Why not, at least for head tracking users, just build in the option to change FOV on the fly to the realistic level (39?) so that we can at least conduct more or less realistic "scans" by zooming in the view and carefully scanning a section of the sky at realistic size? Sure, its not as quick or wide as 70 fov or our eyes in reality, and its not all that elegant, but it'd do the job better than most any other solution I'd think. Even if it would feel like using binoculars at times.

As many have pointed out anyway, it takes time to scan the sky.

silly question: Do you zoom or change your FoV?

zooming, should bring the target a bit closer (larger) but switching to a wider FoV will, in effect, push the target further away.

I really like your post and suggestion Manu, but I have a few personal touches I'd consider too.

If we implement your "scan box" area, it's going to work much like a pseudo-radar scan. Like radars, target size, distance and relative velocity make important factors. For gameplay and new guys, or an online dogfight server this is useful. For players who prefer the action over the hunt and kill this is excellent, I'd leave it as is.

But for more "realism/immersion" players I see a different approach. I'd keep your basic "eye vision radar" with calculated probabilities of discovering targets, but change the way these targets are displayed. Generally speaking, most WWII dogfights were faught during daylit conditions, and so the sun was usually available. Therefore it could be implemented as a bright flash (like a lone star in a night sky) or similar to modern planes anti-collision lights. Maybe with a bit of flare to it and random duration.

This way, if scanning sectors, you will catch a glimpse of a flash at distance, revealing an unknown contact. This will let you focus your scan at this location, and give you a direction to pursue the contact if visual ID cannot be made (like RL). If on the other hand you have ground radar guiding you, and you know the general direction and altitude, this small flash will almost guarantee you that you have found your enemy (since he's been ID'd by radar).

Well, what if its overcast or rainy? Well, the clouds make for a better silhouette detection, but the ground is still tough (like RL). The game already has shadows casting from clouds, so maybe a small detection script could tell if your plane was in a bright spot and broadcast "blinks" to nearby people within range, looking in your direction. Other than that it's the naked eye.

I think this "blinking sun glare" feature would be warmly appreciated for most guys looking for the "realistic" approach. At nighttime developers should consider exhaust stack flames as it was in real life night ops.

Just my 2 cents. The vision radar is a good idea imho, but i personally hate markers. I'd prefer a chance of seeing that reflection blink, telling your flight to check 10'o clock cause you think you saw something there. Then everyone could focus at the same spot and you'd have a much higher chance of discovering the enemy.

Hi Strike, the "blinking sun glare" is a really good idea.. still in these days me and my teammates are discussing about a good solution and the blinking object is been one of the solutions, provided that this effect is triggered every x seconds because of the resolution problem. ;-)

I mean that if there are 2 planes manouvering at 2km below of me they could be changing their vector many times in a range of 10 seconds. Focusing your sight on that airspace you should be able to spot AND track those planes. One blink should be very near to the next one (talking about time).

I've just put buttons for 30/70 fov on my joystick and use them in conjunction with TrackIR.

While it would be nice to be able to set a realistic fov, say 39 or so, switching between them is easy, intuitive and very quick. It should also make spotting aircraft about as difficult as in reality.

Given this solution, do we really need more complex dots?

It's still not realistic since by using the 30/70 FOV function (who I use too ;-) ) is like looking through a tube. Your SA is too much limited.

The 30 FOV in a sim is there to give the real detail of an object but we can't see anything around us, while the 90 FOV is there to give us more SA but all the 3d objects become too small.

In real life vision skill is an improved version of these both combined.

I understand that Manu, BUT I do not believe that functionally this makes a large difference. In reality pilots must undertake systematic scans in order to spot things, and in a sense this is what you do when you switch between 70 and 30 fov to look for planes.

Having just flown with it, 30 fov still leaves quite a large chunk of sky visible and by moving it, you can effectively scan the sky in detail just as you would in reality.

Yes, your SA is limited while you are doing this, but by doing a quick scan at 70 fov beforehand, you already know that there is nothing in your immediate vicinity.


Is this perfect? No, of course not, its not nearly as good as our eyes which see such detail all the time in much larger sections of the sky with peripheral vision. But it is reasonably close and, I believe, a better approximation of a pilot's vision (and more immersive) than just larger dots for 70 fov.

Having said that, I do see the problem with 3km dot size at 70 fov, and agree that some improvement should be made. But by making dots larger, you also butcher the size, camouflage, shape and reflectiveness differences between the planes, all of which make a difference when spotting aircraft at 30 fov.

So changing the dots is going to be a tradeoff that I am not quite convinced is necessary (beyond fixing the disappearing at medium/3km issue)

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.
The flyer there sits looking a screen and it doesn't come into account how close or distant that flyers sits at his screen, the image doesn't enlarge or reduce accordingly... the flyer just closer to/ further away from the screen.
In effect the screen is a window, a window of fixed size regardless of resolution.
That window opens onto the virtual world of the sim and that world is always only going to be relative the the screen, the window. It doesn't matter if the flyer moves closer to or further away from the screen, the virtual world doesn't expand or get closer/ further away... it all remains relative.
In effect, it is almost a tunnel type vision, not literally, but it called be called exactly that - tunnel vision.
Peripheral vision, which is really what detects movement, can't be modelled with today's technology.
The sim, is a 3 dimensional presenation on a 2 dimension screen... even with a 3D screen - because it is still drawn on a 2 dimension screen.
Game developers open with a FoV which, they, feel gives the better visual representation of the virtual world/ cockpit, etc, so that the product "looks right" in relation to the screen ie the Depth of Field... remember, everything ties back to the screen - the window... the cockpit, the other objects, the background, etc and what the flyer sees on his screen

Now, when selecting to go with a wider angle FoV... what happens?
well, the screen doesn't get wider or larger and the flyer doesn't move closer or further away.
What happens is; a wider part of the virtual world is fitted to the screen - the window, that same size window... so naturally, the depth of field is altered and because there is a larger image fitted to the screen of fixed size, everything in a way gets compressed to the scsreen, but because the cockpit, the other objects, the background etc are all still relative to each other in effect and without actually doing so everything gets pushed back.)

Changing the FoV only changes the depth of field.
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.

That's all true but there's a reason we use wider fov's; they may not make the 'window' any larger, but unless you have a 50" plasma right in front of your face (some do, and its an awesome idea) your 'window' wont be large enough to give you satisfactory situational awareness/a usable view.

For example, I have a 22" CRT about a metre in front of me. It's a great monitor for picture quality. But I ultimately have to switch between 70 and 30 fov because the sim is simply not comfortable (and doesnt feel right) at 30 fov all the time. It would be better if i could set a fov closer to 1:1 for this monitor type, but it would still not solve this problem.

It may be just a window and there is great value in being able to zoom to 1:1, but you should still make full use of that 'window' by using wider fovs as well

That's just it though... switching to a wider FoV just (perhaps a clearer description) shallows everything out, thereby ultimately losing definition.
The LoD settings don't change with the FoV change ;)

Actually, I'm pretty sure the Lod settings DO change with the Fov. Check out the first post - big difference between 70 and 39 fov LODs. Have a look particularly at how differently a plane is rendered at 3km and 4km with 70 and 39 fov - at 39 fov these STILL haven't become dots!;
This is why I prefer switching fov's - its simple, results in more accurate rendering of distant objects and presents the most realistic plane scanning that we can do without a huge, high resolution, all-encompassing monitor.

You are aware that 70 degrees, is wider than 50 degrees aren't you?

Of course.. but what is your point? If you are referring to the photos above, don't worry, I haven't mixed them up. They are in the OP's post and are probably crops meant to show the zoom of smaller fovs. The images are different sizes but the actual planes are as they would appear at the relevant FOV.

LOD settings, or at least the way they are rendered, still does change because there are no longer as many pixels available to render a single object, forcing the engine to do things like turn planes into 'dots'.

and 70mm is narrower than 50mm, when talking photography... unfortunately, this isn't photography.

Here's some screenshots, taken at the same resolution and screen size for a more accurate comparison ->

and two more, just for giggles ->

All I can say is you're missing the point and need to re-read my posts and the OP.

I think you're getting sidetracked by the OP's attempt to find an ingame FOV equivalent to a 50mm photography lens. Ignore that, he was just making the point that 39 fov, for him, on his monitor, made for an almost 1:1 visual representation.

The important thing to note is that the upper picture is taken at 39 FOV ingame and the lower (despite being smaller, again, its cropping, ie, you are not seeing the full screenshots, but part of them! Just ignore that) at 70 FOV.

The thing to look for is the relative SIZE of the aircraft at the same ingame distances (50m out to 4km) - you will note that the aircraft appear SMALLER at higher FOV's despite being the same distance from the ingame camera. You can see the same thing in the photos you have posted - notice how distant planes appear SMALLER at higher FOV's? This makes them much harder to spot at long distance, because their size on your screen decreases more rapidly and they become dots sooner.

Now look at the 3km and 4km distant aircraft in both the photos I provided. Remember, ingame, these are at the same distance. Notice how at 70 FOV both those aircraft have turned into 'dots', and are very difficult to spot, yet at 39 FOV they are both still models/tiny horizontal lines that are much more apparent?

THAT is what I am talking about when I say that the LOD rendering is different between 70 and 30 fov and that aircraft are MUCH easier to spot at 30 FOV than 70 FOV (provided you are looking in the right place).

that's why the models (at least for the airplanes, should be scaled up to 200% in size for the 70 FoV in order to have the same apparent size as at 30 FoV.

they did it that way for MS CFS, and it was good. When flying in formation, you really felt like flying in formation, a feeling you can't get in IL2 unless you are touching the wing of your flight mate.

I believe that is exactly what I was saying and it does this because of the way the image shifts to accommodate the larger FoV on the same size window (screen)


LoD (as such) doesn't change though (is the LoD not determind by ingame distances?)... image size gets reduced by the larger number of pixels drawn, as you said earlier " ~ or at least the way they are rendered ~ "


60 degrees is much closer to normal human (looking straight ahead) vision. than 70

Yes.

Those pictures were made with the help of 3DStudio where Tamat (a great 3D modeller btw) made a box to rappresent the 109 size. Then he reported to me his "on screen" length of this object at different fov (we have similar monitors)... so I could use a 2D software to copy/paste the resized CloD's 109s on a screenshot.

and a more representative (comparative) view is achieved by using images at the same size, aspect ratio and resolution.

The dots seem to be drawn sooner, and perhaps too early, at wider FOV's.

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

I can take ingame screenshots of distant aircraft at different FOV's in order to demonstrate this behaviour.

Which FOV is most realistic? I don't know the answer to that, but in reality aircraft do seem considerably easier to spot from most angles


Very interesting point on MS CFS, I did not think it was possible to render aircraft at a larger size while still retaining the correct proportions.


EDIT: On the LOD point, from the OP's screenshots, the distance at which dots (which I regard as part of the LODs) were used seemed smaller at wider FOV's.

I don't know exactly how LOD's are used but they could be tied to distance (in which case they wouldn't change with FOV) or size in pixels (in which case they would). It probably isn't all that important a point though since the size in pixels of an aircraft is larger with a smaller FOV anyway, and all that will happen is that we lose a small amount of model detail (no biggie).

yes, which is what happens when switching to smaller or larger FoV in comparison to what is defined as the "normal" FoV
(putting a larger image onto the same size projection surface, that being the screen, which in effect squishes everything and the inverse when projecting a smaller image onto that same size surface, screen, which enlarges everything - distances all being relative)



No, not sooner but because of the distortion associated with switching to the larger FoV when switching up from what has been defined as the normal FoV, smaller.
(putting a larger image onto the same size projection surface, that being the screen... so obviously switching to a larger FoV, from normal FoV, does not help with scanning for targets)



incorrect and smacks of the old "we can't spot the dot" whinge



Already been done and the distortion associated with the different FoV (in comparison to what has been defined as normal) is apparent



60 degrees



eh?



well, there you go


There's no LoD (as such) change... its rendering - - related



*EDIT


That's right


due to the distortion of FoV's other that what was defined as normal




Glad you're getting it ;)

Wolf Rider, for someone who has consistently failed to understand another's points you are being awfully cocky and very rude.

You also make broad based assertions such as "60 fov is correct" (and pray tell, how do you know this?) "you are whining, the dots are not too hard to spot compared to real life" (again, how the hell can you say that? Ever flown an aircraft?) and "the LODs do not change at all between FOVs" (did you program the engine?).

