[jhb_airlines] Re: Perception of Server Lag

  • From: "Bones" <bones@xxxxxxx>
  • To: <jhb_airlines@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2006 05:07:04 +0100

I can't answer that properly because viewing angle is a factor of the focal
length of the human eye rather than the cockpit limitations of the aircraft.
There is a horribly complex discussion about this on AVSIM which I won't
even bother to try and explain.

The best I can do is describe it in terms of a camera lens in that FS zoom
levels are like stepping up from 35mm to a 300mm zoom. As you increase or
decrease zoom you are changing the perspective so it looks nothing like what
the human eye really sees. In photographic terms I think a 50mm lens is
about equivalent to what the eye sees and I understand that .79 zoom in FS
is roughly the same. That's assuming one screen of course but I forget for
which monitor size this applied (maybe 19"). Go to a different sized monitor
and the viewing real estate area increases but the angular view in FS
remains the same - and so the perspective has technically altered and should
be compensated for. The same would very much apply to your three monitor

At a more mundane level my thinking was that there are eight views in FS
from dead ahead round to front right, right, rear right, astern and so on.
All these views at a zoom level of 1 have zero overlap so each view should
cover a visible arc of 45 degrees (not thirty as I said before). The trouble
is that this only ensures that you have full sky coverage in FS and doesn't
have anything to do with true perspective.

In the AVSIM article the discussion rapidly split into two camps, both with
lucid arguments as to why their system was the correct one. I reset my
monitor to the setting given by my favoured group (as adjusted for my
monitor size) and I was happy with the result. However I forgot to lock it
down and several flights later had forgotten the value anyway so it went
back to 1.0.


-----Original Message-----
From: jhb_airlines-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:jhb_airlines-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gerry Winskill
Sent: 23 September 2006 20:42
To: jhb_airlines@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [jhb_airlines] Re: Perception of Server Lag

Just repeated this, by heading directly at a copse, located just over
the nose, using Slew. Bearing noted, then continued slewing until the
copse just at right edge of centre screen; noted heading. Continued to
slew until it was just disappearing from the right edge of the right
hand screen. Doubling the angle differences to provide the field of view
gave 52 deg for one screen and 104 deg for three. That agrees quite
closely with the Hawarden observations.
How does that compare with the fron view on, say, the Chieftain?

Gerry Winskill

Gerry Winskill wrote:

> I've just done a rough check, focussing on Hawarden, at a distance of
> 7 nm. Zoom was at 0.31, which most users think looks natural. It's
> also the minimum zoom value.
> Turning to bring the field to the right edge of the centre panel
> produce a bearing of 279 (from FSNav), against n aircraft heading of 256.
> Turning until the field is at the right extremity of the right screen
> leaves it bearing 281, against the aircraft heading of 228.
> That seems to indicate an arc of view of about 106 degrees, compared
> to about 46 deg for the single screen.
> i'm probably wildly out but it gives some idea of the differnce.
> Gerry Winskill
> Bones wrote:
>> Only within 30 degrees either side of dead ahead though. Having said
>> that I
>> know if you zoom out the angle of view increases - but I'm not sure
>> how much
>> by. Maybe its an idea to create a compass turning circle in some
>> scenery and
>> measure angles.
>> I must admit that it is tempting to try the TrackIR for formation
>> work.
>> bones
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: jhb_airlines-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> [mailto:jhb_airlines-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gerry
>> Winskill
>> Sent: 23 September 2006 19:34
>> To: jhb_airlines@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: [jhb_airlines] Re: Perception of Server Lag
>> If Smithy ever unwelds his wallet, and invests in TripleHead to go,
>> I'll give it a try. The forward view is probably wide enough to allow
>> formatin on a reasonably close aircraft.
>> Gerry Winskill
>> Bones wrote:
>>> That's the standard procedure for any aircraft but it requires the
>>> formating
>>> pilot(s) to permanently focus on the other aircraft - which is why a
>>> whole
>>> formation tends to fly into the ground if the lead aircraft gets it
>>> wrong.
>>> To watch the other aircraft in FS would require you using the side
>>> (or forward side) view all the time. This can be done but it's a lot
>>> harder than in a real aircraft. The problem lies in the fact that
>>> when you bank an FS aircraft the whole outside view moves up or
>>> down. In real life your eyepoint stay fixed on the other aircraft
>>> with bank not being a consideration. The "fixed eyepoint" effect in
>>> FS can be very disorientating especially if you alter bank a lot -
>>> as you certainly would for formation work.
>>> bones
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: jhb_airlines-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> [mailto:jhb_airlines-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of franklyn
>>> fisher
>>> Sent: 23 September 2006 15:40
>>> To: jhb_airlines@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> Subject: [jhb_airlines] Re: Perception of Server Lag
>>> The Red Arrows managed it by formating at a trianglated position
>>> ie the second craft hangs back a bit and below or the same level.
>>> Then by looking at the lead ac lines up an agreed triangle
>>> eg wing tip in line with leader tail plane and leaders wingtip lined
>>> up with
>>> the nose pitot, as a rough example.
>>> This puts the following ac in an exact position. The pilot then just
>>> has to maintain the correct altitude.
>>> Frank F

Other related posts: