I just tried a FOV of 100 degrees to get peripheral vision.  I asked ChatGPT what the apparent distance of objects would be for my accurate FOV of 66.

If something is really 4 miles away at 66°

80° FOV → looks like about 5.2 miles
90° FOV → looks like about 6.2 miles
100° FOV → looks like about 7.4 miles

If something is really 10 miles away at 66°

80° FOV → looks like about 12.9 miles
90° FOV → looks like about 15.4 miles
100° FOV → looks like about 18.4 miles

One of your pluses for using a wider FOV was an apparent increase in sharpness, but there is a big negative here you will be losing detail because objects are taking up less pixels on screen. On my setup, increasing FOV from 66° to 100° shrinks objects to about 54% of their correct size, which means they only occupy about 30% of the pixels. So the image can look superficially sharper, but it is actually carrying up to 70% less visible detail. This means 45.5 percent less width/height available to draw terrain features.  Roads, town shapes, woods, forests, cliff/mountain textures, shoreline edges and field boundaries will all have less visible definition.

Edited March 23Mar 23 by MrBitstFlyer

17 hours ago, Noel said:

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 😉

Indeed one of the fundamental shortcomings of MSFS - no zoom of outside view independent of flight deck view.

I tried realistic 1-1 zoom setting and it is downright claustrophobic. It works okay for cabin views, but I will NEVER get used to 1-1 for pilot view even using TrackIR. I do agree that 1-1 pilot view is the only view that gives realistic impression of ground speed, but at a heck of a cost in peripheral perception.

In which file is the IFR Pilot View saved?
I configured it for the Fenix A320 CFM WF now and would like to apply the settings for the A320 SL and IAE Version as well. 
I copy pasted the camera.cfg but standard view is always different from plane to plane.