1 hour ago, Noel said:

Of course you're compressing it because it actually IS compressed.

No. With correct FOV, the scene is properly scaled, you are just viewing it through a small window. Compression starts when you widen the FOV beyond that, because then more scene is being squeezed into the same screen width.

 

1 hour ago, Noel said:

While the accurate FOV creates more realistic size of the external world you're squished into point blank range in your 34" cockpit

It create a realistic size of the cockpit as well as the outside world.  I do not agree this leads to being 'squished into point blank range", because the seating position can be moved independently of the field of view.

I will agree with you that the user decides what is the more satisfying view, but I find it very important to explain the the compromises being made with an inaccurate field of view if realism is the goal.

2 hours ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

I will agree with you that the user decides what is the more satisfying view, but I find it very important to explain the the compromises being made with an inaccurate field of view if realism is the goal.

If you have a home cockpit with the full width of what exists in its RW counterpart, then sure it would make sense.  But again it brings in an incessant need to pan that's not anything like RW behavior in my 11' wide A320.  You handily ignored the critical question I just put to you:  what is the real downside of your concern?  How would someone trained on the normal zoomed out FOV have any meaningful issues once they dropped into the RW seat and commenced to flying?  I see this issue as primarily driven by the idea that duplicating an accurate FOV is the goal, but it's a goal with zero meaningful consequences.

8 hours ago, Noel said:

But again it brings in an incessant need to pan

..which is extremely easy with a TrackIR or similar, making it a non issue.

1 hour ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

..which is extremely easy with a TrackIR or similar, making it a non issue.

In any case as stated a realistic FOV ends up being a net loser for my use of the sim.  I've gone thru the ritual twice and both times reverted back quickly for all the reasons stated:  sharper textures as a function of zooming out, a greater feel of breadth in the external view--it feel larger, more expansive, a greater sense of speed during takeoff and landing, and less need to pan.  I can see TrackIR would still demand more panning because the need to pan is a function of the zoom value but it would be easier/smoother to do than mouse panning I can appreciate.

8 hours ago, Noel said:

I've gone thru the ritual twice and both times reverted back quickly

If you have spent months or years using a wide cockpit view, that becomes your visual normal. A correctly scaled view will initially feel too close, too restrictive, and less dramatic simply because your brain has been calibrated to the exaggerated one.  Reverting 'quickly' will not give your perception time to adjust to a realistic FOV.

 

8 hours ago, Noel said:

less need to pan

Even pilots in the real aircraft move their heads around the cockpit. When they look at the overhead, side panels, or pedestal, they do not keep their bodies fixed and magically take everything in from one frozen viewpoint. They lean, turn their heads, shift in the seat, and reposition themselves. That is normal cockpit behaviour, not a flaw in the viewing setup.

TrackIR and similar systems replicate that very naturally. If the cockpit is being shown at roughly the correct scale, then the need to move your head to bring something into the centre of vision is exactly what a real crew would do as well. The fact that a monitor cannot reproduce full peripheral vision does not change that basic point. Even with natural peripheral vision, people still need to centre what they want to read or interact with.

So I would say the need to pan at a realistic FOV is not really an argument against it. If anything, it can be a sign that the cockpit is being presented at a more life-sized scale rather than being flattened into a single wide-angle view for convenience.

My preference is a realistic FOV setting as I can easily look around the cockpit with Tobii, joystick POV HAT, and camera views. Overhead panels aren't so distorted when you look up.

4 hours ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

If you have spent months or years using a wide cockpit view, that becomes your visual normal.

Absolutely and I see exactly zero benefit from...

• Having textures look less sharp
• Need to pan w/ the mouse to see parts of the cockpit obscured by zooming in
• Having the sense of depth and speed be diminished

This is why FSX, P3D and MSFS 2020/2024 all use zoomed out as default.  In short, it's an overall better experience when you're looking at a....34" screen.

And for the last time, you've once again ignored the critical question.  You stated early on you were 'concerned' that simmers would believe default zoom is normal or what have you.  Why does that matter, at all?  If you're thinking about the value of simming in terms of learning about actual flight, why is that a concern, at all?  It's certainly not going to adversely impact their learning what they can that might translate to RW use.  So in the end, it's really about what the user prefers, IOW there is no basis for your 'concern'.

