Help in optimizing the zoom

[paulyg123 135]

Ii seems I need 40-50% zoom level to see the instruments and the runway at the same time.  I have Track IR but don't like it.  I want the main instruments and the full view out the left side of the cockpit window.

I have a 27" monitors, but even with that my main instrument panel is only 4" wide - way too small compared to real life view.  In order to fly at 100% zoom, I think I'll need a 55" monitor!!

 

Now remember I am not a computer guy, but can you hook up a 55" TV to a decent computer?  If yes, Would it be too grainy?  kill FPS?  I was even thinking of a Proxima and shining it on the wall.  Am I nuts, or can it be done?

 

I am wondering what some you  "crazy" people have for a monitor set up.

[mounty 13]

I use a 40" Samsung SMART TV for my main monitor.  It's set at 1920x1080 and works fine.  It's jusy about the right size for more immersion.

 

Rob

[OmniAtlas 93]

Ever thought of using a 1080p projector?

[scandinavian13 5,192]

 

 

Ii seems I need 40-50% zoom level to see the instruments and the runway at the same time.

 

This is getting to be something that I tend to address weekly, and I'm beginning to think that it's one of the main issues of why people take issue with the VC.

 

Think about what you wrote for a minute, and ask yourself "why?"

 

Why do you need to see the instruments and runway at the same time?  The only two things you really need to see when landing are airspeed and the runway.  You can reasonably accommodate this at a zoom level of about 80% (0.80 as displayed on screen), with the airspeed right at the bottom of the screen.

 

 

 

Whenever I see posts like this, I really try to dig into the mental why people believe that they need such low zoom levels, and the only thing I can think of is some sort of "comfort factor" with being able to see all the gauges.  When we grew up flying the simulator with 2D panels, all of the information was right in front of us (mostly unrealistically).  From there, for the simmers, having every bit of information on that panel in view at all times seems realistic and necessary.  I'm not trying to single them out, but real world pilots deal with information filtering daily and realize that what is important information is dynamic.  As I mentioned in another thread: yes, monitoring the health of your engine is important, but during landing you're not really operating the engine to its limits (or near them), so those indications are not a primary concern.  Gear and flap indications only need to be verified when you change their position, and then you can forget about them.  In reality, there really isn't that much for you to pay attention to.

 

The PFD has all kinds of good information, but when you're in visual conditions, your eyes should be up and out (again, the only thing you really need to monitor in that flight phase is airspeed).  If you're IMC, then that's a different story, and there's more to pay attention to on the PFD, but that's the whole point: many of the indications on the PFD are there for when you can't look out the window to see your navigational performance.

 

So, the end issue isn't the zoom, it's what you're concentrating on, and why.

[3-2-1-Now 126]

The big problem is people buy these large, silly "high definition", wide-aspect displays, with a mere height of 1080 pixels, then complain that they neither have sufficient resolution to see the VC displays clearly, nor the physical height afforded by higher resolution panels to see the displays and out of the window as well.

 

No thanks to the "HD" fad in the last few years, it has caused the price of MUCH higher resolution panels to sky-rocket, due to lack of demand.

 

You know you can get panels with 2560x1600 resolution in a 22" display? 24"? 30"? Some go even higher in resolution in modest sized displays, but the cost rises with the cube of the resolution at that point.

 

2560x1600 - 33% wider, 48% taller than any HD display. Due to the very fact the pixel density is much higher too, the picture is naturally sharper. I've personally been running displays of much higher resolution/pixel density than HD displays before HD was even heard of. 2560x1920 on a 19" CRT from 1996? Yes please! It's only been progressing backwards since then. If I could buy another one of those, I would!

 

Best regards,

Robin.

[SteveW 1,792]

You can try changing the perspective in the fsx.cfg:

 

[Display]

WideViewAspect=True

[3-2-1-Now 126]

That just fudges the zoom level vs. the number displayed on screen.

 

Best regards,

Robin.

[tcas_climb 45]

I get what kyle is trying to say, but perhaps one of the reasons we use the lower zoom levels is the fact that in real life yes you can only focus on one thing at a time, whether it be the outside world or inside the flight deck, but what makes it easier in the real world is sort of the peripheral vision effect, which allows you to focus on one or the other and at the same time get an idea of what's happening elsewhere, whereas looking at things at a monitor at high zoom levels gives you a sort of tunnel effect hence you can focus on one thing but can't see much else around you, I dunno just my thoughts on the matter

[SteveW 1,792]

 

That just fudges the zoom level vs. the number displayed on screen.

 

Best regards,

Robin.

 

 

it's altering the perspective slightly, but I suppose it's really used for wide screen setups like a triplehead

[scandinavian13 5,192]

 

 

looking at things at a monitor at high zoom levels gives you a sort of tunnel effect hence you can focus on one thing but can't see much else around you, I dunno just my thoughts on the matter

 

True.  A lot of your flare could be helped by using your periphery, but the loss of periphery in the sim is more uncomfortable than an actual problem.  Dumping the zoom down to 30-40% only really serves to severely distort the image in order to gain that "periphery" back, and even then, it's not enough to justify all that distortion.  The runway looks insanely small and awkward at that point.

 

It's all personal preference in the end, so there's no right or wrong answer, but I think a lot of the problem is in people's assumptions rather than an actual issue of monitor size or resolution.

 

 

 

That just fudges the zoom level vs. the number displayed on screen.

