Target visibility

[Wolf_Rider]

Originally Posted by irR4tiOn4L

Notice also this formula from Valve for an 'optically correct perspective'


I am practically GIVING you the answer at this point.

To allow you to use this formula, here is the general layout of my monitor/viewing distance. Note that this probably won't equal 23.5 degrees exactly, because I calculated in a much quicker and rougher way. But it'll demonstrate the point.

My monitor is approximately 100 cm away from my face. It's viewable area is 40 cm wide. This gives you all you need to solve that formula;

viewer distance = (screenwidth)/(2*tan(FOV/2))

100 cm = (40 cm) / (2*tan(FOV/2))

Solving algebraically comes up with, finally;

FOV = 22.61986494!

As you can see, according to Valve's 'optically correct perspective' formula, I would need to set my FOV to 22.6.

So what does that tell you about my problem?

That you're flying in tunnel vision... pure and simple

Originally Posted by irR4tiOn4L

Games have generally stuck with 70-90 fov for playability purposes. But this is NOT the optically correct perspective. The optically correct perspective is the one where perspective onscreen matches perspective in reality.

http://artsygamer.com/fov-in-games/

[irR4tiOn4L]

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

Then you're flying in tunnel vision... pure and simple

Do you have the answer to my problem? What is the optically correct FOV?

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

http://artsygamer.com/fov-in-games/

Do you understand that video, given that you have utterly failed to grasp even the most basic problem I have presented? If not, don't link to it - do not use the knowledge of others to obfuscate the lack of your own.

Here is the answer to what was a very simple problem:



Either you were trolling, or you really need to brush up on your optics.

[Wolf_Rider]

Yes, I do understand it and just very recently saw it ie just before I posted the link...I'm sorry the "lesson" doesn't agree with you but I can understand why you are irrational though. and what it means for you, is to get some more screens.
None of that, however, changes the fact you're flying in tunnel vision with a very small FoV


and again - an edit for your edit....

Trolling no, seeing another "the dots are too small and too hard to track, so lets make them bigger" thread - yes

[irR4tiOn4L]

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

Yes, I do understand it and just very recently saw it ie just before I posted the link...I'm sorry the "lesson" doesn't agree with you but I can understand why you are irrational though. and what it means for you, is to get some more screens.
None of that, however, changes the fact you're flying in tunnel vision with a very small FoV

If you understood it, then what did you THINK was the correct 1:1 perspective on a monitor 22" in diagonal at 1m from your face that occupied just 22 degrees of your entire field of vision?

More to the point, how could you HONESTLY TELL ME that 60 fov was the 1:1 optically correct perspective?

I can only conclude that you simply didn't.

That you could not answer the simplest of questions just underlines that point with a very thick line indeed.

[Wolf_Rider]

Ffs

[irR4tiOn4L]

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

Ffs

I can only assume that means you just realised what I was trying to tell you all along.

In order to be able to see aircraft as easily as a real pilot, we need to try and match as closely as possible the perspective that they have on a very imperfect medium - our monitor.

The easiest and probably best way to do this is to simply switch between a wider, more standard 'gaming' field of view setting that is actually very wide, to a much more 'zoomed in' perspective, perhaps to the point of a 1:1 'optically correct' view. At this 1:1 optically correct view, we see what little is in our view, including distant aircraft, as closely as possible to the dimensions with which they appear to our eyes in reality, but we do so at the expense of situational awareness and a wide view (ie, tunnel vision).

By combining these two views and scanning while switching between them, we are able as realistically as possible scan the sky and spot distant aircraft without the aid of a much larger monitor or sitting much closer to it.

Hence why I recommend it, and posit that it is in no way cheating. And YES, some people DO have trouble seeing the dots, more so than others - it all depends on your screen size, resolution, viewing distance etc.


Here is a very useful formula for working out, according to valve, your 'optically correct perspective'.

FOV = ((((screenwidth/viewer distance)/2)tan-1)2)

By use of this formula you will be able to get the FOV, for your viewing environment, that best allows you to approximate the acuity of our eyes in a real aircraft, abeit for only a small patch of sky.

In my case this works out to roughly 22 degrees, making 30 and 70 FOV good compromise values to switch between.

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

Trolling no, seeing another "the dots are too small and too hard to track, so lets make them bigger" thread - yes

Trolling was the better option out of the two I had in mind.

And again, which just highlights what a douchebag you really are, I never said anything about increasing dot sizes nor do I support it.

[Wolf_Rider]

Originally Posted by irR4tiOn4L

And again, which just highlights what a douchebag you really are, I never said anything about increasing dot sizes nor do I support it.

increasing dot size is an unavoidable part of your myopic, dizzyness inducing narrow FoV.
The whole "photography/ 1:1 thing is just an underhanded way of achieving that enlargement of dots

Originally Posted by irR4tiOn4L

Hence why we need to switch to a smaller FOV in order to spot aircraft as easily as in reality.

reality doesn't exist of a very narrow FoV......