I am getting quite sick of debating this nonsense with you considering I have to spell everything out and then still have you come back a jerk. Can you tell me what all that "do you know 70mm is narrower than 50mm" nonsense was about? Don't want to because it would make it obvious that your comprehension skills were severely lacking? Then don't come back saying I am "finally getting it".

Show some respect and make your point, then shut it. If that point is that we SHOULDNT be switching from 70 fov to 30 fov because 60 fov is realistic, then PROVE IT or accept that I will REJECT IT.



Oh and finally, here's a pop quiz - my monitor is some 20 inches across approximately 1 metre from my face. Using your analogy of a window, what is the approximate angle of vision, or "field of view", that such a surface occupies in my field of vision?

What should I set my monitor's FOV to in order to approximate 1:1 representation with my real vision? Does this change if I physically move closer to the monitor?

Here's a hint; it isn't exactly 60 degrees, and in this case its likely to be a LOT less (I estimate about 23.5 degrees of my field of vision is covered by my monitor, meaning that I would need to set my FOV to 23.5 to see 1:1 as I would in a real aircraft - compare this to our almost 180 degree forward facing field of vision and you can see why, as gamers, we have to alternate between a wider fov for situational awareness and a narrower one for 1:1 aircraft spotting).

So what you are saying is that even though the airplane appears smaller at higher FOVs, and thus smaller for any given distance, it will still switch to being a 'dot' at the same distance and will thus not appear as a dot sooner?

So if I have a plane that is 2 pixels across and 4km distant at 39 fov, tell me - how will it look at 4km distance but 70 fov? It will be a dot, wont it! And if its a dot at 70 fov but not at 39 fov, then what I said was exactly right - the dot appeared SOONER, or rather, at less distance from the ingame camera. And thats really what we are talking about. Remember that I regarded this as part of the LODs, because dots are NOT just ordinary rendering - ordinary rendering engines would soon stop drawing even the dot. The game is likely forcing the engine to keep drawing a dot and when that dot appears and dissapears may or may NOT be tied to distance, pixel size or some other criteria like resolution or fov.

To see what I mean, ask yourself these questions;
Do the dots appear and dissapear at the same distance on 1024x768 and 3900x1500 (example) resolutions? (for that matter, are they even the same size or smaller at high resolutions?)
Do the dots appear and dissapear at the same distance at 30 fov and 90 fov?
Do the dots appear and dissapear at the same distance when graphic options are set to high or low?

Etc.

who is being rude??


I think, when it come to making a judging on another, what you are really doing is just looking at yourself in a mirror and making the judgement based on who you see there ... "jerk"? ineed

Name calling just suggests you have no firm basis for argument


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.

yet you say 39 degrees is normal and to use zoom... this is just another can't spot the dot whinge thread - pure and simple

The human eye can see up to approx 180 degrees, side to side, without moving the eyes or head - total vision
Vision in each eye is less than this and approx 90 degrees off the side with about 60 to the inside (bridge of the nose gets in the way) inverse for the other eye. up and down varies and is slightly less again. Most have the higher angle though is comprised or the peripheral vision.

put a book in front and you'll be able to read it... put it off to the side, and with holding the eyes straight ahead, you may see the book but you won't be able to read it. The range at which the book will be able to be read consists of an angle of about 60 degrees.

The other bit which needs to be taken into account, is the screen is not photography... it is projection.

If you move closer to your screen... it gets closer, that's all that happens

Do you REALLY want me to go quoting what you said that was rude, presumptuous and just plain off? I have so many better things to do! Here's a couple just in your last post:
You'd best trust me on this though; there are things YOU said that upset me. Not a mirror reflection of myself, not my own mind. YOU came across as rude when you asked over and over whether I knew what fov and mm specs in photography were, whether I knew what LOD's were, and by suggesting I needed to be re-educated on how LOD's work. Don't divert responsibility for that, because ultimately you did all that intentionally because you failed to see past your own points.

Take your 60 fov assertion for example. Its just astounding that you can ram it in my face as if everyone's monitor sizes and viewing distances led to the same fov setting. To then call me whiny for suggesting I DON'T see aircraft as easily in a game set to 70 fov on a 20 inch screen a meter from my face that occupies just 25 degrees of my vision as I do in real life is just - well, breathtakingly arrogant. By the way, 39 fov is what the OP said was normal for his screen (lucky OP!). On my 22" CRT at a viewing distance of 1m or so, its actually about 25 fov (ouch!). Small monitors need smaller fovs.

Just ponder this - if you look at my posting history, do I seem to anger easily? What do you think it takes to make me upset or angry, apart from what I've just told you, that is?

Finally, why don't you try and find when I last participated in a so called "can't spot the dot whinge thread". Heck, try and spot when I whinged at all that the dot was hard to see! I tell you what, I won't be whinging if I can't see a dot! I will switch to the correct 1:1 fov for my monitor and simply spot the aircraft as close to the way I would in reality as I can get. It seems to me that YOU are the one whining about my suggestion to reduce fov when spotting.


Anyway, let's let bygones be bygones and try and reach some amicable conclusion.

To that end, I wonder about your use of 'zoom', as distinct from fov. Could you elaborate how we can zoom in a game without reducing the fov? Is there a rendering function other than fov used for this purpose?

The suggestion that aircraft be rendered larger than other objects at the same fov as in MS CFS was intriguing although I don't know how that looks or is possible. I will look at videos of MS CFS to enlighten myself, and perhaps that's the best overall solution.

But if Cliffs of Dover and IL2 don't already do that, then in the absence of another solution I can only say that switching back and forth between 1:1 fov's for a person's monitor setup and 70/90 fov for situational awareness is simply the last best solution.

It may be that you are concerned that this suggestion may be regarded as 'cheating' if either people use smaller fov's than 1:1 (say 20 fov when 40 fov is realistic on their monitor setup) and thus effectively zoom their view or if most people stay at the wider 70/90 fov. To this I can only say that it is a valid concern, however, it is really no different than the advantage someone with a 50" plasma a metre from their face has over me with my 22" CRT, and given that it results in reduced SA, it is outweighed by need. Perhaps its also about self control and voluntarily doing what is realistic.

In my case, however, even 30 fov is a wider presentation than what I would see in reality.

go on then... let's see if it was rude or not - accept the challenge

at the moment though, it does appear to be just another "the dots are too small and the tracking is too hard" thread


oh, and thank you for the edit on the above... I guess you realised I only asked once

Now, where you and others are getting it wrong, is looking at it from a perspective of photography (and yes the same arguments have come up before (on another "the dots are too small" thread). From the perspective of photography, is wrong. It needs to be looked at from the perspective of projection.... because that is what the monitor screen is - a projection screen.