 

Not quite.  It sets the measurement based off vertical screen size, rather than horizontal because the code assumes people are still using 4:3 monitors.  Because you'd need to zoom out on a 16:9 monitor to get the same view of a 4:3 monitor, you introduce the fisheye distortion.  If you change the wideviewaspect value, you're not just fudging the zoom number (more accurately, how the program models the zoom level), you're also dodging the introduced distortion of low zoom levels in trying to get the same usable view on a 16:9 monitor as you'd have on a 4:3.

[777simmer 117]

Looks like this is one of those things where we will never all agree. Kind of like on 2D panels.

 

I happen to totally agree with the OP that you can not fly ANY aircraft accurately/realisticly unless you have in your immidiate field of view:

1)Primary flight instruments (airspeed/attitude/altitude/VS/heading)

2)Engine instruments (you cant keep an airspeed if you can see your target N1 or RPM or Manifold pressure)

3)Navigational instruments

4)The Runway

 

With "immidiate view" I dont mean they all have to be on the same display (although it would be nice if that was possible when you go throught the exspenses of buying a 46"TV just for FSX), but all those things need to be constantly displayed somewhere and it must be easy to scan/look at them without making you dizzy because of cockpit pieces flying by as you move your head.

 

I have all this on the PMDG777 because PMDG was kind enough to provide us with 2D pop panels.

Those pop up panels are allways visible on my two 24" monitors.

Above and about 1meter (3 feet) behind those 2x24" monitors, I have a 46" TV at zoom level 100% on short final (but 70% during cruise) so all I see on this TV is a huge windscreen (left or right) with a runway in it :-)

 

Other developers dont even make 2D pop up panels anymore :-(

So I dont know how to fly those aircraft :-(

 

TrackIR: I have it, and it is nice for looking around a bit

I find it totally unusuable to scan from outside (runway) to inside (instruments). All it does is make me dizzy (cockpit flashing by as you move your head). However that could also be because I still have not found a good calibrated setup for TrackIR.

 

About the TV:

Although BIG, you dont see more on a 46" TV!

It still "only" has 1920x1080 pixels and at zoom 100% is still see only a huge windscreen or huge instruments. But you dont see more!

You could change zoom to 50% and see both and still have descend size instruments, but you have to sit with your nose at the TV then.

AND...at zoom 50% everything outside is compressed and it becomes impossible to fly a visual approach. You can not judge whether you are too high or too low by looking through a window at zoom 50%!

 

Beamer:

Too much heat for my environment.

(we had two months of 40C heatwave and no airconditioning here)

 

I find the argument that "in real life the pilot also has to move his head to scan between outside and inside" invalid because in real life you actually CAN do this.

With FSX you can NOT because when I have zoom 100% and look outside and then move my head down to see the PDF I am now staring at my feet and the display still shows the outside same view. There is no hardware there to look at down there or anywhere.

TrackIR yes.....but I am still looking at my feet if I tilt my head down and I now have to move my eyeballs up!

Not realistic plus uncomfortable.

 

So for me the only thing that works is the way I have it with 3 monitors.

And not everybody can afford this!

 

Which is why I think developers need to pay more attention to customers who want a solution for this problem.

And the more people post questions like the OP has done and the more people agree....the better our chances for future products coming out with a solution.

 

You know you can get panels with 2560x1600 resolution in a 22" display? 24"? 30"? Some go even higher in resolution in modest sized displays, but the cost rises with the cube of the resolution at that point.

 

2560x1600 - 33% wider, 48% taller than any HD display. Due to the very fact the pixel density is much higher too, the picture is naturally sharper. I've personally been running displays of much higher resolution/pixel density than HD displays before HD was even heard of. 2560x1920 on a 19" CRT from 1996? Yes please! It's only been progressing backwards since then. If I could buy another one of those, I would!

 

Best regards,

Robin.

I actually never thought about panels with a higher resolution.

I thought that since FSX is old and most addon are optimized for 1920x1080 or 1920x1200 that it does not make sence to buy higher resolution displays.

 

Recently I learned that this is only true for 2D panels, not however for VC!

 

Are you saying that if I buy a 2560x1600 panel...that I actually see more cockpit at the same zoom level? (not just bigger, but more things?)

[SteveW 1,792]

You can make FSX windowed and then make the window the same aspect ratio as the screen you want to evaluate, doesn't need to be the same size, just shape, that will basically show you what you'll get on any screen.

[777simmer 117]

You can make FSX windowed and then make the window the same aspect ratio as the screen you want to evaluate, doesn't need to be the same size, just shape, that will basically show you what you'll get on any screen.

? So how do I try on my 1920x1080 TV what 2560x1600 looks like?

You know, I happened to have been thinking about giving Nvidia 2D surround an other shot now that I recently heard it supports 3x1920x1200 as well.

Not with the typical 3x1920x1200 setup, but with the displays vertically!

 

So 3x1080 (horizontal) x 1920 (vertical).

Does anybody know what that would look like? (I mean what would you be able to see on the displays when zoom is 100%)

 

The idea would be to have more pixels vertically and thus being able to see both outside through the windscreen AND see the PFD/ND/EICAS as well at zoom 100%

 

Important, this has to all be visible at zoom 100% for me!

Otherwise I would rather stick with my current setup I think.

[SteveW 1,792]

make the window the same aspect ratio as the screen you want to evaluate

2560X1600=1.6 = 1728x1080 make a window that size to see what you get in a 2560X1600 window

mess around with wide or normal aspect views in fsx.cfg to see what you can get to see on the screen you are considering, whatever the size.

[SteveW 1,792]

...so with your three screens setup, 1080x3x1920=3240x1920=1.6875=1822.5x1080 make a window 1822x1080 on your tv to see what the content on the three monitor job will look like )