As another example... Suppose I'm (in the real world) a mile away from and 500 feet above a certain landmark I use as reference on approach. It's a certain number of degrees below me. A single, precise number. And as I fly closer and closer to it, there is, in the real world, a value (one and only one value) at which that landmark will accelerate down my windscreen before it disappears underneath me. There is one and only one value for the number of seconds it will take for that to happen, in the real world. In the simulator, THE ONLY WAY those accelerations and times and angles can be duplicated, without any distortion, whether visual or otherwise, is if 1) we are at zoom 1.0 (else there are visual and shape distortions)2) we have our eyeballs at such a distance from the monitor that the scenery field of view (determined by zoom) matches the actual amount of field of view our monitors are occupying.Lots of people hate zoom 1.0. I understand. I'm not crazy about the number of degrees it displays either, but it is what it is. The above paragraph, on the math of it all, is actually fact though, and could be shown with some trig and a little calculus. It does NOT mean that someone should not enjoy another zoom setting, because the obvious benefits and "correctness" of zoom 1.0 are often trumped by other factors. I mean, my god, the default VC view is zoom 0.7. It is obvious why: to avoid the limited FOV / keyhole effect that most simmers (lacking TrackIR or the knowledge needed to fix the effect) could not tolerate. It's a lesser of 2 evils kind of thing. I just don't understand the fear people have in acknowledging that zoom 1.0 is, indeed, "better" than any other zoom factor in a few fundamental ways. I guess people want their particular choice of zoom to be the "right" one? I just personally think it's best to view every setting as some kind of compromise, though I almost always fly at zoom 1.0. Without TrackIR I probably wouldn't... maybe at 0.8? I'm just pointing out what is compromised when you stray from zoom 1.0.

The op's question was:"what is the proper zoom setting in FSX to experience take-off and landing as it would be in a real aircraft?"I would submit the answer to that question would not be 1, trig and all.No fear here, just some experience.My blog:http://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/

You see no distortion at zoom 0.3? I'm frankly surprised. I could maybe see that if you're paused or if it's in a still image (though I have trouble there too), but roll 90 degrees while looking at a few hangars down beneath you or the clouds and tell me what you see. They warp.I'm looking at zoom 0.3 right now. The visual distortions are, to me, extreme. I'll post a screen. Is this not what other people are seeing?http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/194195.jpg

>disappears underneath me. There is one and only one value for>the number of seconds it will take for that to happen, in the>real world. First of all there is a bunch of really bad physics here. This "number of seconds" is the SAME no matter what zoom you select. So the first order of business for you is to find some discriminating factors that will give you a method to finds the best zoom for you. But it can't be the test you describe above with the object disappearing below you - it won't help you select one zoom over another.Michael J.http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/9320/apollo17vf7.jpg

Mine does not look like that from inside the plane-I assume the ops question was the proper perspective from the inside-not the outside?http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/194197.jpgGeofa

Look at the control tower. Am I losing my mind or is there not very obvious distortion there?

Well here are 3 shots 2.0. 1.0 and .30-only difference I see is a progressive lack of claustrophobia....GeofaMy blog:http://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/194198.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/194199.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/194200.jpg

Yes, you're correct with respect to the 3-D VC, and the number of seconds until the landmark disappears underneath example. Some are posting images of and speaking of the 2-D panel though, where that is highly relevant and easily messed up. You ignored the other things I mentioned, however. Even in the 3-D VC, it is entirely possible to botch up the other things, such as view angles and the speed at which it will track down the windscreen. And these are relevant, TO PERSPECTIVE. So it is not proper, IF ONE'S SOLE GOAL IS CORRECT PERSPECTIVE, to arbitrarily pick a zoom and then adjust all else around that. 2D or VC.

In the other shot, the one I replied to, I think you were slightly banked, which is what introduced the distortion. In all 3 of these you are level. And regardless, the distortion in other zooms is most noticeable AS YOU FLY. I can look at the clouds or nearby buildings as I roll the aircraft and it's obvious these items are not being rendered correctly WRT perspective.

>The op's question was:>"what is the proper zoom setting in FSX to experience take-off>and landing as it would be in a real aircraft?">>I would submit the answer to that question would not be 1,>trig and all.>>No fear here, just some experience.>>My blog:>http://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/>The op's question was:>"what is the proper zoom setting in FSX to experience take-off>and landing as it would be in a real aircraft?">>I would submit the answer to that question would not be 1,>trig and all.>>No fear here, just some experience.>>My blog:>http://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/Understood, totally respected, and not even completely disagreed with. Just note that there are others with experience, too, who would completely embrace zoom 1.0.... As has been said a million times, the "answer" to the best zoom question depends upon which aspect a simmer wishes to emphasize, accurate angles / heights / speeds, or gaining a more realistic sense of peripheral vision. Either are valid goals, obviously. In other posts, though, some have brought up the question of what is best as far as PERSPECTIVE. And in this area... well... don't disrespect the trig, man. ;-) Perspective (in the sense of view) is an angular / mathematical concept. There is only 1 answer to the "best perspective" question in FSX, and for reasons and having to do with examples I've posted elsewhere in the thread, the answer to me seems to clearly be zoom 1.0.FWIW, I've seen the VASI lights 3 degrees down below me more than once in real life, and FSX zoom 1 absolutely nails that angle, and it should come pretty close to doing the same for anyone who has a 15 to 21 inch monitor and also sits 2 feet (plus or minus) from it.

>Yes, you're correct with respect to the 3-D VC, and the>number of seconds until the landmark disappears underneath>example. Some are posting images of and speaking of the 2-D>panel though, where that is highly relevant and easily messed>up.No, not correct, makes no difference 2D or VC, sorry but we are getting nowhere *:-*Michael J.http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/9320/apollo17vf7.jpg

I would also submit for consideration, by the way, that if someone's trying to cram 60 degrees of scenery into a monitor that's occupying 30 degrees of his actual field of view, distortion is inherent. I can look 1.5 degrees down to the landing zone while still on the sim's 3 degree glideslope.

>Look at the control tower. Am I losing my mind Yes, I think you are ;)Michael J.

Hard to be banked when on the ground. As for in the air-I have some above in quite a steep bank as I am flying. Just looks less blurry and the buildings look lifesize to me.An interesting discussion to say the least-and like all things in Fs-do what gives you the best sense of reality! :-)GeofaMy blog:http://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/

Just to satisfy my curiosity - I set up zoom 0.3 and used slew function to simulate flying. I used extreme banking angles (including flying inverted) and could not see any distortions whatsoever.Michael J.http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/9320/apollo17vf7.jpg