>Hi Dave- I dunno- GeForce FX5200 video cards and old CRTs are>pretty cheap around here! Actually giveaways! That's what I>use.>And they need no head motion- just glance out of the corner of>your eyes to the 48" wide panorama & ALL the panels/popups. >Cheers Alex Reid CYYJ on the British Columbia Riviera !Hahaha reading your post did make me laugh, Alex. Nice one mate ;-)I supposed everyone uses flat screens now Alex but then again, if the old CRT's are plentiful and cheap, all power to your elbow.There's a guy who comes to our flightsim club and he uses five CRT's four LCD's and sets it up, dismantles it all and takes it away consequently re-assembling it all again when he arrives home. How's that for enthusiasm eh?Only drawback as far as I can see Alex is, the headaches you will suffer being bombarded with Gamma radiation that CRT's emit, and the more there is the more you get...............Still, it's all worth it I suppose ;-)

Dave- No sweat re CRT radiation- I'm fully protected by all the lead BBs I chewed/swallowed 65 years ago as a kid chasing sqirrels & #####! Here's some food for thought-My triple monitor AMD 1.8 sys runs at 1024x768 producing a typical, very smooth 18 FPS. Multiplying that out gives 42,467,328 pixels per second reaching my eyes and the part of my brain that sees images.A more modern sim 'puter perhaps runs a single mon at 1280x960 at let's say 30 FPS. That computes to only 36,864,000 pixels per sec.So who is seeing/experiencing the best visual illusion?------------CRTs work just fine- with panel config you can accurately synch the views and allow for ANY combination of bezel widths & monitor placement angle & tilt. The bezels are then no more noticeable than the pillars of your car windshield. I have 2CRTs/1LCD. Keep a barf bag handy when doing aerobatics! Alex Reid CYYJOh Oh- I think my harness locking pin just fell out!http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/179962.jpg

Hi,I actually have a similar question.In flying the default 737, landing at 140-150 kias at the appropriate part of the rwy, it seems very easy to stop. For instance, using no brakes, just spoilers and reverse thrust, I seem to be able to coast to 40 kias sooner than my real life experience as a passenger would indicate was normal. This happens with a high weight and fuel load. For instance, taking LaGuardia as an example, (relatively shortish, for a jet)I have no problem stopping the 737, but having flown into there a whole lot of times, I can say from experience, that pilots are not simply using spoilers and rev. thrust to bring the plane to a halt. They seem to use a whole lot of braking, even on a nice day.Anyone have any suggestions? Am I crazy? maybe some of it the relative lack of perception of speed, but I think some is actually "real"

>Hi,>I actually have a similar question.>>In flying the default 737, landing at 140-150 kias at the>appropriate part of the rwy, it seems very easy to stop. For>instance, using no brakes, just spoilers and reverse thrust, I>seem to be able to coast to 40 kias sooner than my real life>experience as a passenger would indicate was normal. This>happens with a high weight and fuel load. For instance,>taking LaGuardia as an example, (relatively shortish, for a>jet)I have no problem stopping the 737, but having flown into>there a whole lot of times, I can say from experience, that>pilots are not simply using spoilers and rev. thrust to bring>the plane to a halt. They seem to use a whole lot of braking,>even on a nice day.>>Anyone have any suggestions? Am I crazy? maybe some of it>the relative lack of perception of speed, but I think some is>actually "real"I forgot to add this to my original post. I also feel the same way on ALL aircrafts. It feels like I can stop in no time. I just did one of the expert missions and landed on my first try and it wasn't that great of an approach. It was the one where you land in the dutch harbor where it's all snowy. I still think there needs to be some tweaking as far as flight dynamics go.

Agreed,Glad I'm not the only one to feel this way.I found the discussion about the perception of speed illuminating and helpful, I wonder if anyone has anything to say on the landing/braking characteristics of the default aircraft. For instance,how much of my my short stopping distance is due to perceptual differences between life and sim, how much is it the flight dynamics in fs, how much is not so much flight dynamics, but braking, spoiler, rev. thrust dynamics?I'm not looking to argue here, just to better understand what I am doing, vs what the sim is doing

I totally agree with Dave. I felt the same when I first used FSX and can not get used to it: the feeling of speed is very bad when the aircraft is on ground, during takeoff or landing. The aircraft looks so slow that I turned to the taxiway at a too high speed...But I think I know why we have this feeling: it is because the feeling of speed is very different from what it was in FS2004. I flew FS2004 for years, and I keep flying with it, so I am used to this feeling of speed. The difference in FSX is shocking. And I keep thinking the feeling of speed was better in FS2004.Eric

>>Yes, there is simply no substitute for 180

Tim- you note- "vision close to 180

>Tim- you note- "vision close to 180

Tim- You can compensate very precisely for any combination of bezel widths in Panel Config. You can also adjust there for monitor placement angle and tilt so that the horizon is always straight.The line in question is:VIEW_FORWARD_LEFT(right)_DIR=xxx, yyy, zzzx is height & aligns the horizons, +-y is tilt, +-z is start angle for the view as measured from straight ahead. This angle is how you compensate for bezel width by moving the 2 outer views further to the left or right. This causes a small wedge of scenery to be missing- apparently "hidden" behind the bezels! (just like your car windshield pillars!) For example, a bezel width of 3 3/8" needed 5

Thank you so much Alex, this is exactly what I needed! Your instructions are a breeze to follow. This does really help me out. Thanks for your time and effort Alex, it's very much appreciated!:-beerchug

You're very welcome. Hope that you'll help another simmer some day.Cheers Alex Reid CYYJ

>I totally agree with Dave. I felt the same when I first used>FSX and can not get used to it: the feeling of speed is very>bad when the aircraft is on ground, during takeoff or landing.>The aircraft looks so slow that I turned to the taxiway at a>too high speed...>>But I think I know why we have this feeling: it is because the>feeling of speed is very different from what it was in FS2004.>I flew FS2004 for years, and I keep flying with it, so I am>used to this feeling of speed. The difference in FSX is>shocking. And I keep thinking the feeling of speed was better>in FS2004.>The default zoom rates between FSX & FS2004 are usually different, and as long as I have my zoom rates for the cockpit about the same, I find no difference in the sensation of speed.........period. I usually use zoom rates that provide some peripheral vision in the VC cockpits, since this adds to the sense of immersion, regarding yaw, speed, etc.FWIW, you'll find some big time differences in the sensation of speed while landing real airplanes; even of the same model. Some has to do with wind of course, yet sometimes, it seems as if your almost standing still, while other times, not at all.edit: I've been regularly switching between FS9 & FSX for the last year. Usually use the RealAir SF260 which has the full sliding canopy which adds in some built in peripheral vision.L.Adamson

>The default zoom rates between FSX & FS2004 are usually>different, and as long as I have my zoom rates for the cockpit>about the same, I find no difference in the sensation of>speed.........period. Exactly Larry. Folks should realize that the sense of speed is primarily a function of the zoom setting - the more wide angle it is the higher the speed. There is nothing inherently 'flawed' in FSX that would destroy the sense of speed.Michael J.http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/9320/apollo17vf7.jpg