Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider
Nah, I figured it in the first couple of posts...
|
Then you acted like an -------- (I will assume its the internet effect) and most certainly were trolling, but that's ok, because I am exceptionally persistent and patient.
Having said that, don't you think it would have been easier and more fair to all involved, not least myself, if you just came out with your agenda from the start?
Then at least we could debate all the upsides and downsides, which obviously are MANY.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider
23" (its in my sig  )1920 x 1080, about a meter, maybe a bit over and on occasion (again... its in my sig. ) - but not all the time |
My own setup is 22" 4:3 CRT, 1600x1200 (fps) and about a meter. In both our cases we are going to have a big disadvantage compared to, say, someone with a 50" 1080HD plasma (roughly similar resolution) that is only a meter away.
So given this, why not zoom in to a more realistic visual acuity level to ease in spotting?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider
I think you may find I said something slightly different
|
Really? Care to explain the following then;
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider
The better thing to do is, perhaps; forget about wide angled FoV altogether (because as mentioned before in threads were this has come up, all it does is alter the field of depth.
A good headtracker and properly calibrated monitor, along with zoom (although some may consider zoom cheating, in fact zoom is the only thing really which could compensate for lack of peripheral vision/ depth of field limitations) would go far better for target/ plane spotting.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider
and if you had of read an earlier post, it was suggested that normal FoV combined with zoom, would be far more effective (when scanning) than switching to a smaller FoV, or... a larger one. Why? for the very same reasons you, yourself, have pointed out.
|
Last post for now.