Help with FOV settings

[JcSk8 0]

I´ve have been trying to set the best FOV (field of view) form XPlane for almost a month, but still haven´t found what is more "realistic"

Some say that FOV depends on the screen size, wich I agree partialy, but it acts like a zoom, as make things that is near become farther, and not only bigger and small.

Some say is up to your preferences, but I think that for simulation I want to be as real as it gets (oops).

If I enter in a 737 NG cockpit (ZIBO), and try to set the correct pilot seat position, (wich is seeing the top of the glareshield and the PFD and ND without interference from the yoke) I just can do it if I set the FOV to 85 and above. But at those settings things become somewhat distorted and I don´t think that is too real.

My main goal, at first, is to set the FOV that gives me the best perspective from the scenery, distance, and speed that a real pilot see. Than, if possible, adjust the "seat" to fly at that. If is not I´ll try the closer FOV possible.

I´ve been in a ATR cockpit once, in flight, but not on approach. So I can´t say what is correct or not in the approach speed, runway size, and how close/distant objects are in real life.

In the stock 60 FOV from Xplane is impossble to fly and see the instruments. I know that in the real aircraft we´re looking straight in the ruwnay, and down to the instruments. Not with a head movement, but an eye movement.

Currently I´m trying the range between 75 to 85.

I´ve tried to watch as many youtube videos as possible, but the different camera settings tricks me. Old cameras (VHS) seems to be more zoomed. Wich I don´t know if it´s real. GoPro style cams seems to have wider lenses, wich also isn´t accurate.

Maybe only a real pilot can say what is best, but they doesn´t seem to be around simulation forums as I like.

I´ve asked a real pilot that publishes Xplane videos ou youtube, and he said that he´s using 82 FOV. But I don´t know if it´s for a real perspective, or for panel readability. 

So I´m posting two real videos showing the different cameras used, trying to se how close/far the runway looks at the approach, and how the speed/sense of motion.

Also three videos that I´ve made, at the same approach, with 65, 75 and 85 FOV respectively.

Thanks for your attention and responses. Let´s fly as real as possible.
 

 

[Murmur 3,941]

With a single monitor, it's impossible to have a 100% "realistic" view, because you have to compromise between two opposing requirements:

1) realistic scale, speed and perspective (requiring a very low FOV);

2) decent peripheral vision and easy reading of instruments (requiring a large FOV).

In other words, you're watching the outside world (and the cockpit) through a very small window (your monitor), so you either set the perspectively correct FOV (but lose peripheral vision and instruments) or a large FOV (but lose sense of scale and speed).

The formula for calculating the theoretically correct horizontal FOV is:

FOV = 2 * arctan( 0.436 * D / d )

Where "D" is the monitor diagonal and "d" is the viewing distance between eyes and monitor.

For example:

24'' monitor @ 30'' distance: FOV = 38 deg;

27'' monitor @ 30'' distance: FOV = 43 deg.

Possible solutions to have both a realistic scale and peripheral vision?

.) Use a triple monitor setup, or a projector, or a very big screen seen from up close (e.g. 50'' monitor @ 30'' gives a FOV = 72 deg). Although I don't think the latter solution would be ideal or practical;

.) Use a VR headset. It gives both correct scale and perspective and peripheral vision (around 100 deg for the Oculus Rift), in addition to the possibility of looking everywhere around you, which is not possible even with a triple monitor setup.

[JcSk8 0]

Perfect, Murmur.

Those formulas gave me a 53 FOV, but I loose instruments.

So for now The best I can do is set the bigger FOV for a more accurate speed sense and essential instruments panel view.

Gonna tought about a bigger screen at first. The ideia of side monitors I don´t like very much because it´s like the ultra wide. I can se more of the sides, and it´s good for movement perception, but worsen even more when I need to see down the panels.

 

I´ve struggled with that and we used 4:3 monitor, and I could see foward and also the PFD and ND in a 737 sim. Nowadays I have to set the view somewhat down to read them.

I have tought in two 16:9 monitors arranged vertically, instead of horizontaly, wich would give me a more square view.

