Realistic Zoom Setting

[Guest jprintz]

Actually, no, it IS completely different with 2-D, because I could easily make 60 degrees of panel that cover 30 degrees of scenery, or have an instrument that in reality should be 10 degrees to my left overlay scenery that is 25 degrees left. The discussion turned to multi-monitors above, so this is highly relevant, even to the scenario I posted before about the landmark disappearing under my windscreen. A poorly placed or produced 2-D panel OR an unrealistic zoom could make the landmark disappear at any ol' time the 2D panel-maker desired. In 3-D the relative size of the scenery and the cockpit is adjusted proportionately, so if that aspect (time 'til disappearing) is right in one zoom it'll be right at all of them. I think that's what you mean, but it's only true in the VC. The other things, however, like angles of view and perceptions of height, can be easily screwed up with zoom setting, 2D or 3D.Hypothetical: Suppose I want to make the most realistic multi-mon setup I can. Again, this discussion turned to multi-mon up above, so this is not out of nowhere. So, if a person is simming at zoom 0.5, and has monitors all the way around him in the horizontal, guess where his sim plane's tail is? Basically, you can turn your real head 90 degrees left OR 90 degrees right and see directly behind that sim plane. If there's anyone here who thinks that's desirable, that's *completely* 100 percent fine with me. Honestly. From someone who's flown multi-monitor before, trust me I know it's probably the only practical way. But PLEASE do not try to tell me that that particular multi-monitor setup is realistic as to perspective, or that there's no distortion in it, or that the math to it all doesn't matter. I feel as if that's what some of you are doing. It's contrary to common sense and it's insulting. If we're getting nowhere, it's because some are unwilling to admit the flaw in that multi-monitor setup I described above. And as I've basically tried to explain, that very same flaw is present even if only using 1 monitor.Once again, I'm not saying that zoom 1.0 is the only "correct" zoom to fly at. Who would be so arrogant? I'm saying, I believe with the math to back it up, that if 100 percent correct PERSPECTIVE is the goal, zoom 1.0 is the way to go. I am in complete agreement with those like Geofa who say that (if I may paraphrase), to get the proper "feel" of some aspects of takeoff and landing, it's necessary to zoom out so that you can pull in some of the peripheral cues you'd get in real life. As said 100 times, it's all about compromise. You can have correct perspective or you can have good peripheral view, but not both at once... UNLESS you properly set up multiple monitors, OR have the good fortune to own and know how to squeeze the most out of TrackIR.

[michal 44]

:-rotor :-boom :-badteeth :-zhelp

[brucek 38]

Replying to the post above with no sig:I have also played with the zoom function and like it about 0.5. But there's nothing sacred about that either. I think that the original poster just asked if there was one zoom that looked more "real" than any others, and I think it's all subjective.Talking of distortions, placing a 3D view onto a 2D monitor with a focal point only feet away from the viewer is the ultimate "distortion" of all, but our minds are able to overlook that massive disparity and make a realistic image that we (including those that fly actual aircraft) see as realistic. If our minds can make that leap, any keystone distortions that result from zoom settings should be easy to ignore. After all, the basic objective here is to have fun and maybe learn someting.Thanks, Bruce.

[january 19]

-----"As said 100 times, it's all about compromise. You can have correct perspective or you can have good peripheral view, but not both at once... UNLESS you properly set up multiple monitors,-----"--------------Well said. And multiple monitors are so simple to set up and inexpensive- I find it hard to understand why it's not universal!In the following pics, is there any contest?Alex Reid DreamFleet Baron on short final KBFI- 45

[Guest RichardL]

Perspective and field of view are my two issues. But I must first get the true perspective before I add more field of view with multiple monitors. Very nice pics Geofa. Clearly depicts what I am trying to resolve. So I understand what you wrote, .3 zoom is the best depiction of sitting a real Baron vs sitting in the FSX Baron?For one additional test, could you take a pic inside your Baron that shows the left window support and center window support? Can you then match that view to the FSX Baron and see if the airfield objects appear the same relative size and location? Is that still zoom .3? I seem to recall reading, here I believe, that FSX zoom level was set to a higher level than in FS9 to provide higher FPS for FSX. Less scenery to display means a higher FPS. Also, I think in FS9 the display boundaries at zoom 1.0 lined up when changing views, however they do not in FSX.

