I like to fly ALL the add-ons with 0.50 zoom so I have more of a view at the runway especially in cockpits higher off the ground like the 744 and L1011 because on approach with a zoom factor of 0.71 I cant see the runway. This panel has some tilting resembling a Stearman view. Any way to fix it?
Last Edit: Dec 17, 2018 12:14:30 GMT by simpilo: corrected misspelling in title
Post by Mike Monce - HJG on Dec 17, 2018 18:46:46 GMT
So I looked at this with a lot of different planes: both L1011s, DC10s, several 747s (RFP, PMDG) and I do see something of what you are seeing but it varies with regard to the plane used.
First of all, park the L1011 somewhere where there is an unobstructed view of the horizon and then change the zoom..the effect is much less due to the fact that sitting close to a building and in a higher seating aircraft the zoom "looks" like it's tilting but it really isn't. I think what you are seeing is an artifact of how MSFS deals with the zoom. I will have to research this a bit more, but my impression is that the horizon zoom point seems to be related to the reference point of the aircraft. I don't think the [views] setting in the cfg changes the effect unless a drastic change in the vertical coordinate is made. It can also be affected by the VIEW_FORWARD_ZOOM in the panel cfg. Unless that line is in place it reverts to the default setting of 1.0 I believe.
However, my real question to you is why aren't you using the SHIFT+ENTER or SHIFT+BACKSPACE commands to raise and lower the pilot's seat if you are having trouble seeing the runway on landing? That's a much better way to adjust than adjusting the zoom level. I personally use .84 zoom, but I know that is dependent on your monitor. There has been some discussion on the various FS forums on setting the most realistic zoom. You could try a search for those. But again it will be monitor dependent. Frankly, using .5 zoom is a bit low in my opinion.
I guess I don't see any need for changing the panel or cfg. Again try adjusting the seat height.
As stated within both the manual and my own report ....
These L-1011 main panel panels are set at a standard zoom factor of "1.01".
That is the way they were designed by their original author.
HJG "did" not design these panels but improved them significantly by adding new and far more advanced features than was provided within their original concept.
Whilst the Main panel view ZOOM factor view setting can be adjusted .... if one desires .... it has also been clearly stated that this should not be set to any value of less that "0.85" .... or a distorted scenery horizon/perspective view will result.
For reasons already stated there is "nothing" we can do about this.
Our advice/recommendatioms therefore remain as earlier communicated and as follows ....
1. Use these L-1011 panels as intended.
2. Don´t stretch the scenery horizon line .... it´s not necessary and these panel were never intended/designed to be subjected to such an adjustments anyway.
3. In the event people choose "not" to take our advice and opt stretch their scenery horizon line/adjust the ZOOM FACTOR of their main panel views anyway .... THEN .... the resulting effect is something that "has to" be contended with .... HOWEVER .... and as evidenced within my internal report our elevated seat position/adjustment is (we feel) a satisfactory workaround/solution provided the main panel view ZOOM FACTOR isn´t reduced below a value of "0.85".
4. Subject to this minor imposition, but, also applying our recommended workaround solution too .... the end user is "not" disadvantaged in any way and all features represented within each of these L-1011 panels continue to function perfectly and result in an otherwise more than satisfactorily enjoyable experience.
Just to recap/reclarify everything ....
So long as the main Panel View Zoom factor is not set below a value of "0.85" (although the default "1.01" value is quite adequate .... IMHO stretching the scenery horizon results in a less authentic view perspective) RWY visibility during any approach to landing is "perfectly adequate".
Using these L-1011 panels one must also bear in mind the following ....
These are 2D (not VC) type panels .... so the main panel to outside scenery view is (at best) "artificial" anyway.
L-1011 aircraft (like DC-10's and A300B 's also) approach to land with a fairly high AOA .... a roughly 2.5* to 3.5* (degree) attitude on the AI .... the effect of this within any 2D panel can/will restrict forward visibility slightly .... but .... certainly not to the extent of RWY visibility being totally impaired .... provided the simulation is configured and is being flown properly to start with.
If .... forward visibility is ever impaired during any approach to landing .... and to such an extent that the RWY cannot be seen at all .... then .... that would primarily indicate (to me) that the approach to landing is being flown either too heavy, or too slowly, or with a combination of both influences ..... and which "will" cause the AI pitch attitude to increase beyond the recommended 2.5* to 3.5* (degrees). One needs to ensure that any approach to landing .... particularly with a full payload .... is not flown with more than 20% total fuel remaining and at not less than 148 KTS.
These details are all advised per the manual ..... particularly within its following sections .....
4.06: APPROCH TO LANDING - USING THE AP "AUTO-LAND" MODE
4.06-A: APPROCH TO LANDING - ALTERNATIVE PROCEDURE - USING THE AP "AUTO-APPROACH" MODE
A little care/refining of ones procedures can, and does, often work wonders
Post by aerofoto - HJG Admin on Dec 17, 2018 22:26:19 GMT
Just to reiterate upon what I've stated above .... if not having also repeated earlier ....
The following 2 L-1011 panel images were made by me this morning .... following my reply.
These were made at a couple of image at different stages during the approach to landing .... and which was undertaken with a simulated full payload and just 20% total fuel remaining .... stabilized at 148 KTS with full flaps .... and with an established 2 degree (approximately) AI pitch attitude.
The panel view zoom setting in each of these images remains at it's default value of "1.01" .... and I "have not" elevated the seat/scenery horizon view over the main panel either .... everything remains as per its "default view perspective" ....
As the above images should each illustrate .... RWY visibility is "not" a major problem .... "provided one is not overweight for landing or flying the approach too slowly and which will cause the nose/AI pitch attitude to drift higher and to the extent of restricting forward visibility.
Flying the approach to landing using these L-1011 simulations (and our DC-10's too) at the correct weight .... and at the correct airspeed .... at flap settings also .... is absolutely critical.
The panel view zoom setting can be altered (if one desires) .... BUT AGAIN .... this "is not" recommended or even necessary as it will adversely influence the panel to scenery view perspective .... as earlier and previously discussed
I would even recommend cautious elevation of the seat/scenery horizon view over the main panel too .... if applied at all .... and if use then apply no more than a single notch since this can result in too much visibility and a totally unrealistic view perspective when on the ground.
The above illustrated panel views are abut what they should be .... and are certainly what they're designed to be .... and which "isw not" practical for us to alter at this time
I essentially concur with Mike's opinion in regard to all of this
The following external images pretty much confirm the panel indications for the weight, airspeed, and flap settings mentioned .... and which all conspire to dictate the AI pitch attitude and ultimately the panel to scenery horizon view perspective also ....
Each of the above images were made during an AP controlled ILS/GS coupled auto-approach to landing with the A/L system engaged .... again with a simulated full payload and just 20% total fuel remaining .... stabilized at 148 KTS with full flaps .... and with an established 2 degree (approximately) AI pitch attitude.
Post by aerofoto - HJG Admin on Dec 23, 2018 23:53:00 GMT
hoping a change of heart on this comes in the future
It not the lack of any change of heart which see's us stuck with this "minor" anomaly .... we'd gladly do it "IF" we could .... but .... there's a limit to what we can do when we don't have the full source code that might promote our ability to be able to do so without potentially buggering up a lot of other things/ in the process
Just avoid setting that Main Panel View ZOOM factor to less than 0.85 .... if you feel you must adjust it at all because these panels (not our own basic design incidentally) were never really designed to accommodate such preferences
Post by Nathan Ford - HJG on Jan 4, 2019 7:48:46 GMT
If you look in the panel.cfg you will see the following entry
VIEW_FORWARD_EYE=0.000, 0.000, 0.000
VIEW_FORWARD_DIR=11.000, 0.000, 0.000
If you increase the value shown in red
VIEW_FORWARD_DIR=11.000, 0.000, 0.000
It will move your eyepoint down. At the moment it is set to 11 degrees down so try increasing that. A little bit of playing around will give you an angle that you will be happy with for the approach using your zoom factor choice of 0.50.
Remember though, that by changing this number, it will void any support to do with the panel as it is no longer what is being offered here on HJG.
Post by aerofoto - HJG Admin on Jan 5, 2019 23:27:52 GMT
Been away (back today only though) .... and will continue to be so over the next couple of weeks too .... but .... are just catching up with the great goings on here recently now
"NOT" trying to shoot down Nathan's suggestion .... by any stretching of the imagination, but, need to comment as follows ....
Adjusting the suggested VIEW related parameter might aid raising the scenery horizon line slightly .... BUT .... it won't resolve either of the known minor view related issues in regard to these L-1011 panels and which (for reasons already expressed) we've no control over.
Those issues are as follows ....
1. "IF" .... one opts to adjust the PANEL ZOOM value .... below 0.85 .... then this action will cause the scenery horizon to not only stretch to create a more distant horizon effect, but, will also cause the scenery horizon to begin receding below the bottom of panel windshield too .... and which, subject to continued reduction way below 0.85, will progressively even further restrict the panel/scenery view .... to such an extent that RWY "will eventually be" totally obscured.
2. As the PANEL ZOOM value is adjusted below 0.85 .... scenery at the peripheral edges of the panel view will also begin to distort too .... again in proportion to such continued reduction.
