Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest jprintz

MSFS display system, the scenery arcs and panel design...

Recommended Posts

Guest _FSAviator_

Bill, as a condescending academic pedant with the humble status of lecturer I can only admire the carefully researched effort that you put into establishing your rightful place as my examiner. Bravo!You are quite right. What has been needed all along is for someone who understood all this long ago, and is also well respected in the cockpit environment producing community, to provide the short well written and pithy version that omits nothing and explains everything, posted everywhere it is needed. I look forward to reading it soon. By all means spread the word in a more effective way. Someone in your specialisation certainly needs to. I have identified and detailed all three problems, provided the solution to each, and the beta testing procedures. I leave the rest to you.Jon. One reason that these posts have been so long and complicated is that I took the time to provide a very complete answer to your original question in another thread, followed by a mathematical refutation, explanation and carefully chosen illustration, to answer each and every issue you have raised since. Asking the same questions over again does not entitle you to a further reply. Despite the detail in my replies you have still not grasped the difference between compressing scenery into an arc and simply displaying a scenery arc of limited dimensions. You remain obsessed with field of view. I have agreed that it is restricted and I have told you by how much. I have also explained and illustrated why it is of little consequence. We spend much of our life with a restricted field of view. It does not distort our perception of the things in view. The scale of the scenery display and the relationship of things within it do not depend on the distance the viewer sits from the monitor, or any of the other issues you raise. The rest of your latest post is little more than a complaint that MSFS uses a projected display in which the objects are not full size and the field of view is restricted. We know that. What we all have to do is grasp how it 'works best' within those limitations. Your firmly held view that you know better than Microsoft is clearly not going to be shaken by the facts. I cannot help you further.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest jprintz

You ignored the issue again, by saying you explained it before.... You didn't. (In fact, you couldn't have. If you could, you'd be extremely wealthy and too busy socializing with other Nobel Laureates to hang out on the avsim boards. ;-)You said:<>It is not only that field of view is restricted; it IS compressed. I'm glad you admit this later on. Now we can get somewhere. So, could you please point me to the place where you've described how this arc compression onto our monitors does "not distort our perception of the things in view," with respect to the outside world? That would be a truly miraculous insight. I am wondering if you really do have a background in mathematics or physics, as I initially assumed. One way in those disciplines that hypotheses and hunches can be quickly tested is to insert extreme numbers or examples. Please bear with me:Suppose MS releases a simulator which displays 180 degrees of scenery into a regular monitor. In level flight to the North Pole, we can see the zenith, the nadir, bearing 270, and bearing 090 all at the same time. Things are therefore "compressed." Do you not agree? Would you not say they are also distorted with respect to the outside world? Of course they are.... This is beyond debate. Yet you keep debating it. My eyeball has to move much less than 1 degree to look 3 degrees down. This angular distortion, with respect to the outside world, persists even though MS has made everything else (distances, speeds, etc.) agree at this arbitrarily selected display mode. You say it is of little consequence. It may be to you. It is not to many. The consequence is the very thing I've enunciated above: a sim degree does not equal a real degree, and our eyes know it.... The sim world is flat.I admire and respect (and even for the most part AGREE with) your presumption that zoom 1.0 is best, as that's where everything else agrees perfectly. Designing things so that they work best within the constraints and limitations of the sim's code just makes sense. But your pronouncement that it cannot be altered under any circumstances, no matter what perceptions the panel designer wishes to emphasize, is short sighted. It's similar to a geographer who prefers map projections which preserve distance telling other geographers they can't use direction-preserving projections "because they distort distance! Don't go there! Your common sense is faulty!" The other geographers might reasonably reply, "Well of course they distort distance. That misses the point. We're willing to give up one for the other...."I simply do not know how anyone could contend that compressing twice as much scenery onto half as much of a "window" does not lead to distortion.... Still, thank you again for the insight and info. You were the only one with the very specific info I requested. Great topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Tom Allensworth,
    Founder of AVSIM Online


  • Flight Simulation's Premier Resource!

    AVSIM is a free service to the flight simulation community. AVSIM is staffed completely by volunteers and all funds donated to AVSIM go directly back to supporting the community. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. Thank you for your support!

    Click here for more information and to see all donations year to date.
×
×
  • Create New...