Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider
re-read the reply... "peripheral vision" can't be recreated on a monitor which sits directly in front of you.
|
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...
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...