[LAdamson 240]

I'm not going to read every reply in this series, so my comments my be a bit of re-hash.For starters, I usually prefer .5 in FSX, and .75 in FS9. In reality, I'm not focusing on the panel in real life flight while looking outside through the glareshield. The panel is pretty much out of my field of view, so one monitor flight simulation is somewhat compromised to begin with. You'll notice that you don't focus on a car's dash while driving down the freeway. I use shift Z for airspeed and altitude readouts in the left upper corner of the screen. This allows for quick info, instead of moving my eyes around for small instrument readings on an even smaller 3D panel.My real life plane is a sliding canopy, and my FSX preference is the RealAir Marchetti, as it's much the same, view wise. With a .5 setting, I can pan around for peripheral vision which adds to the sense of speed and yaw. I'll also use shift/enter/backspace to move the panel down (raising the seat), when required.P.S. --- that .5 might actually be .6 I'm not firing up the sim to see... :)L.Adamson

[Geofa 108]

I think it would depend on the plane and whether you are using 2d or 3d cockpit.Here is another example of takeoff at Troy, Michigan (kvll but the 3 year old identifier of 7d2 in fsx).Which one matches the field of view of the real shot-and are you trying to match the outside view at the expense of the inside-or match the inside at the expense of the outside! (or match the width of the runway, or size of buildings, or size of cockpit relative to you where you would be sitting....or maybe fudging them all until it just looks right. In this aircraft-in the vc-I'd probably vote for .50 being the best compromise.Yes- in the fsx Baron the viewpoint in the 3d cockpit looks approx. what the real one would at .30 -both side and front views.GeofaMy blog:http://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/194248.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/194249.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/194250.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/194251.jpg

[Guest RichardL]

Thanks for everyone's input. I now have a clearer understanding of what is a realisitc zoom setting for FSX.Regards,Richard

[Guest jprintz]

I think you're right, Geofa, that the answer to his original question depends upon exactly which aspect he is trying to "match" with the real world, whether it's 2D or 3d VC, etc....The only things I will say, hopefully without it having the effect of tossing a hand grenade into the thread, is that the first picture you posted was taken with a camera, not an eyeball. (Duh, right? ;-) A camera with a certain lens, a certain focal length, etc. So using that image as THE view template is therefore, to me, rather dangerous. That the image looks that way from a camera located... where, PRECISELY?... within the cockpit, just means that that's how "the view" looks to a camera. We could change lenses or move the camera 6 inches in any direction and make the picture look completely different. There's distortion in the real image, also, in the rectangular structures within it... just as there's distortion in images 3 and 4, FS zooms 0.5 and 0.3, too. Townhouse and hangars and buildings just do not look warped and bent and slanted like that. But we do agree on this: SOMETHING must be compromised when trying to get the most realistic experience onto a 17 inch, flat monitor. Your series of images shows what it is that will be compromised in each situation. It was nice of you to take the time to take and post those, and I think many will find it very helpful.

[werver 0]

jprintz wrote:>The default zoom 1.0 in FSX displays about 33.5 x 25 degrees of >scenery. That's on a 4:3 ratio monitor.>it should be ~20 inches for a 15" monitor and ~28 inches for a 21" >monitor. Interpolate as necessary. Remember, this is for 4:3 >monitors.I'm very interested to get these values for a 22" wide screen monitor.Werner Verwaal

[Geofa 108]

Your camera point is well taken. I always take pains in shots like this to get what I am seeing in my place in the cockpit from my eyepoint. As you can see the sim is unable in case to do exactly that.Opening up another can of worms-I am always amazed that simmers are happy with cockpits which basically present a point of view as if you were directly centered on each instrument. In reality there is parallax, and the instruments do not appear perfectly round ( and don't look perfect and hand painted either.In all cases-simulating reality is a check and balance. However, one knows when one is close when seeing is believing. One of the reasons I prefer to use the sim to only fly planes I have flown when "simulating"-I have no basis of compare otherwise. When "playing" that is another story! :-)GeofaMy blog:http://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/

[january 19]

Geofa- just to round out the photo gallery- here is the FS9 triple monitor, 150

[Geofa 108]

No doubt the multi monitors are nice. When triple head supports a higher res for my bigger screens I will probably go there.It is interesting that the high end sims used in flight schools go for a huge single screen displaying only scenery, and a hardware interface.GeofaMy blog:http://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/

[Guest jprintz]

