Realistic Zoom Setting

[michal 44]

>zoom, the relationship between nearby pixels is changing in a>way that is non-linear. Scenery objects are not just moved.That is right, they change in a non-linear way. But the whole perspective is non-linear and I would never call an ordinary perspective a 'distortion' but you may develop your own terminology if you fancy so. If I am standing at the base of Sears tower in Chicago looking up the building appears to be shrinking with height - fine, you may call it a distortion but I won't.Michael J.http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/9320/apollo17vf7.jpg

[michal 44]

>(wild man that I am, I'll sometimes go down to zoom 0.8 ;-),>but because of the math.Sorry there is no "math" in your explanation besides multiple and repetitive statements that something else "is progressively more distorted", and that this is the "best" perspective, etc. Bunch of "feel" statements, no math at all. I can also use the "math" and prove something just the opposite. By the way - who is user jprintz, your twin brother *:-*Michael J.http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/9320/apollo17vf7.jpg

[january 19]

---- "I think that the only thing that in all aspects matches what a human eye would see (or comes the closest that computer monitors can) is what was described before, the panoramic, zoom 1, multi-monitor setup.------------------------------Agreed- well almost! Each FS view is distortion free ONLY at its mid point AND the screen must be square (90

[sprintz 0]

Give me a break Michal, and quit quoting me out of context and then resorting to your straw-men, as you've now done twice. Instead, maybe try not to take our disagreement so personally, so that we can all actually THINK clearly about what's happening when we zoom out.Here's what's happening. And I'll spare you the math, I'll keep it concise (maybe!), and I'll number it, so that we can be precise about where we disagree, and also so that nothing's taken or quoted out of context. I hope you'll tell me which parts of the following you have a problem with. Or explain how things in the attached picture are not distorted, within the concept of "perspective."1) At zoom 1, straight and level, the simulator's zenith and nadir are reasonably close to my ACTUAL zenith and nadir, as I sit here in my chair. I have an average sized monitor and I sit at an average distance from it. The zeniths and nadirs match, for the most part, because at zoom 1, the sim degree on my monitor is actually very close in size to the real world degree I see when I look past that monitor. I've shown this above. 2) Now, as I start jabbing at that minus sign to zoom out, straying from zoom 1, let's focus for now only on what's happening to the simulator's virtual zenith and nadir. Where are they going as we zoom out? They're being tugged forward, more and more tightly in towards the front of my monitor. They're now artificially close to each other, in the extreme. This means that, if straight and level in the sim, I can look a little bit above my monitor and see where the sim zenith would be, if the monitor were taller. And I can glance down just a bit underneath it and that's where my virtual nadir has moved to. Disagree?3) Now I've zoomed out to 0.3, and my virtual zenith and nadir are portrayed as only about 60 real world degrees apart, not 180 (and only a little above and below my monitor's edges). So then the lines of right ascension (the astronomical equivalent of longitude) do and MUST leave their sim world horizon at angles that look to us to be other than 90 degrees. Correct? And since we're talking about *perspective*, I think that the "looks to us" part is important. Those azimuth lines, if we can just call them that, are now all appearing to fall awkwardly inward towards the vertical center of my monitor, warping more and more as they get closer to the poles... warping because that's the ONLY way they can arrive at that artificial zoom 0.3 zenith and nadir they're always a slave to.***I've attached a picture of a similarly distorted azimuthal grid from another program, at about the same field of view as FSX at zoom 0.3. I know of no way to get FSX to display its coordinate system, but it must be very close to this at the same field of view. You can see that this program's showing ~105 degrees. FSX and Stellarium are not identical, obviously, and they may rely upon different types of projections. But there is no projection that can avoid the fundamental distortion that is so obvious at a zoom / field of view setting that comes close to pulling the zenith and nadir onto the screen at the same time.4) Anyway... since those lines of azimuth are now clearly distorted at zoom 0.3, and since they're the yardstick in the sim and in the real world as to what it means to be vertical, the very concept of vertical has been distorted, as we see it on our monitor. Objects that would normally be rendered as perfectly vertical, like those longitude lines or like buildings or trees, will now HAVE TO BE rendered so that they're not necessarily appearing to be at right angles to the sim horizon, but instead so that their edges follow the lines of longitude or azimuth or right ascension or whatever helps someone understand the lines we're speaking of. See the attached picture. And those lines, the very grid of the scenery engine, appear to be falling obviously and unnaturally inward. And so does everything else. It's all warped. Artificial lines of azimuth lead to artificial vertical lines, which mean there is geometric distortion.http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/194662.jpg

