>The human eye is often taken to have an angle of view of>about 47deg. (The 50mm focal length lens on a 35mm camera was>chosen to approximate this.) This implies that if you are>sitting at one end of a 5000ft runway a "wall" 10724ft long>across the other end of the runway would fill your field of>view horizontally.>>However, the ratio d/L determines the angle of view you get on>the monitor. This angle is 2*atan(d/2*L). With L = 400mm (for>a 21in monitor) and d = 600mm (about 2ft), the angle of view>is 37deg, which is less than the eye's angle of view.I think 2*atan(L/2d) is correct; maybe yours is just a typo, since 37deg is a correct figure. For the rest, I completely agree with you.>Does anyone know what is the actual angle of view in FS with>zoom set to 1? One way to determine it would be to experiment>with a "wall".That's just what I did, actually :) : I filled monitor width with several scenery objects (runway width, building's walls, etc.); then calculated the corresponding angle of view using the top view.From my calculations, in FS9 a zoom factor of 1 gives about a 46-47deg angle of view;>Choosing the best zoom must be a compromise. It could be set>so that the "wall" would just fill the monitor, which,>although not accurate would respesent the eye's angle of view>on the monitor Alternatively, it could be set so that the wall>would occupy the full 47deg, resulting in its ends being>cut-off. Agree on that too: I said the same thing with different words in my first post, when talking about the term "most realistic".>IF the FS angle of view is 47deg, then a zoom of 37/47 = 0.79>would be needed to fit the "wall" to the screen. Your formula>gives 1.29. Premise: my finding is zoom factor in FS is directly proportional to (d/L) ratio rather than to angle of view (although I'm not 100% sure of it);That said, my formula is intended to set zoom according to your second interpretation ("Alternatively, it could be set so that the wall would occupy the full 47deg, resulting in its ends being cut-off.");If we imagine the hypothetic 10724ft wall at the end of the 5000ft runway as a scenery object:setting a zoom of 1.29 with L=400mm and d=600mm, would let you see just the part of wall you'd really see holding your monitor at 600mm from your eyes and watching through it.On the other hand, leaving a zoom of 1 (that is, about 47deg), the wall would fill the entire screen.Marco

>Not sure what you mean by this "losing". The idea is just the>opposite - get the correct proprtions between the panel and>scenery.[CUT]I agree, Michael.Just talking about 2 different "types" of zoom. Setting zoom factor as you explained above in a 2D cockpit, keeps correct proportions between cockpit and outside scenery, and this may be important to increase realism.My formula focuses on the perception of speeds and distances, and works better in VC (where there are already fixed and hopefully correct proportions between panel and scenery).However, setting zoom factors outside a reasonable range (much less or much bigger than 1) is anyway not much practical, neither in VC or 2D.Marco

Thanks for spotting my typo.

So what's the best zoom Michael?I frequently set mine to 1.25 during takeoffs as it gives you a much wider view of the runway and the sense of speed seems more accurate. I think Marco has the right idea, unfortunately I can't see how it applies to the VC since the more you zoom in the closer the panel zooms in with it and the less instruments you can see, making the VC almost useless.Jeff

So is it pretty much agreed that the views out the flight deck windows is something that the MSFS team could have done better? Or am I not thinking deeply enough and it has more to do with perspective of how the scenery is viewed from a plane?Jeff

>So what's the best zoom Michael?Jeff,I can only comment on 2D panels. And by the way the answer may depend on a particular panel. But based on some prior work and for many panels (specially large airliners) the best zoom will be in the 0.70 - 0.80 range. This will also give you automatically best sense of speed (the higher the zoom the 'slower' if feels).Michael J.

>So what's the best zoom Michael?Just to make all of this thread useless, the best zoom is the one that feels better to you :( :( :(Talking seriously:>unfortunately I can't see how it applies to the VC since the>more you zoom in the closer the panel zooms in with it and the>less instruments you can see, making the VC almost useless.That's right. The fact is, if your monitor is quite small and/or it's quite distant from your eyes, you'd see very little of the cockpit through it in reality, as well.For this reason my advice is to try to modify the distance you have the monitor at, to obtain from the formula I gave, a zoom in the range 0.8-1.5 or so.This way, VC should remain quite usable while having a realistic zoom as well.Marco

>The human eye is often taken to have an angle of view of>about 47deg. (The 50mm focal length lens on a 35mm camera was>chosen to approximate this.)That's the diagonal angle of view. According to this field of view calculator, the horizontal field of view of a 50mm lens is 40 degrees.http://www.mat.uc.pt/~rps/photos/angles.html>Does anyone know what is the actual angle of view in FS with>zoom set to 1?I'd guess it would be the same as a standard lens.Surely the most "realistic" zoom is zoom factor 1? By definition, this will (or should) give a normal perspective. Any other zoom level will either exaggerate or compress the perspective, as with different focal lengths on a camera. Anything other than zoom 1 will alter the perception of speed.For example, zoom factor 0.75 seems roughly equivalent to a 35mm wide-angle. This exaggerates the size of foreground objects and makes more distant objects appear smaller in comparison. Although nearby objects pass more quickly, the overall impression of speed is reduced. In the case of runways, they seem further away than they actually are and you appear to be approaching them more slowly than you actually are.Zooming out is obviously better for viewing the scenery and for situational awareness, but I always switch back to zoom 1 for landing.The only ways to increase the horizontal field of view without altering the perspective would be to use a widescreen monitor and/or to use multiple monitors.Paul