This image was done at the 'correct' vFOV.  Notice closely the red/white ball indicator that is intended to position the pilot's eye point in the A320.  I actually had to turn right slightly to see it and if I back up any further at all, I'm seeing the TOP of the pilot seat backrest.  So absolutely you are SQUASHED Into point blank range.  For me, absolutely wretched and gives the distinct impression I'm looking thru a rectangular channel...in other words, tunnel vision:

Edited March 23Mar 23 by Noel

2 hours ago, Noel said:

Absolutely and I see exactly zero benefit from...

• Having textures look less sharp
• Need to pan w/ the mouse to see parts of the cockpit obscured by zooming in
• Having the sense of depth and speed be diminished

I think ‘concern’ may have been the wrong word. My point is not that people are somehow harming their real-world learning by using a wide default view, or that they should not prefer it if they enjoy it more. My point is simply that it is useful to explain the trade-off clearly, especially for people who are interested in realism but may not realise what the wider view is changing.

A lot of the drawbacks you list are really drawbacks of using a realistic FOV without proper viewpoint control. Panning with a mouse is awkward, but that is exactly why head tracking exists. In the same way most people would not want to hand-fly seriously with a mouse when a yoke or joystick is available, I do not see much value in judging realistic FOV purely through the lens of mouse panning. With TrackIR or similar, looking around the cockpit becomes a natural part of the experience rather than a nuisance.

As for the other points, I would say they are not quite as straightforward as they seem. If someone has spent a long time on a wide view, that exaggerated picture becomes their visual normal, so naturally the correctly scaled one will at first feel less expansive, less dramatic, and less exciting. That does not necessarily mean it is worse. It may simply mean perception has not yet adjusted.

So I am not saying everyone should abandon the wider default view. I am only saying that for someone pursuing realism, many of the objections you raise are either adaptation issues or are largely solved by head tracking. In that context, it is still worth pointing out that the default wide view is a convenience choice, whereas a more correct FOV is the more accurate one.

3 hours ago, Noel said:

This image was done at the 'correct' vFOV.  Notice closely the red/white ball indicator that is intended to position the pilot's eye point in the A320.  I actually had to turn right slightly to see it and if I back up any further at all, I'm seeing the TOP of the pilot seat backrest.  So absolutely you are SQUASHED Into point blank range.  For me, absolutely wretched and gives the distinct impression I'm looking thru a rectangular channel...in other words, tunnel vision:

If you have to turn slightly to see the red/white eye-position marker, that does not strike me as unrealistic at all because a real A320 pilot would also make small head movements to check something slightly off-centre. Pilots do not sit rigidly with their head locked to one exact forward axis. They shift, lean, and turn all the time.

With head tracking, that ‘tunnel’ effect is greatly reduced because you are no longer expecting one frozen camera position to show you everything at once. You move your head as a real pilot would, and the cockpit stops being a boxed-in picture and starts looking more like a space you are sitting inside  A wide default FOV hides those monitor limits by shrinking the world and fitting more into the frame, which is why it feels more open and immediately satisfying, but that does not make it more true to life - it just makes the compromise less obvious.

If realism is the goal, then having to make small head movements to inspect off-centre items is not a flaw at all. That is exactly what real pilots do.  Can I ask why you have not considered head tracking to solve most of your 'issues'?

14 minutes ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

If realism is the goal, then having to make small head movements to inspect off-centre items is not a flaw at all.

The ONLY thing that is more realistic is the external view of objects, not the internal view and here's why:  with a 'realistic' FoV one COMPLETELY LOSES PERIPHERAL VISION, and unless you suffer from advanced glaucoma the zoomed out view actually IS MORE REALISTIC because peripheral vision is essentially there as you back away from point-blank range.  I can easily see left and right up to 170+ degrees with no need to turn, and only a need to move my eyes.   Didn't say one shouldn't need to turn a head as is required w/ TrackIR to use a flight sim, and I do turn my head frequently to look at scenery out the windows on my ultra wide screen. 

33 minutes ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

You move your head as a real pilot would, and the cockpit stops being a boxed-in picture

Wrong--it's still a boxed in view, it's just easy to turn the boxed-in view.

