary: FPS=fluent, VAS/CTD=no issue, blurries=seldomly, stutters=99.9% none

But: if you are a real resolution fanatic, 3D (even in 1920x1080) can be disappointing to you because the left-eye-right-eye shutter pictures are in a "somewhat lower" resolution. (Although technically perhaps reduced by half)

 

While P3Dv1.x supported Nvidia-3D-Vision2 like FSX "plug-and-play"-wise, P3Dv2.x is not supporting it anymore. LM plans to support Oculus Rift. So when this is "through" I'll be there with a new "portable" sim having a 360° DEG viewing angle... B)

 

BTW: with a powerful desktop PC you should be able to run Full HD (1920x1080) and test the stereoscopic red/blue setup in the Nvidia control panel. These red/blue glasses are cheap and I think that FSX will work with it immediately (in full screen mode!). There are also other companies doing 3D vision, but I have almost no information on that...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd suggest TrackIR. It is a wonderful piece of kit, along with EZDok.

 

I have one view ahead that I can see outside and part of the dials, then when I move my head slightly down I can see the dials. When I am taxing to the runway, I can move my head left and right to see what is coming.

 

With EZDok, I can set various views such as the FMC, the overhead or the centre console and change with the flick of a button. Motion is smooth so it feels more like I am moving my head as opposed to FSX quick change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anyone tried Oculus Rift with any of PMDG airplanes yet? I have seen some videos on youtube with people flying some other airplanes in FSX, it looks quite promising.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I looked at video's with Oculus Rift, but as one person said on one video, you have no way of seeing your controls. Add to that if you have a headset on aswell you will be weighed down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My TrackIR is amazing for that. It requires calibration and might make you dizzy at the beginning, but now I couldn't fly without it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your replies guys! Your opinions on EZCA convinced me even more. As I mentioned, EZCA is my next to-buy addon, as soon as I free some space up in my creditcard that is haha. Later on I'm planning on buying a TrackIR as well. It's hard to get used to the new eyepoint but well, practice is what it's all about!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your replies guys! Your opinions on EZCA convinced me even more. As I mentioned, EZCA is my next to-buy addon, as soon as I free some space up in my creditcard that is haha. Later on I'm planning on buying a TrackIR as well. It's hard to get used to the new eyepoint but well, practice is what it's all about!

OPUS FSX is a weather engine and has a good camera/vieuw utility as well as well. If you do not have either than that would be two for the price of one.

 

+ Their support is the best, I can only recommend it.

 

I see they have an advertisement running on AVSIM right now so all you need to do is click on their banner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't Ezca (Ezdoc camera) have some sort of perfornance hit when installed? I tried it and didn't like it at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

B777 Pilot Seat Adjustment

 

1. Adjust the seat to the
upright position; sitting up
straight, looking straight
ahead.

2. The control column must be
in the neutral position.

 

3. Adjust the seat until:
• the top of the glare-shield
appears as the edge of a plane,
and
• the cross-hairs on the top of
the rudder pedal adjustment
crank housing line up with the
top of the control column.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OPUS FSX is a weather engine and has a good camera/vieuw utility as well as well. If you do not have either than that would be two for the price of one.

 

+ Their support is the best, I can only recommend it.

 

I see they have an advertisement running on AVSIM right now so all you need to do is click on their banner.

 

Well I'm using Active Sky Next, wouldn't Opus generate conflict with it? Would it be better to buy EZCA since it's a camera-dedicated program or Opus even though I already have another weather engine? Both Opus and EZCA cost exactly the same ($34.95).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The camera drifting is not fixed by ezdok, but it is easier to adjust when the camera moves based on the direction you are facing. I wish there was a way to get rid of it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I'm using Active Sky Next, wouldn't Opus generate conflict with it? Would it be better to buy EZCA since it's a camera-dedicated program or Opus even though I already have another weather engine? Both Opus and EZCA cost exactly the same ($34.95).

 

As far as i know, both programs together might cause conflicts but i am not entirely sure about it. If you are happy with ASN, then it would be more reasonable to buy EZCA. However, the opus camera itself is much more superior in terms of realism. While EZCA supplies "random" movement to indicate all the shaking etc. which might happen during all phases of flight, they are entirely unrealistic and do not fit well in order to simulate turbulence effects.

If you just want a camera in order to comfortably change your views and move around, EZCA is totally sufficient and will most like work better together with ASN.

 

If i were in your position, i would buy EZCA.

 

Dominik

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 


While EZCA supplies "random" movement to indicate all the shaking etc. which might happen during all phases of flight, they are entirely unrealistic and do not fit well in order to simulate turbulence effects.

EZCA supplies both random and dynamic head movement. The latter is related to turbulence and ground vibration. So it does do a good job for turbulence effects as they are related to accelerations in the simulator. When I used EZCA I had both switched off as I only wanted the camera positioning features, which are superb. In my opinion flying from the desktop is already more difficult than flying in a full simulator or in real life, having to aim your mouse pointer at a moving control panel as well makes this even worse.

 

EZCA is good value and very flexible. It can be set up exactly how the user wants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I'm using Active Sky Next, wouldn't Opus generate conflict with it? Would it be better to buy EZCA since it's a camera-dedicated program or Opus even though I already have another weather engine? Both Opus and EZCA cost exactly the same ($34.95).

 

I used EZCA but not anymore.

 

I use ASN for weather and Opus for camera and the butkicker working together fine and it is just amazing!

 

You can feel when there is turbulence the turbulence bumps in your chair!

 

And the butkicker opus supports much more!

 

So if you can, buy a butkicker as well.

 

It gives so much more realisme to flying.

 

Regards Robert 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I use EZCA and would highly recommend it. It is very customize-able, I tend to have very subtle dynamic head movement because I don't like having my view jostled around when landing or taxing. I will tell you though that no matter what 3rd party software you use for cameras it will not fix the drifting issue; Mike Tabbs from PMDG even mentioned it in a thread at one point and stated that it was in one of the PMDG manuals (the front of the T7 manual if I remember correctly). I have to reset my camera position every so often even with EZCA, the nice part about that is it is really easy to do in EZCA so it only takes me a second or two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I'm using Active Sky Next, wouldn't Opus generate conflict with it? Would it be better to buy EZCA since it's a camera-dedicated program or Opus even though I already have another weather engine? Both Opus and EZCA cost exactly the same ($34.95).

No will not conflict. In the options you can turn off the OPUS LIVE WEATHER engine and turn on only the LIVE CAMERA option.

 

I have never used EZCA. so I can not say anything about it.

 

Having ASN I guess it does not matter what you get.

 

You should download the PDF manual of both programs and see which one you think you are more comfortable with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You should download the PDF manual of both programs and see which one you think you are more comfortable with.

 

Good point, will do so. I'll let you guys know which one did I finally prefer and why. Thanks for your points of view, from both sides of the coin!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have two seat positions in the 777. One I use for TO/Landing and other Preflight/Cruise. 

 

The one for TO/Landing is so I can see the white cross with good view over the glareshield but can still see instruments well. Similar to how I had myself seated when I flew the 777 BA sim.

 

Cruise/Preflight position is a bit lower/further back - I think of it as 'relaxed', although preflight can be far from that sometimes  :lol:

 

I'm always adjusting really! Normally go forward a bit, then back a bit, then forward again - generally end up how I was before bahaha!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this