[sprintz 0]

>>zoom, the relationship between nearby pixels is changing in>a>>way that is non-linear. Scenery objects are not just moved.>>That is right, they change in a non-linear way. But the whole>perspective is non-linear and I would never call an ordinary>perspective a 'distortion' but you may develop your own>terminology if you fancy so. If I am standing at the base of>Sears tower in Chicago looking up the building appears to be>shrinking with height - fine, you may call it a distortion but>I won't.>>Michael J.>http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/9320/apollo17vf7.jpgOh my god.... You can't respond with anything illuminating or relevant, so you resort to THIS? The building gets smaller as it gets farther away? What a shame. Anyway, see my post number 78. And no, there is no need for any new terms. To put it as simply as possible, I use the word perspective in this context to mean "how things look from a certain vantage point"... i.e., are straight edges being drawn curved, are right angles being drawn at angles that are not right, and so on. And when is say "non-linear," well, I think that pretty clearly means curved, whether talking about a mathematical function or the rendering of a scene. I don't know how that could've been misunderstood, unless intentionally. You took what was probably a knowingly false interpretation of what I said, quoted it in part and out of context, and then heroically contradicted it. All while it was plainly obvious that what I was talking about had nothing to do with a simplistic example like yours.Looking at this post of yours and a couple of others from around the same time... do you always get this annoyed and this prone to disguised cheap shots when someone disagrees with you? I've taken the time to be precise and specific. You've taken the time to... what exactly, just say "nope, nuh-uh"??? Michal... maybe I'm not getting what it is you're saying. I must not be. Can you explain maybe a little more? How is it that the image in post #78 is not distorted, in the context of a discussion as to accurate perspective? And where does your assumption that a given perspective is "ordinary" come from? What defines that?

[michal 44]

Listen Mr. sprintz or jprintz or whoever ...You simply have no clue what you are talking about. I would fall for your pseudo science and might even read your voluminous creative writings but there is just one problem - I actually hold MS in Physics-Optics. So lets end this useless conversation.Michael J.http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/9320/apollo17vf7.jpg

[sprintz 0]

What a sad thing. I even numbered the points for you above, and, in your magnificence, felt it not even worthy to tell anyone where any of that was wrong? If those are your credentials (which I have some doubt about, given the quality of and lack of insight in your writing, and given some of the more childish things I've seen), then I'd expect to have heard a little something educational and informative by now. (Others are "credentialed," too, by the way. And if those really ARE yours, then congratulations. That is genuinely impressive. But I hope you can look back at the thread and see how someone might have some doubts.) Oh, yes, the picture I uploaded in an above message is not the one I thought it was, so it can be ignored. I'll attach now something similar to what I thought I was attaching before. Attached is the picture that's most similar to the projection FSX uses, because it's the only one that can keep the horizon flat at non-0 pitches, and the only one that forces the same effects on the nearby ground textures when changing heading as in slew mode. And this is the projection that is MOST kind to what I'd guess are your arguments. And its flaws are still obvious. But it doesn't matter, because the problem I'm speaking of is in ALL of the projections. It has to be. But you already know that.... So please, honestly, take 5 minutes to explain how (from within the confines of a conversation that's been about the best *perspective*, with the least geometric distortion) you come to the conclusion that the image that's attached is NOT distorted? How is it that its perspective is as objectively valid as any other, as you've said? I really would like to know this.What about the zenith-nadir problem? Not worth addressing? It's actually a pretty tight and reasonable argument. If my prior words didn't do it, I could post pics of several different projections, and we could discuss what aspect's most distorted in each. But that's probably useless, since you said there are some that have no distortion at all, yet fail to explain it. Would the "no distortion" you claim not be the computer monitor equivalent of a map maker who invents a projection that maintains accurate distance, direction, size, shape and area ALL at the same time?If you start pulling the zenith and nadir towards each other like that, something's just gotta give. Is that not intuitive?(Oh, and by the way, my "pseudo-science" is currently being used by thousands of happy flight-simmers in a product that may very well be among the most successful flight-sim products of the year. And a BIG part of my contribution to it required considerable grasp of the "pseudo-sciences" of trigonometry, fields of view, zooming and scenery arcs, etc... many of the very things we're discussing in this thread.) http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/194678.jpg

[sprintz 0]

Sorry, but I attached the wrong pic. This is not the one I thought it was, and it's too late to edit the message. A pic more like what I meant this to be is down below.