 

Thanks for you ideas.

[Murmur 3,941]

If you don't have a home cockpit with pedestal, overhead panel etc., then I think the best solution is a very big TV/monitor put close. A lot less expensive, a lot less performance heavy, and more practical than a triple monitor. Still not as realistic overall as a VR headset, but I reckon the latter may have some limitations for airliner usage.

[Paraffin 2,197]

TrackIR is another way to deal with the FOV problem. It's not immersion-breaking for me to swing my head a little bit to the sides or up and down, to see more of the cockpit.

Since we don't have 3D for depth perception on a flat screen, my main concern is not having a distorted feel for judging distance when landing a fixed-wing plane on the runway, or landing a helicopter. Too wide a FOV means the ground looks further away and I flare too late, and too tight a FOV means I flare too early. My current FOV setting is 65 degrees on a 24" monitor at 1920x1200. Subjectively, that feels about right to me for judging distance to the ground, but YMMV. 

[JcSk8 0]

18 minutes ago, Paraffin said:

TrackIR is another way to deal with the FOV problem. It's not immersion-breaking for me to swing my head a little bit to the sides or up and down, to see more of the cockpit.

Since we don't have 3D for depth perception on a flat screen, my main concern is not having a distorted feel for judging distance when landing a fixed-wing plane on the runway, or landing a helicopter. Too wide a FOV means the ground looks further away and I flare too late, and too tight a FOV means I flare too early. My current FOV setting is 65 degrees on a 24" monitor at 1920x1200. Subjectively, that feels about right to me for judging distance to the ground, but YMMV. 

I´ve used trackir in fs2004 for a long time. It worked, but in the end I felt tired in long flights. With it you have to stay with your head as stable as you can, so the screen wont move if you´re looking forward, or set a curve that it´s more stable in the center and than acentuates when looking sideways. The 1:1 rotation/view was almost impossible to use, in a 27" screen (maybe works better in 50" or bigger). You end having to look for a side while keeping your eyes the opposite to see into the screen, wich is eye fatiging. I ended up selling it and went back into the yoke hat view.

For sure the VR is the best solution, but heavy on my current system, and the resolution is not top notch yet. Maybe in a few years would be the standard.

"my main concern is not having a distorted feel for judging distance when landing a fixed-wing plane on the runway". 100% what I should had written. It´s that fidelity I wan´t, or closer to possible.

[Colonel X 1,428]

A middle ground between a large screen and VR is the Playstation VR headset. Using it in "cinematic mode" gives you a giant virtual screen perfect for simming, and none of the VR problems (mainly performance) will affect you. Best of it all, those go for about 200 bucks. Downside is, you need a PS4 to power the headset. It's then up to you to connect your PC via HDMI. The PS4 stays connected via USB.

Edited December 11, 2019 by Colonel X

[philmurfin 73]

Another alternative is Tracker XP, it's a lot easier to get along with than Track IR

With Tracker XP you move your body from side to side and up and down to move your view, I believe there is a free trial version on the org although it costs very little to buy.

You do need a webcam to use it however, again they are very inexpensive and there is brilliant support given from the developer.

Phil

 

[Paraffin 2,197]

7 hours ago, JcSk8 said:

I´ve used trackir in fs2004 for a long time. It worked, but in the end I felt tired in long flights.

I agree about long flights with TrackIR. I use it only for takeoff and the descent to landing, turning it off and removing the headset for a one or two hour cruise phase when I'm doing other things like tabbing over to a web browser to pass the time.

I haven''t gone down the VR rabbit hole yet, but I think I would use a VR face brick the same way -- just for takeoff and landing, or the occasional joyride through the Grand Canyon in a helicopter. Most of my flights are one or two hours long, sometimes more. I can't imagine keeping either TrackIR or a VR face brick on my head for that long, continuously.

[Old_As_Dirt 160]

I use Track IR with a 32 inch TV using "computer" setting and find that 80  to 83 works great.  I have to "freeze" the view when making small setting adjustments with the mouse, but have no problems with "jiggling" otherwise.

John