Tell you what. Since this is plainly all you want, why don't you go start a thread about it, have your idea rejected on its own merit, and leave what is here to be considered on its? You're clearly not interested in anything I have to say and, well, given that I have already heard the breadth of your input, I would have to say the feeling is mutual.

I'm not sure why I continued the discussion. Perhaps I thought you might be interested, against the odds, in learning something about FOV and its uses. I was clearly wrong. So considering that your only aim is to raise hell about the inequity of fov switching and the perfection to be attained in the 60 fov + binoculars, I can't help you. Why don't you go look for a broader audience?

Sincerely,

Bored and disinterested

leaving again??

that's three dollars I've lost already and now it is looking like a fourth...


well you want "realism" and "what the pilot really sees", so those penalties for incockpit binoculars (zoom) would be perfect.

Oh, hang on... you'd only want "realism" and "what the pilot really sees" up to a point, eh

and you're still stuck on the photography aspect, when in reality, you could have learnt something from projection, which is the image on the screen.

Well it seems to me that you are the one who wants something and are upset that its regarded as something silly that nobody else wants. So you come here and waste my time, and almost certainly waste your time.

Why bother? Just accept that you wont get a riser or support out of me or anyone else. Least of all the devs. Get over it and move on. Or get banned, I don't care.

Bugga... there goes that fourth dollar


Banned because I suggested you only want "what the pilot really sees" up to a certain point? nah... you got upset because you got caught out - any more names you want to call me??

irR4tiOn4L, it seems that you didn't follow the advise you gave to me. :D

Ok with your 60fov and real size objects you totally lose your peripherical vision: how do you think to solve this VERY important issue?

We are talking about a combat flight simulator here...

I sorely regretted it, I assure you!

The number one rule of giving advice: make sure you follow it yourself first!

Well I do hope SOME of the last 15 pages was useful to someone.

60 Fov is actually only marginally more zoomed than 70 fov (which I use for SA). Its probably not 'real size' objects either for most people's monitors/viewing distance.

For example, on my 22" CRT, 22 fov would be 'real size' (which is obviously a huge loss of SA). I would need to sit just 40cm away to make 60 fov display objects at 'real size'.

The basic thing to understand about Wolf Rider's contributions in this thread though is that he doesn't care what you have to say or what problems you have. He actually just wants people to stop switching to zoomed fovs like 30 fov because he blames this for his lack of performance online (bet he flies through trees to escape though).

He feels that people are 'zooming in' with 30 fov and unfairly making the dots bigger. He is so outraged about it that he spites them for it by suggesting the developers should replace 30 fov with ingame 'binoculars' instead. But remember that basic thing - he doesn't actually care what you think or have to say about it.

exactly correct (in any angle of view used though) , in fact you lose your "peripheral vision" entirely (when using a monitor/ screen), as you would require a full 360 degree screen (ie inside a sphere) and the flight sim would have to be coded to project onto it properly.






and with a change of tac., I'm now a dollar up ;)

It's not an answer.

Since this simulator had to be sold to "average" buyers who can't permit themselves to own such a sphere (if it really exists... but why 360°? 180°h & 120°v is the human fov) we have to reach a compromise. So I repeat: how can you retain real size objects keeping at the same time a realistic peripheral vision?

re-read the reply... "peripheral vision" can't be recreated on a monitor which sits directly in front of you.



the simmer may wish to "look around" and with anything less, they would lose full range. If the simmer just wanted to look straight ahead... a sphere wouldn't be necessary at all and something that fiited with the range of vision would suffice, to maintain "usable" and "peripheral vision".



in computer modelling (simming) that is the name of the game, though some of the reasons why a "compromise" is adopted may vary....



see the above points, you've inadvertently answered your own question