? Btw, I do edits as a matter of course. Expect them, they happen on almost all my posts within the first few minutes of posting.

I provided two examples above and this is yet another. At this point your rudeness has already been amply demonstrated. Yet you persist.

Oh and, have you found an example of my participating in such threads or even complaining about dots, rather than just suggesting that people switch between fovs and YOU whining about my suggesting it?

As always, I am ready to listen.

What fov should I set my 22" CRT at 1m viewing distance to in order to have 1:1 presentation?

I desire to set my fov to create a window in front of me (the monitor) that will present objects at exactly, or as close as I can get it, the same size as I would see from a similar window in reality. My monitor only occupies about 23.5 degrees of my field of view, however.

To date I have been working on the assumption that I must set the 'field of view' of the game to equal the 'angle of view' that my monitor occupies in order to reach a realistic 1:1 presentation. If you have another methodology, please enlighten me on this. And don't just say '60 fov' unless you can explain how a monitor presenting a 60 degree field of view from a game occupies the same 60 degree angle of view on all monitor setups despite vastly different monitor sizes and viewing distances.

I realise the specification of my problem may be quite complex, so if you'd like, I can draw a quick picture to demonstrate my reasoning.

30mm focul length I think you mean, what you see in real life ia a 180 degree FoV with an effective FoV of approx 60 degrees. 30 degree FoV in real life would be myopia/ tunnel vision

i think anti-aliasing and anisotropic filtering play a big part in it, as well as how well you're monitor differentiates between shades in fast-motion scenes.

dots can only be as small as 1 pixel, and on a 27" screen at 1920x1080 1 pixel is fairly big... so the problem isn't the size of the dot, but how fast you're monitor can change from the colour of the water or ground to the colour of the dot.

No, I am not talking in photography mm terms.

What I said was this; my monitor occupies 23.5 degrees of my 180 degree field of vision. On this monitor is projected a game (Cliffs of Dover) that presents 30 degrees of view from the perspective of the ingame camera.

This means that I have 30 degrees of hypothetical view presented on just 23.5 degrees of my ACTUAL view - ie, it is wider than it should be, and not a 1:1 presentation.

I have drawn a picture to illustrate this problem. How would you solve it?

http://i40.tinypic.com/34sno00.jpg

Youre right of course, a very big part of this is screen contrast, blurring/lag, resolution, screen size and how far away from your face it is. Part of it affects the effective size and thus visibility of the 'dot' (assuming it is just 1 pixel), and the other affects the effective size of the surface you are viewing the game on.

There is a wide variety in all these factors which, of course, is why some people have more difficulty (apart from eyesight) seeing the 'dots' or aircraft generally ingame than others.

you included something after your original claim?? come now, do get a grip... try finding something before you made your claim


I never said "you" personally... I said the subject has come up before... and you complain of others' comprehension?



reading, perhaps would be a better approach



irrelevant, as now matter how far away from, or however close to your monitor you sit, the same FoV is going to be displayed

I desire to set my fov to create a window in front of me (the monitor) that will present objects at exactly, or as close as I can get it, the same size as I would see from a similar window in reality. My monitor only occupies about 23.5 degrees of my field of view, however.

[/QUOTE]


If you want that, then you'll need a simpit and a multi-monitor/ wrap around screen


the 1:1 representation, you won't get without a simpit and multi-monitor/ wrap around screen.


yes, look at from projection and not photography, which I have tried to get across before, yet for whatever reason you seem to not consider that (or at least there has been no comment)
With whatever size monitor the ratio of FoV projected image to screen will be the same.
ie the cockpit will take up just as much space on a small monitor as it will a large monitor, with the only difference being in pixel resolution and staircasing


Draw away, I would be genuinely interested

Please answer the following question:

http://i40.tinypic.com/34sno00.jpg

(In case this leads to confusion, the window on the right is a view from a real aircraft looking out, and its what I am trying to match on my monitor on the left.)

Why can I achieve a 1:1 representation with multiple monitors - by presumably stacking them until they make up 70 degrees of my 180 degree field of view, but cannot achieve the same thing with 1 monitor by reducing the ingame field of view?

Here you go...

What is the answer in degrees.

It is no mistake to say both the window and monitor occupy 23.5 degrees of my field of view.

In fact, it is the specification for the question. The monitor and window are of the same size and distance from the viewer. They occupy the same portion of the viewer's viewing angle. This portion is 23.5 degrees out of the viewer's 180 degree field of view. You must answer with that in mind.

That is where you are continuing to look at it incorrectly... the monitors sits within your (human eye) range of vision, which is approx 180 (actually a tiny bit les, but 180 for round numbers). It is a projection screen, that is all it is

So does the window. It is just as large and sits just as far from me as the monitor. For our purposes it might as well be a projection screen also. So if I want to see the same thing on the monitor as I would see out the window, what is the required FOV setting ingame?

Come on, its a numerical and rather simple answer. I won't necessarily want to play the game like that, just like I wouldn't want to fly a plane out of a 22" window a metre or so in front of me, but there IS an answer.

In fact, all you need to do is look at the answer you gave me and the lines you drew for 90, 70 and 30 fov there - then compare them to fov lines you could draw out the aircraft window - to know the answer.

It doesn't work that way on a projection though, which is the part I feel your not grasping... because, for one, the screen doesn't take into account binocular (two eye vision). If it did, and when you focused your eyes on a target plane very close to you, the background would blur/ double over depending on how far away what was behind what you focused on and then again behind that.
and you 3rd paragraph relates to two differnt scenarios. Why? because one is proejection and the other is real world

This is all irrelevant. But who cares; heres the one eye open version.

Solve for result in degrees. Remember, no stereoscopic vision with one eye ;)

And in case you object about being able to see to infinity, lets say both the monitor AND window has a Fresnel lens in front of it ;) (look it up if you dont know what the result of that is)

Do you at least know what answer I am getting at? Can you at least name the answer that is in my mind, in degrees?

http://i43.tinypic.com/2ll0olv.jpg

No, its not irrelevant. two eyed vision does make it easier to spot movement at distance (and yes, there have threads on bi-ocular vision being introduced come up before)

same result as your previous picture

monitors don't have Fresnel lenses though, as standard, and as far seeing to infinity goes... yes the eye can see a fair way out but detail of objects aren't seen to infinity and those which are on their way there, in moving away, slowly fade to grey.