1 minute ago, Noel said:

with a 'realistic' FoV one COMPLETELY LOSES PERIPHERAL VISION

I think you are treating ‘showing more of the cockpit on screen’ as if it were the same thing as reproducing real peripheral vision, and I do not think those are the same thing. A monitor cannot recreate human peripheral vision; it can only display a wider slice of the scene inside a rectangle. The price of doing that is that the image becomes de-scaled.

Real pilots absolutely use peripheral awareness, but when they actually need to read a panel, check a cue, or interact with a control, they still centre it with eye, head, and body movement. That is why I keep coming back to head tracking. Without it, a realistic FOV on a monitor is awkward. With it, a lot of what you call tunnel vision is just normal cockpit behaviour being restored.

By not using a head tracker, you have created most of the problems you describe. There is nothing wrong with that choice, but it is worth pointing out that those problems are largely solvable for anyone who wants a more realistic cockpit view as well as a more realistic outside view.

2 hours ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

Real pilots absolutely use peripheral awareness

Exactly, and there is none with the tunnel vision model you endorse.   Of course zoomed out is a surrogate for peripheral vision and its very good at that.  I have no interest in head tracking, hence you don't need to try to sell the idea to others who aren't interested in head tracking as the trade off is absolutely not worth it, which is why once again FSX/P3D/MSFS all default to zoomed out.

Done with go-pro or what have you but essentially matches what I see.  If the camera had an option to create the tunnel vision you endorse because it's more 'realistic' the video would be as lame as is MSFS zoomed in no matter how much the Capt turned his head in this video.   Whomever captured this, at least by the title assigned, believed he was capturing the Capt's POV:  

 

Edited March 23Mar 23 by Noel

1 hour ago, Noel said:

Done with go-pro or what have you but essentially matches what I see.

Yes, the video is showing a wide-angle view, which is exactly what a head-mounted GoPro tends to produce.

What stands out to me, though, is how much the captain is still moving and panning his head to bring the relevant area into central vision for the task at hand. That is really the point I have been making throughout. Even with full real-world peripheral vision, pilots do not keep their heads fixed and simply rely on the edges of their vision to operate the cockpit. They move their eyes, head and body constantly to centre what they need to read or interact with.

So to me, this video actually supports the argument that natural head movement is a normal part of cockpit operation, not something unrealistic introduced by using a correct FOV. Again, there is nothing wrong with preferring a zoomed-out monitor view. My only point is that many of the drawbacks you keep listing are greatly reduced, or eliminated, once head tracking is added, because it restores the natural head movement that the real pilot in your own video is clearly demonstrating, without making the outside view incorrectly scaled.

I would be interested to know why you are so opposed to head tracking. Presumably you use several add-ons and controls to make the flying more realistic beyond a mouse and keyboard, so why should a head tracker be excluded from that? It would be useful to know, so others can see both sides of the argument.

1 hour ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

What stands out to me, though, is how much the captain is still moving and panning his head

This is irrelevant to the primary problem with your preferred vFoV versus default and nothing you can do or say gets around this and here it is once again:  tunnel-vision.  That is exactly the limitation and why I want no part of it.  If that video was shot thru a rectangular channel obscuring everything it does duplicates exactly what using the sim w/ your preferred vFoV creates.  This is why I'm not interested in head tracking--it simply does not solve this fundamental problem inherent with using a vFoV that eliminates any sense of peripheral vision, and it most certainly does.   Using default zoom offers a reasonable facsimile of functioning peripheral vision.

One potential solution to this fundamental problem is if developers could code for the VC view to be completely independent of the external view in terms of control over zoom.   Then we would both have our cake and it eat too 😉

In fact as I think back I'm not sure but it might have been FS9 or the one before where one could independently zoom the external view while in the external view looking toward the plane, and the plane would not change size or respond to that zoom, just the outside world.  I really liked that feature for screenshot capturing because you could zoom well out and get a sense of a huge expanse because the horizon and everything in between got much larger w/ the zoom.  If that could be done back then it seems likely it could be done now.  And while there at it, independent zoom for sun and moon 😉

Edited March 23Mar 23 by Noel