So here you are showing that you didn't understand what this thread is about: it's not about what you (player) see, it's about what the pilot sees in a combat flight simulator that is not an expensive military simulator (they can have all they want... US army is spending $57millions on an infantry simulator).

When you pull a high G manouvre and the image on your screen blackens what's happening? It's the pilot's G-Lock, not yours.

When a shell pass through the cockpit it's the pilot the one who gets hurt, not the player.

Lets change sim:
In Arma2 your soldier is running and after 30 seconds he slows down: but you (player) are not tired...

Peripheral vision can't be reproduced? Really?

Take one of the old Quake games and change the fov to a great number like 180 (I remember playing at 90 probably)... then you have the same fov of a human being but things are distorted and smaller and you still see clearly enemies at your 3 and 9 o'clock.

It's easy for a graphic engine to reproduce peripheral vision with those settings: the game renders really detailed objects in front of you (60°) while on your left and right it renders approximate objects (like blurred shadows) that you need to put on your focus to recognize them.

Here's a Fisheye Quake image with fov at 170...
http://img837.imageshack.us/img837/2903/70779523.jpg

You only need to decide which's your priority: a realistic reppresentation of what a real pilot can see while he's looking through a 22" monitor (PPI 92) or a distorted one that give to you more important informations (but still not all of them, and these are the targets of this thread).

IL2's choice is between them. The 30fov and the 90fov are need to balance out the things because:

A) Objects in normal fov are smaller
B) The normal FOV is not bigger enough to have a realistic SA.

And then, about the zoom cheat we could talk about visual acuity, PPI and DPI... but I really got to work now...

Well said, I appreciated that explanation.

It is difficult to determine exactly what the OP is about, but what is clear is the topic seems to be on "we can't spot the dots" (yes its a topic which has come up from time to time in various forms over many years now.



Yes, that's right... it is simulated



That is correct for most games



depends on how long the player has been playing the game for... but basically, what you say is corrrect...



With a full wrap around screen it can, with the correct coding... but not sitting in front of a monitor



nooo, that is 180 degree FoV and explains clearly why those simmers want to run at as large a FoV as possible




Its still not "peripheral vision".



Normal in cockpit FoV is 70, not 30 or 90 and the distortion comes from switching to a FoV other than "normal", "what the pilot really sees" can only be "what the pilot really sees" on a full wrap around screen system and really... the snapshot is only a very large FoV projected onto the monitor


as mentioned earlier, that's why FPS simmers want to run as large a FoV as possible






Now, if your above remarks are for in favour of "what the pilot really sees", then your attempted points on peripheral vision should clearly indicate to you that a large Fov compared to your narrow FoV favoured, is also "what the pilot really sees"

So moving on Manu, have you given more thought or developed your idea?

I use a 46" lcd hdtv, and the supid dot doesn't get bigger, still stuck with a tiny dot up until you can smell the engine.. seriously,, the dot thingy is a big (tiny) problem..

Really? How far away do you sit and what is its resolution?