*EDIT (for your late entry

IF I sit at the window, I see up to 180 degrees... but a monitor isn't a real world window, where how much can seen is determined by how near or distant the person looking out it is and if I have a big big window, I can see much much more without having to be so close, such is the real world. Unfortunately though, a monitor won't display these qualities. Why? because it is no more than a projection surface

That result being, in degrees?

Are you saying that the FOV I need to set ingame differs based on whether or not I have a fresnel lens in front of my monitor?

And anyway, surely you can at least tell me what answer I am thinking of?

read the above.... go on, its easy

If I sit in front of a window or monitor of the same size, yes, I see up to 180 degrees, but NOT of what is outside the aircraft or on the screen. How much of my vision, most of which is occupied by the useless interior of my room/aircraft, is actually able to see what is happening outside/in the game?

Yes, if I MOVE in relation to my monitor or the window, I change HOW MUCH of my field of vision is occupied by the monitor/window, and in the aircraft, this changes my FOV OUTSIDE the window. But the FOV of the monitor does NOT change, which is where these two differ. Such is the limitation of technology.

But you forget its not about the window or the fact that you might need to change your fov if you decide to sit closer to your monitor. What this is about is this - if I sit at this distance and angle and look at a monitor of this size, how much FOV do I need to set to get a 1:1 view with a window of the same size and distance?

PLEASE tell me you at least know what answer I am looking for!


EDIT: Here are some resources from valve to help: https://developer.valvesoftware.com/wiki/Field_of_View

Note the following;
Do you notice how they DON'T say the correct FOV is 60 degrees, and they refer, just like me, to the size of the player's screen and how far away from it the player is?

you see, your monitor is not your window... different physics




nooo... if you move closer to your monitor, it gets bigger and if you move closer to you wnidow, you see more of the outside world through it.


No again... you change how much you see, as the restriction of the window bounds reduce


Insert "restriction" for "FoV" here and this is what has been said before



You might want to reconsider this bit in regard to your previous postings


you'll need a simpit



why keep harping, when it has been gone over and over?


https://developer.valvesoftware.com/wiki/Field_of_View
EDIT: Here are some resources from valve to help: https://developer.valvesoftware.com/wiki/Field_of_View

Note the following;


Do you notice how they DON'T say the correct FOV is 60 degrees, and they refer, just like me, to the size of the player's screen and how far away from it the player is?

[/QUOTE]


they say "set to 75 degrees by default"

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?

Both follow the same optical principles apart from the angles at which the light comes, which can be corrected by fresnel lenses.

You do realise we are saying the same thing here?

Which is an increase in the field of view OUTSIDE the window!

No I was talking about INGAME FOV there. Might have been confusing just saying 'fov', sorry.

No, it was correct.

No, i wont. I can achieve an optically correct perspective (aside from screen curvature) at ANY size screen and viewing distance. I just need to set the right FOV ingame.

Because you apparently don't get it.

Not for an 'optically correct perspective' they don't.

Remember that FOV in games is a TRADEOFF between WIDE angle views (that are still not as wide as in reality) and 1:1 perspective/detail, which suffers because obviously things get smaller and less detailed the wider the FOV.

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.

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




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

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

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:

http://i40.tinypic.com/35n3eb8.jpg

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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



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

Come on out, agenda, nice to see you in the light! So you WERE trolling then. You seem most aware of exactly what I meant.

So would you support clamping down on monitors larger than 20 inches or using lower resolutions too, because it is an 'underhand' way of increasing dot sizes?

70/90 fov simply does not allow for realistic spotting of aircraft at realistic distances.

Since 30 fov is much closer to realistic visual acuity, it is what I will continue to use, whether you like it or not, to simulate as closely as possible the distance at which a pilot would be able to spot another aircraft.

And, unlike changing dot sizes, it does not hinder your game.

But it DOES exist with much higher visual acuity, leaving me with the job of choosing either a wide field of view for realistic situational awareness or narrow field of view for realistic visual acuity, BOTH of which are absolutely crucial to a real pilot.

And that choice is down to me, not you.

By the way, you are missing the most valuable part of this, which is it doesnt actually increase DOT sizes - your screen resolution remains the same, and if an aircraft is so far away that it appears as a dot, it will STILL be just as small a dot.

What decreasing FOV actually does is make many aircraft that would be very small models or dots still appear as models - meaning you have to keep searching with all the usual factors, like camouflage, heading and reflectiveness, still affecting your ability to spot the aircraft. This makes for a MUCH more realistic portrayal of spotting very distant aircraft than simply looking for tiny dots.

Actually, its your agenda which has ben shown up... and you said yourself the narrower FoV does change dot size

What's that - that I wish to use two different FOVs to simulate realistic visual acuity and aid in spotting aircraft? :-P

I thought I made that pretty clear!

And no, narrower FOV does not make 'dots' bigger. It makes those aircraft that would otherwise be 'dots' still appear as aircraft models, making it more realistic (and easier) to spot them.

A 'dot' is still a dot (ie pixel), except now it might not appear until 5 or 6km instead of just 3 or so.

And lastly, and I can't overstate this, at the end of the day that really is how big and easy aircraft are to spot for real pilots. Why should I be squinting and straining my eyes to spot things that would be immediately obvious to my eyes in reality? That's not simulation, that's analism for the sake of hyper competitive online afficianados. I can spot BIRDS in general aviation more easily than aircraft in this "simulation"!

and there it is again... bigger and easier




and some more...

yes,
its a very underhanded cheat and I pity them

And REALISTIC!

What's your deal anyway? Why does this bother you? (not like I don't already know)

Plus, I thought you know what I was saying ALL ALONG? OR did you JUST figure this out?

I have been advocating the use of alternating narrow and wider fovs in order to make spotting aircraft EASIER with my very first comment in this thread. Albeit I proved that this is actually more realistic. What on earth did you think I was talking about all this for - to make spotting aircraft HARDER? Would that be more realistic in your warped view?


Finally - tell me, how big is your monitor, what is it's resolution and how far away do you sit from it? Do you use track ir, do you change FOV's to 'zoom in' (which Btw YOU YOURSELF advocated earlier!)?