>So is it pretty much agreed that the views out the flight>deck windows is something that the MSFS team could have done>better? Or am I not thinking deeply enough and it has more to>do with perspective of how the scenery is viewed from a>plane?Hi Jeff!Probably the default zoom factor MSFS team chose is a compromise: on most settings at home (width and distance of the screen) it may alter somewhat dimensions and distance of objects and the sense of speed, but keeps an adequate peripheral vision and an adequate visibility of the virtual cockpit.Certainly, complaints would have arised whatever zoom factor they chose, and given the fact they gave us the possibility to change it, I don't think they did bad after all.Marco

>>Zooming out is obviously better for viewing the scenery and>for situational awareness, but I always switch back to zoom 1>for landing.>I don't. A lot of visual cues from peripheral vision are lost at a "1" setting. Some of my favorite landings have been at .75 or even a wider angle. I find it much easier to sense speed & yaw, with a wider zoom angle. It's either six monitors or tunnel vision, without compromising.........IMO.L.Adamson

>Surely the most "realistic" zoom is zoom factor 1? By>definition, this will (or should) give a normal perspective. That's a rather bizarre statement. These are just Microsoft's numbers, whether it is "1" or "1.5" or "2" is of little numerical consequence. What counts is what sort of perspective it gives you and not how "round" the number it is. Michael J.

>>>Surely the most "realistic" zoom is zoom factor 1? By>>definition, this will (or should) give a normal perspective.>>>That's a rather bizarre statement.Not at all.>These are just Microsoft's>numbers, whether it is "1" or "1.5" or "2" is of little>numerical consequence. What counts is what sort of perspective>it gives youOf course.> and not how "round" the number it is. Of course not, but by definition, zoom 1 "should" represent a normal perspective, zooming in or out will then alter that perspective, away from the norm.Whether or not zoom 1 really does give a normal perspective I can't say for certain without checking, but in my experience, I'd say that zoom 1 seems to correspond closely with the perspective of a standard lens on a 35mm camera. By the same token, 0.75 reminds me of a 35mm lens, 0.5 a 24mm lens and 0.25 an ultra-wide angle lens.I can work out the exact angle of view of zoom 1 if you want, but I don't have time to do it tonight.Paul

>Of course not, but by definition, Sorry, who's definition is this? As was stated above both 2D and VC panel represent two different cases and as far as 2D panel is concerned "1" is not the most "normal" perspective. I am not going to argue the VC case at this point.Michael J.

>>Of course not, but by definition, >>Sorry, who's definition is this? I don't know who defined "normal" perspective, but someone did, which is why we have "standard" lenses on cameras which give so-called "normal" perspective.The definition of normal perspective is that the size of foreground objects in relation to background objects should correspond to what the human eye sees. This is not the same thing as field of view, which is what you are apparently talking about.Sorry if this is blatantly obvious, but when you "zoom out" e.g. use a wide-angle lens, foreground objects appear relatively large compared to background objects. This is "exaggerated" perspective. When you "zoom in", as with a telephoto lens, background objects appear too large in relation to foreground objects, this is "compressed" perspective. Neither correspond to the perspective of the human eye.As I said, I can't say without checking whether Microsoft's zoom 1 gives a normal perspective, but in my experience, it looks pretty close to me.> as far as 2D panel is concerned "1" is>not the most "normal" perspective.In an earlier post you wrote:> My approach for best zoom is simple in concept - you should> see exactly the same amount of scenery in relation to your> cockpit width as in real aircraft.I agree, but unfortunately, the view window and the 2D cockpit are not linked in perspective terms. It's quite possible to alter the size of the view window and/or the 2D panel in relation to one another, without affecting the perspective of the view window. At zoom 1, the view window has a "zoom 1 perspective", irrespective of it's size and width in relation to the 2D panel. The two are quite independent of one another (which is not the case with the VC panel of course).What you're talking about is the correct "field of view" in relation to the width of the panel, which is not the same thing as "normal perspective". If you were to lean forward in a real cockpit, the panel would become wider relative to the scene outside, yet the perspective of the scene outside would remain the same (well there'd be a fractional difference but too small to notice).I'm happy to defer to your judgement regarding the field of view in relation to the panel width, and it's quite probable that a wider field of view is more accurate, so I'll try to use that more often in future, but it's not the same thing as a normal perspective.When I look through a standard lens I see a normal perspective, yet the width of the image is nowhere near as wide as the field of view I see with my eyes. They're two different concepts.Given the limitations of computer monitors it's just not possible to provide a normal perspective and the correct field of view at the same time, so we have to make do with a compromise. What we really need is a very large widescreen monitor!Paul