In the last couple of days I have been watching several real cockpit vids on YT.

I remarked that when they fly at 5000 ft all houses, trees and objects on the ground are very small.

In P3D at 5000 ft houses, trees and objects look 2x too large. 

If I check WidevieW Aspect I have to zoom till 0.70 to get about the same look as I see in the real cockpit vids.

However, with WidevieW Aspect set to True the sides are stretched and using the Manage Cameras menus with WidevieW correction does only solve this from 1,00 and upwards.

Imho the FOV needs to be smaller than what P3D shows. So objects in the distance need to be further away without bringing too much of the sides.

I have checked MSFS and cannot compare it as it does not have a WidevieW distortion correction.

What do you think ?

2 hours ago, GSalden said:

In the last couple of days I have been watching several real cockpit vids on YT.

I remarked that when they fly at 5000 ft all houses, trees and objects on the ground are very small.

In P3D at 5000 ft houses, trees and objects look 2x too large. 

If I check WidevieW Aspect I have to zoom till 0.70 to get about the same look as I see in the real cockpit vids.

However, with WidevieW Aspect set to True the sides are stretched and using the Manage Cameras menus with WidevieW correction does only solve this from 1,00 and upwards.

Imho the FOV needs to be smaller than what P3D shows. So objects in the distance need to be further away without bringing too much of the sides.

I have checked MSFS and cannot compare it as it does not have a WidevieW distortion correction.

What do you think ?

I always use 70% for external views (wings, spot) and additionally have always used Wideview Aspect.  After much experimentation, this seems to be right IMO.

Stan

I also seem to remember that in the FSX/P3D world, trees and objectives are not to scale and are indeed too large. 

As I use 2 monitors for my frontview the sides get stretched and I can correct that with the WidevieW correction. Then all looks well when :

- WidevieW aspect Unchecked : 0.3

- WidevieW aspect Checked : 1.0 (or higher)
 

@Stan : the way you do it is the correct FOV 👍

Indeed some objects are too large in P3D….

2 hours ago, Dazzlercee23 said:

I also seem to remember that in the FSX/P3D world, trees and objectives are not to scale and are indeed too large. 

1 hour ago, GSalden said:

[...]

Indeed some objects are too large in P3D….

You are both correct.
I posted the following over on Orbx's forums a couple of years ago in response to @AnkH highlighting the problem with oversized autogen.
 

Quote

• Life Member
•  
•  
• Members
• 676
• 551 posts
• Location: East of LHR, west of LCY

• Posted July 2, 2019

Just to use the example of Jena-Schöngleina, here's the real world version.

https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-SEbKpQuwgwE/WvKLpH-5NVI/AAAAAAAAZAs/HjaYTiZlZFQiwNVWXjjpEpfW922bDGKtgCLcBGAs/s1600/P1080023.JPG

https://scontent-ams4-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/10417800_875968572423976_2890115454516831861_n.jpg?_nc_cat=110&_nc_oc=AQnCFoYIG0G4N9qwtOR4vQO-D4_qryhWRZCj0X8urDNU_X-7s1MFnb626hWw17iw5DY&_nc_ht=scontent-ams4-1.xx&oh=66b0add817c6d89132f79152184f9205&oe=5D85C505

Nothing to suggest that the trees are anywhere near the height of the tower, let alone taller.

While noting that you can get Redwoods and Giant Sequoias reaching 107m (350 ft), they are tall and thin (relative in dimension to their height). Certainly not the oversized bushes as we see in AnkH's earlier linked shot. It appears that trees all over the World are often far too wide and 'bushy' in appearance.

As an example, the maximum permitted height of a two-storey residential building in NSW is 8.5m, which is 28ft per this U.S. 'mean roof elevation' shown in the image immediately above.

Unscientifically, I measured some two storey buildings around the world (in the sim) and got an average of 12.2m (40 ft) which is a substantial 43% taller than 8.5m. Single storey bungalows measured 10m (33 ft).

As pointed out earlier, oversized autogen gives the wrong impression of altitude and speed.
If there was any way to modify them, I would jump at it.

Incorrectly-proportioned autogen causes the wrong sensation of altitude and speed.

 

Edited June 9, 20214 yr by F737NG

I use WideView 0.60 for the VC in P3Dv4.

4 hours ago, spilok said:

I always use 70% for external views (wings, spot) and additionally have always used Wideview Aspect.  After much experimentation, this seems to be right IMO.

Stan

Same here 🙂

This depends on your monitor size. If you go outside and watch 2 distant points in the landscape they appear a specific distance apart from each other. Holding a ruler in front of your eyes in a distance that is the same as the distance between your eyes and your monitor, you can now write down the distance of the 2 points from each other as you see it on the ruler.

Now go to the sim, position yourself (aircraft or avatar) to the same spot, face the same 2 points and choose a zoom factor that gives the same lateral distance of the points on the monitor as you saw it outside.

The place I live at is surrounded by mountains, so it is easy for me to do that with 2 mountain peaks. But you could maybe use 2 skycrapers in a town.

Karl

This is actually a mathematical equation based on numerous factors including single v multi monitor, monitor size, distance to monitor and if using multiple monitors bezel size and viewing Angle.  

Unfortunately, P3D does not seem to follow the same FOV models as sim racing for example.  In iRacing I run an FOV of 96 on a 49 ultrawide.  In P3D I try to get it to "look and feel" right because the mathematical models don't work.  

Zoom level and FOV don't seem to corroborate in P3D

https://dinex86.github.io/FOV-Calculator/

The best advice I read and have implemented it is to divide the vertical resolution by the horizontal one and the result is the zoom factor you should use.

So 2160 / 3840 = 0.56.

Alternatively, 1440 / 2560 = 0.56

Or perhaps use the screen ratio and ignore pixel count...

9 / 16 = 0.56.

So with an ultra-wide screen of 21:9 it would be 9 / 21 = 0.43.

3 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

The best advice I read and have implemented it is to divide the vertical resolution by the horizontal one and the result is the zoom factor you should use.

So 2160 / 3840 = 0.56.

Alternatively, 1440 / 2560 = 0.56

Or perhaps use the screen ratio and ignore pixel count...

9 / 16 = 0.56.

So with an ultra-wide screen of 21:9 it would be 9 / 21 = 0.43.

The above is without WideView option?

Thanks.

4 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

The best advice I read and have implemented it is to divide the vertical resolution by the horizontal one and the result is the zoom factor you should use.

So 2160 / 3840 = 0.56.

Alternatively, 1440 / 2560 = 0.56

Or perhaps use the screen ratio and ignore pixel count...

9 / 16 = 0.56.

So with an ultra-wide screen of 21:9 it would be 9 / 21 = 0.43.

Here I use 0.30 icw a 7768x2160 view

2160 / 7768 = 0.28  with WidevieW unchecked

The minimum of 0.30 that I used icw WidevieW correction gives good proportions without stretching to the sides, but also the ground looks twice to close for the altitude I am flying at.

I currently am testing with WidevieW aspect checked and a zoom of 0.90, which is comparable with 0.27 WidevieW aspect unchecked (which is not possible). Slightly stretching at the sides.

 

 

1 hour ago, Dirk98 said:

The above is without WideView option?

Thanks.

I’ll need to double-check tomorrow but when I changed that option the view didn’t change but the zoom value did.

If you consider a square display a zoom of 1.0 seems logical.

@GSalden, I suppose with such extreme proportions the formula may not be suitable. Experiment essential.

I can't comfortably adjust my POV's zoom in VC without WideView enabled.

 

Even cockpit's windshields look better when somewhat curved on the sides of the monitor. I've always ended up ticking that WideView box.