All those things can give you a big edge over other players, and in a sense mandate others to do the same. But it would not be sensible to say that they should not be part of the sim. If that is what you are concerned about in the first place.

For my part, I don't even play online, although I most certainly WOULD use 30 fov to zoom in if I did.

Nah, I figured it in the first couple of posts...


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




I think you may find I said something slightly different...

unless of course, you gotten yourself a tad confused and where thinking back to this one?

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.

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?

Really? Care to explain the following then;
Last post for now.

its amazing how the label "troll" comes up when someone is caught out and in reference to someone who isn't agreeing with the name caller. Name calling just says "no firm basis of argument"

and the old favourite... falsehoods

{wide angle, in reference, is for 90, which is wider than normal FoV 70... but in essence, user adjustable FoV alltogether)

hmmm, yes.. I do believe I did say something different, and with the last paragraph (meaning normal FoV), it seems there is something we may be in agreeance on

"Having objects at real size" was already discarted in my first posts IIRC.

Yes we can use a fixed 60° fov using a correct distance from our monitors... but here are some questions: how fast can our eyes rotate to gain SA on the peripherical vision sectors? How can we be aware of object moving in those sectors?

Eyes' movement speed is not reproducible with POV, mouse or TrackIR. With larger fovs you get a better awareness of the terrain around you, so that you can navigate in a correct way simulating the eyes movement.

All this thread is not about having a correct size on screen: it's giving the player the right informations untied from the current fov the player is using (and configurations as screen, resolution ect...). I just want a virtual hud about the virtual pilot sensations and conditions.

Lets think about the simulation of the virtual pilot's fatigue/stamina: this is a really important thing in WW2 airwarfare because of G effects, mission's length, pilot's wearing, controls' hardness. How can we know how much "tired" our pilot is?
We need a onscreen rollaway "bar" that give the player that information: it does not need to stay on screen all the time ruining the purist of the ingame immersion.

What about the G effect? What about the chaos during a spin? Does stick's hardness still needed to be simulated as FAKE lost of autority of the control surfaces (IL2 109's elevators)?

These are my priorities in a combat flight sim: 3D models' fidelty, the colors of landscape are welcomed, but they are not what distinguishes a simulator from an arcade game. All these ohhhh and ahhhh to the screenshots make me angry since the FMs and DMs are still wrong, with disappearing LOD you can't use realistic tactics... the best simulator... pfff...

Because of this I stated (as many others) that I'm going to play CloD until things above will be fixed (realistic target visibility is no mandatory to just play the game as an arcade one).

So, returning to the issue about visibility, zoom is needed to have the right definition of the object... calling it a cheat is ridiculous since our eyes have not the same resolution of our monitor.
Dots are pixels between hundreds changing pixels and without the focusing capabilities of our eyes they can'be tracked...

The real cheat is the guys flying a low altitude over the forest to literally disappear: no, camo is not so magical...

?

If by 'caught out' you mean someone who didn't know the first thing about FOV and couldn't answer the most basic questions, yabbering on about 'projection' vs 'photography', then yeah, I caught you out.

Otherwise, you are literally the biggest and most obnoxious moron I have met on these forums and you still don't see where you went wrong. That's not name calling. It's calling a spade a spade.

Congrats, you just made the ignore list.


Manu, I read your suggestion and it is interesting but it is not in the game as is and might be obtrusive. Switching between FOV's while using trackir is practical, simple and works well, hence why I think it is the most practical solution at the moment.

As long as we agree on one thing - and that is that objects on screen are NOT being displayed at their real size and are NOT as easy to spot as in reality (depending on monitor size, viewing distance and other factors) - which is apparently beyond some to admit - then I believe we can move forward with suggested solutions.

To be so hung up on multiplayer gameplay that you wish to insult players by suggesting they are cheating or whining when they use narrower fov's or to try and guilt them out of or prevent them from doing so for your benefit is just unacceptable imho. I don't want to play online with players who will reduce the realism of the sim to protect their vested interests. And obstructing more realistic methods of spotting aircraft is doing just that.

wow... you're certainly rattled and still name calling... wow, and also off target
Spotting other aircraft in real life, is not as easy as you think, or want it to be either, so yeah - do keep trying, or rather crying that you "can't spot the dot".


I believe that was, effectively, "flashing neon arrows"

What was? What are you referring to?

And what about the thread you linked above?

BTW have you read the documents provided by this thread?

I already had a long discussion with you on another argument, I know well your troll-like attitude, but I'm a patient guy so please explain yourself.

the game provides a variable FOV... i think that's really the only compromise that works, since most people don't have 8000x4500 resolution 60" full depth perception giving monitors...

hmm, the label has come out early...

anyways - here is your, effectively, "flashing neon arrows".

Not early enough... be sure. ;)

Ok, please explain the reason for which you are against a rollaway icon like that.

why not just a developer determined (60 ~ 75 degree), and locked FoV and binoculars?

You want realistic? that's your boy ;)

Manu, don't reason with the trolls, just put them on the ignore list where they belong.

OF all his posts, there is not one I can say I gained from by reading. He has come into this thread, and likely many others, with only one aim, and that is to whine as hard as possible about anyone who uses a fov narrower than his magical 60 degrees.

He has no understanding of piloting and spotting a real aircraft, has no clue what he is talking about when it comes to anything fov related, and has no idea how good a pilot's eyes should be, but he sure as hell WILL come in here to tell us that a 22" monitor 1 metre from our face occupying just 22 degrees of our vision should be set at no less than 60 fov in order to be 'realistic', and that spotting a single pixel on a 22" plane 1 metre from our face which has, for most people, at least 1,920,000 of them is a most realistic way to spot aircraft!

The guy is from another planet.

What happened, that didn't last long... can't you find the buttton for Ignore, or did your list spring a leak or something??

in any regard, that was a dollar I didn't mind losing


Just admit it; you don't really want realism, you just want bigger easier spotting aaand if you really did want realism - you be have a cockpit frame mock up sat in front of your open cockpit view on your screen so you could see around the confines of the cockpit frame.

Having just done a bit more flying and switching between 70 and 30 fov, it is actually EASIER to spot dots in 70 fov, in some cases, than 30.

So the concerns of wolf and ilk are completely misplaced. Zoomed fov can actually make spotting aircraft more difficult, although double checking on the nature of a dot/contact is much easier.

FoV doesn't zoom... binoculars do though, bringing an element of higher level flying difficulty (realistic) with them ;) as well as tracking (re-aquiring).