Werner (and the several others who've e-mailed me):The answer to your question depends upon the precise ratio of the sides of your monitor, and whether you're flying in "true" widescreen mode, or if the rendered scene is just somehow stretched horizontally. So, both monitor aspect ratio and the resolution you select within the sim are relevant.If it's truly in widescreen mode (by the FSX.cfg and by selected resolution) and it's not distorted in any way, then we can be sure that a vertical degree matches a horizontal degree.Because several have e-mailed, and so that anyone can figure this out (it's not hard, but who remembers trig, right?!?!), I'll show how I'd do the calculation.h = height, as in monitor aspect ratio (the 3 in 4:3)w = width, as in monitor aspect ratio (the 4 in 4:3)s = size (advertised) of monitor in inchesx = width of monitor in inchesy = height of monitor in inchesd = distance of eyes to monitor, ideallyz = degrees displayed horizontally on monitor at zoom 1.00 (at 0 pitch)(s = 22" for you, the diagonal, or hypotenuse for trig purposes)First find out the aspect ratio for your monitor. Usually widescreens (I *think*) are 16:10 or 16:9. I've heard 16:10 (8:5) is most common, so I'll use that. For consistency and no distortion, your screen resolution's ratio should match your monitor aspect ratio. An 8:5 monitor should be running 1280x800, 1440x900, or any resoltions in that lineage. So......first let's find the arctan of (h/w), which will give the angle of the monitor's diagonal.arctan(10/16) = 32 degreesThen...sin(32deg) x 22" = 19.0", which is your actual width, so...x = 19.0cos(32deg) x 22" = 11.7", which is your actual height, so...y = 11.7So your 22" monitor, assuming an 8:5 aspect ratio, is 19" x 11.7"We'd normally use 1024x768 as a basis for the rest of the calculations. (This has nothing to do with actual screen resolution, just with a setting within the panel.cfg.) ***** With a widescreen, I ASSUME that you get the same vertical field of view at zoom 1.0 as you'd get with a typical 4:3 monitor, and then that the horizontal field of view is widened (by ADDING real estate, and that it's NOT merely stretched) proportionately.So using that 768 as our basis....From other things I've worked on, I happen to know that, in the sim, 90 degrees of field of view (on a great circle) relates to about 2750 pixels, based on that theoretical 1024 from above. (Don't ask, but that number is important for things like conformal HUD's.)768 / 2750 = .279.279 x 90 degrees = 25.1 degreesYour monitor probably displays about 25 degrees of scenery, in the vertical, at zoom 1, if your aspect ratio is 8:5, and if your in-game screen resolution ratio is 8:5.We'll let this vertical 25.1 be the basis for setting up a ratio involving the monitor dimensions.(z / 25.1) = (8 / 5)z = 40.2 degrees40.2 is the number of degrees of scenery displayed across the horizontal of your monitor. (Keep in mind that we're talking great circle degrees here, the "full" degree, and also keep in mind all of the other assumptions above about widescreen aspect ratios and resolutions).So if your monitor "wants" to render 40.2 degrees of scenery horizontally, at zoom 1.0, it would be ideal if we could manipulate the monitor, and ourselves, so that the rendering surface of the monitor actually OCCUPIES 40.2 degrees of our real field of view (or "subtends an arc of 40.2 degrees," as a math geek might say).Let's just call it 40 degrees instead of 40.2. There are rounding and other errors already introduced, so this is precise enough.There is only one distance we can sit from this monitor to make it occupy 40 degrees of our horizontal field of view. Moving closer makes it subtend a greater arc, or appear wider; moving farther away makes it subtend a lesser arc.If looking at the center of the monitor, there are 20 degrees horizontally on each side, just 40 / 2. We already know your monitor screen's width in inches, from above. It's x, and x = 19"Half of 19" is 9.5", so now we know that 20 degrees correspond to 9.5 inches of horizontal monitor space.The distance we must sit from the monitor (to force it to subtend an arc of 40 degrees) can now be found using the tangent function. Let d = ideal distance of our eyes to the monitor.tan(20deg) = ( 9.5" / d )d = ( 9.5" / tan(20deg) )d = ( 9.5" / .364 )d = 26"(This is a smaller distance than what I originally posted for even a 21" monitor, but the difference is because of the varying aspect ratios.)So, for what I assume are your monitor's dimensions, and (this is important!) based on the other assumptions above about what FSX does to the image it renders when it encounters a widescreen monitor, if you sit about 26" away from your monitor, then an object that is, let's say, 5 degrees beneath you within the sim scenery will also precisely overlay an object in your actual room which is also 5 degrees beneath you.Some may not consider this important. I personally feel it's vital to get at least close. Also, some may notice that there are a couple of fundamental flaws in the theory behind this, since we're dealing with flat surfaces trying to render a 3D environment. But the error introduced by these flaws is not great, and if we want to do things like set up multiple monitors or get an actual feel of what a 3 degree glideslope looks like, we need a scientific way to do it. And I think the above is about as close as we can get. Hopefully the example will allow anyone to figure out their own settings.Note that the same math can be used even for zoom settings other than 1, but you'd just need to adjust that 2750 number I posted. (Adjust it proportionally with respect to the desired zoom.)

[january 19]

---"It is interesting that the high end sims used in flight schools go for a huge single screen displaying only scenery, and a hardware interface."----------Geofa- quite correct! A single screen with wide Field of View is the objective. Such as the old Cinerama triple view movie system.Here is an exper. screenie to test this concept in FS. It shows triple views- a 135