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).