While being as uncondescending as possible, I suggest you review your understanding of what FOV is, how it and binoculars work and what they have in common.

Let's just say that both 'zoom' by taking a small angle of our field of view and re-focussing it to take a larger portion of that field of view.

Small FOV's do this by rendering only a small part of the ingame view and having it cover the full viewing plane/monitor, which would normally display a much wider view.

Binoculars do this by taking light from a small part of our field of view and realigning and refocussing it to take a larger portion of our retina.

The principle however, in both cases, is the same. And perhaps once you understand why, you will grasp why FOV needs to match the field of view taken by your monitor in order to present a 1:1 view.

Then maybe you can end your insistence on 60 being the 'perfect' fov and opposition to the practice of switching between FOV's and realise that, like all viewing technologies, FOV is a compromise compared to our real world visual acuity. We don't do it to make the 'dots bigger' (it actually makes them smaller relative to everything else and much harder to spot) but in order to prevent things becoming dots in the first place and to see everything more clearly like it would appear in real life.

no, its not the same principle (FoV v's Binoculars) not by a long shot - try again

Do you have anything to substantiate this or are you just going off hyperbole?

Please explain how binoculars work, and how FOV works.

It seems to me the 30 fov makes the cockpit and frame appear the correct size and removes the distortion seen in the wing angles. Planes flying in formation with you also appear at the correct distance and size along with better detail.

The further away objects and landscapes are then the less difference a change in fov seems to make.

The biggest drawback of a narrow fov is that the view of close to middle distances is somewhat restricted giving a strong feeling of lost situation awareness. Is this problem removed at all when using a three monitor setup with its much increased peripheral vision?

Do you? (and derision doesn't count ;) )


The sim would have to be coded correctly for the tighter FoV to be projected correctly onto the wider 3 monitor set-up... else your just projecting the same image as would go onto a single monitor (screen) onto the wider (screen) and cropping the top and bottom.

Yes, I can explain at length with resources.

But last time I did that, it was a waste of time. Do you actually care? Or are you just going to continue insisting that 60 fov is the only 'correct' fov, regardless of user setup?

I think if you took the time to understand what binoculars and fov do in terms of occupying your angle of vision, than you might well see why being able to attain a 1:1 view is at least useful for simulating a pilot's view. And as I said, its not even about larger dots - those are actually smaller - but about more details being visible and planes remaining models farther out.

Frankly, if dots were realistic to begin with, you would never see them at 70 or 90 fov.

Thank you, you've just made a mockery of everything you've said before (especially so considering your edited out "testing the switching" comments, you took out of your prvious post).

What "testing the switching" are you talking about?

And as for mockery - maybe in your mind. With a limited comprehension. And even then it requires an extra ordinary commitment to trolling (which you certainly have).

Let me explain something. Do you know what 'dots' are? Do you know how they work? Do you realise they are a modification of how the engine would normally render a distant object?

In CoD (and IL2), as a plane becomes distant the engine will render it as a model (with LOD steps) until it gets so small that it only covers a single pixel, and then none. If the renderer were left to its own devices, this would mean aircraft would totally disappear at a range of just a few kilometres.

Of course, if you used a 1:1 lod - like say 23 fov when your monitor occupies 23 degrees of your vision - then aircraft would appear as models much further out and disappear altogether much later, giving a more realistic portrayal of a pilot's view and job of spotting aircraft.

But 1C know that nobody wants to play with 23 fov permanently and that pilots can spot aircraft much more easily than in the game. Let me repeat that - 1C KNOW that they need to make spotting easier in order for it to be realistic. Virtual pilots need a method of spotting distant aircraft from a wide fov like 70 or 90, and the method chosen is 'dots'.

When an aircraft is so distant that it would normally occupy a single pixel or less, what 1C has their renderer do is instead draw the object as a spot of pixels of a high contrast colour, or 'dots', in the hope that these will be easier to spot and roughly represent a pilot's ability to spot aircraft. The important thing to note is that dots are an artificial rendering method.

What this means is that even when players are viewing at wide fovs - which are necessary given current monitor technology - they will be able to spot aircraft (hopefully) roughly as far as actual pilots. So in other words - you are ALREADY being given an aid to spotting, and this aid is ARBITRARY. It is foolish of you to suggest that at 60 fov the view and 'spotting dots' is somehow inherently realistic.

The trouble with dots is that, as most players well know, they are very resolution dependent. And this is where the controversy comes from. It is actually easier to spot the dots at WIDER fovs - like 70 or 90 - than smaller fovs like 30, because the dots appear LARGER and CLOSER TOGETHER - obviously a very counter-intuitive way to display them. What this means is that the higher your resolution, the darker and more contrasty/harsh your monitor and viwing conditions, the smaller your screen and the further you are from it, the harder it is to spot aircraft. Worse, even if you suspect you saw a group of dots, zooming in with 30 fov to a roughly 1:1 view will make it harder to see those dots UNTIL they begin to render as aircraft.

So it is perfectly reasonable for people to ask whether the current dots are realistically difficult/easy to see, and whether they represent reality accurately. It is also reasonable for people to want to be able to switch to a 1:1 view to see the kinds of details that they would be able to see a pilot - hits on aircraft, details in the landscape, etc. It is also reasonable for people to ask whether dots are presently implemented in the best way they can be, and best approximate the spotting experience.

There is nothing in this that mocks my previous input on this. It only mocks your limited understanding and intolerant approach to spotting in IL2/CoD. For much of this thread you have based your vector of attack on the belief that smaller/zoomed fovs, like 30 fov, make spotting dots EASIER. But in actuality, it doesn't. And the people that use them - like myself, don't gain an unfair advantage to spot dots by using them and dont use them for that reason, although they do use them to make aircraft render further out and to see more detail in landscapes and gunnery.

What this means is that your argument is up shit creek without a paddle. Smaller fovs for 1:1 view are useful, have genuine uses and actually don't make spotting dots easier, and don't give unfair advantages for those players that use them. In fact, its harder to spot dots at lower fovs (which I think is yet another reason, along with the resolution-dependence of dots, why the system needs some review).

There is nothing inherently realistic about a wide fov, let alone something magical about 60 fov, and dots are already a crutch by the developer given to aid spotting, making debates about how realistically easy/difficult they are to see and how well they are implemented very much merited.

It is only fools like you, who oppose existing practice and dismiss all complaints blindly, that make a mockery of what spotting means in reality and in the sim.

just a keep sake, in case you decide to come back later and do some editing...


----------------`


The smaller the screen, the closer to flyer tends to sit to it - not the other way around...

"Dots" have come about because of monitor technology limitations, in recreating an aircraft dissappearing into the distance... the monitor (at this current technology) cannot reproduce what the eye actually sees - they aren't there to aid "spotting". You've even said so yourself: "In CoD (and IL2), as a plane becomes distant the engine will render it as a model (with LOD steps) until it gets so small that it only covers a single pixel, and then none"... the eye can seeat resolutions smaller than the screen pixel - you're limited by technology for accuracy

You want to do some "realistic" spotting? go to an airport and track the planes taking off (and take your binoculars ;) )


Switching to a smaller FoV, doesn't "zoom" in... it distorts the from the default FoV and slightly "fisheyes" the image, which is projected onto the same screen as the default FoV



age old il2 drama, in play

Run that by yourself again, and again, and again. If they aren't there to help us see aircraft that would otherwise be invisible at the given (generally very wide) FOV and resolution, then what ARE they for?

You do realise fisheye is a higher than usual FOV? Have you even tried to switch between 30/70/90 fov ingame?

You really insist on display a thorough lack of knowledge in the area.

What are you an idiot? Most people set their TV's and monitors at a certain distance given by the geometry of their desk or room, and they don't buy larger monitors and TV's in order to sit further from them! Why do you think people have triple monitor setups? To sit further back?

Just because you decide to sit a foot from your 22" CRT doesnt mean most people do, and that they won't therefore have a harder time seeing the dots than you.

;) keep trying son...

You are clearly a bit senile. I am not your 'son'.

Address the points in question or take it elsewhere. You're standing in the way of reasonable men and reasonable discussion.

who the heck are you to demand anything?? and I'd say (based on your past behaviour) you're anything but reasonable - reasonable men don't descend into derision and denigration

Why don't you keep your eye on the ball and explain how binoculars and fov works, what 'fisheye' means and what dots are for. Preferably with illustrations.

you said they're (binoculars and FoV) the same... and

define: "usual"




... why not you show us how they (binoculars and FoV) are the same? You made the claim... you back it up :grin:

I won't play this game. YOU said that going to 30 fov from 70/90 fov produces a 'fisheye' view! This is clearly wrong. Lower fov's do not produce a fisheye view, not to mention that fisheye implies a very large fov, not low fov. It is up to you to prove otherwise.

For example, fisheye lenses have about 6-20mm focal lengths, with fovs as high as 180-220 degrees. By contrast, telephoto (ie, zoom lenses) lenses have focal lengths of 85-300+mm and fovs from 30 degrees to less than 1 degree. In other words, lower fovs mean a zoomed view, and higher fovs mean a wider, even fisheye view, not the other way round!

Your knowledge is so rubbish here you don't even have the right direction for wide vs zoomed views and fov.

I will, as soon as you show me why I won't be wasting my time explaining it to you - nobody else has questioned this or desired an explanation. Everyone except you seems to understand the concept of a 1:1 view and why it is useful - and you're not exactly receptive to new ideas.

It seems you're the only one "playing a game"



Where did I say this and what did I say?





What... you can't explain how, how FoV and bionoclars, are the same??

Right here. You said it yourself - no zooming and fisheye views! Care to explain?

I could amuse myself by asking you why I would want to switch to a smaller fov if it didn't actually zoom the view (and make dots bigger, as you claimed), but its just so obvious that you won't take the hint.

As for explaining binoculars and fov - I stand ready, if you are willing.

From the perspective of PHOTOGRAPHY ~


1.3 Barrel and Pin-cushion distortion
The two typical lens distortion that occur are called barrel and pin-cushion distortion. They are named by the effect that they have upon an image, as shown in Figure 1.4. Barrel distortion is found in wide-angle views and it is the result of the squeeze that is applied in order to fit the image in a smaller space. On the other hand, pin-cushion is found in telephoto because of the stretching applied in the image in order to feet the space. The squeezing and the stretching of images vary radially due to the design of the lenses, making these distortions visually most prominent at the image corners and sides.



http://scien.stanford.edu/pages/labs...distortion.jpg

However... from the perspective of PROJECTION (which is what the image on the monitor is) the opposite applies.





Define: usual



I'm sorry that you seem to have forgotten that you made the claim - you need to present your reasoning there.

The opposite applies? Bullshit. Link for THAT claim please.

Oh, and - is a lower fov a zoomed image or not?

you need to understand the difference between capturing an image (photography) and displaying an image on a screen (projection) as decsribed before with regard to the virtual world on a two dimensional surface




and ahhh, yes - your CRT monitor...

IS A LOWER FOV A ZOOMED VIEW OR NOT!

Answer the question.

Also, provide a link to substantiate lower fov settings in games increasing fisheye (curvilinear) distortion. We are not talking about distortion inherent to CRT monitor projection. We are talking about distortion induced by changes in FOV INGAME. Do not teach what you do not know

tut -tut -tut -tut -tut

Come now, behave yourself - there's absolutely no need to go shouting

Well now isn't that cute, he thinks he's getting a rise out of somebody. That's what you want isn't it?

If you cannot answer the question, it is clear you should not be talking about this subject, so best you move aside, salvage what is left of your reputation and let the reasonable adults that otherwise occupy these forums discuss this without you.

So you got an answer yet, pops?

Didn't think so. But that's fine. I'll end this discussion here. With an explanation of binoculars and FOV.

http://www.binoculars.org/binocular-...field-of-view/
Check and mate.

You've already offered the "step aside" thing before... did you forget? I also at the time explained that reasonable men (now add adults) don't resort to derision and denigration... neither do they shout.

Put up what you have regarding your claim of FoV and binoculars being the same - go on, I double double dare you :grin: Your hand has been called

Already did.

Sure, you can keep at it. But I've already thoroughly debased your reputation and argument.

From this point out its pointless for me to debate you any further. If you want to obstruct mature discussion with your immature trolling, that talks volumes. As for reasonable men - they would not step aside from the duty to deride the despicable.

But I will give you an opportunity to redeem yourself and get some brownie points, if you can explain to me the role of the sensor/viewing medium, in conjunction with FOV, to create magnification. Ie - what IS magnification? Do you know?