All of this's as presented within my above-linked full report
These L-1011 panels were not made by HJG. All we did (have been able to do) is outfit them with far more advanced systems and features than were represented within their original concepts, but, we've never been able to resolve either of the above view related issues .... which would likely require a complete rebuild of these panels in order to be addrssed successfully and once'n'for all. The likelihood of this ever happening though is extremely remote given we've never had access to the complete reference data for the original panel versions to start with.
Again .... adjusting the VIEW parameter (as suggested) may slightly raise the scenery horizon line .... but .... such action/s would probably work best using the default PANEL ZOOM value of 1.01 .... however .... it needs to be applied "cautiously" (if at all) or it could result in an exaggerated/higher elevated view over the scenery foreground (the view could then become more akin to that of an A380 or B747 .... much too high for an L-1011 if managed carelessly). It would however possibly require "just such an exaggerated view edit" in order to work in cases where people do opt (against our recommendations) to set their PANEL ZOOM values way less than 0.85.
Given the restrictions imposed upon us in regard to what HJG can currently achieve in respect of any further development of these L-1011 panels .... the best view related recommendations are as follows ....
1. Don't reset the PANEL ZOOM factor below its default 1.01 value .... it's really not necessary .... but more importantly (and as I seem to have to so constantly repeat lately ) .... it must be remembered that these L-1011 panels were not designed to be subjected to such PANEL ZOOM reductions anyway .... and it appears some people do still need to understand this.
2. Learn to flight plan properly .... plan fuel loadings so one doesn't arrive at one's destination airport with in excess of 20% total remaining fuel .... or .... a higher than desirable weight will result and cause the AI pitch attitude to increase beyond the recommended +2* to +3* degrees in conjunction with both flap extension and airspeed reduction prior to landing.
3. Learn to fly approaches to landing more exactingly (using either AP controlled ILS/GS with A/L and AT assistance .... or manually .... though the former is preferable for simulations such as the DC-10 and L-1011) .... airspeed, in conjunction with both flap extension and simulated weight, is also critical to ensure the best AI pitch attitude during any approach to landing. If one gets too slow .... then .... this, combined with any excess fuel weight factor (if one's too heavy), will conspire to cause the AI pitch attitude to increase beyond the recommended +2* to +3* degrees .... and may ultimately cause the RWY visibility ahead of the simulation to be even further restricted.
4. Always bear in mind these are 2D (not VC) type panels .... so .... the view perspective is "artificial" anyway .... and because aircraft such as the A300B, DC-10, and L-1011 do generally approach to land with a +2* to +3* degrees AI pitch attitude .... less forward visibility is always going to be a natural characteristic of these panels in comparison with the view perspectives associated with our other aircraft type panels.
As the above panel imagery confirms (among other data posted within the above linked earlier forum reports also .... each of which feature the default PANEL ZOOM value of 1.01) .... "IF" these simulations are flown properly/precisely as recommended .... then .... the view related perspective, whilst not perfect (and we do .... and have .... already acknowledged this), "is not" any major problem at all, but, what one ultimately experiences will always be determined by the way one opts to flight plan and how well one then flies at the end of the exercise
Hello, everyone. I've read with intense interest of changing the "view position" in the sim. I would like to pass on a couple of tidbits that are not obvious in the discussion on this thread.(at least not to me, anyway) The OP mentioned wanting to change his view out of the cockpit. All of the suggestions were excellent, and most thorough. IF the OP has FS2004, all of these suggestions are spot on! I should have no need to make any further comment. However;(semi-colon) If the OP has FSX, the key commands Mike gave, shift+enter and shift+backspace will not accomplish the desired results as these commands in FSX only affect VC panels.The key commands to raise or lower the 2D panel are CTRL+Shift+Q to raise the panel, or CTRL+Q to lower the panel and allow a better view out of the cockpit. These keystrokes are not documented in the help pulldown in FSX, however, they can be found with our friend Google. M$ in their infinite wisdom just couldn't leave well enough alone and just had to change a few key commands to mess with our minds.. Hope this clarifies this post should anyone else be having this problem in FSX and wonder why some of the suggestions don't work.. Blue Skies.......Terry
Post by aerofoto - HJG Admin on Jan 10, 2019 20:11:38 GMT
The key commands to raise or lower the 2D panel are CTRL+Shift+Q to raise the panel, or CTRL+Q to lower the panel and allow a better view out of the cockpit
That's correct .... and thanks Terry
We are aware of it .... and that information was actually communicated within another posting on the same subject (not linked above) .... but .... as we are essentially an "FS2004" website (with FSX portability and/or compatibility also in regard to most of what we currently offer also) we do, sometimes, tend to inocently forget/overlook FSX a wee bit .... I know I certainly do
These L-1011 simumulations (aircraft base packs/models/and FDE, panels/gauges, a sound packs (separatre FS2004 and FSX spoecific file versions) "ARE" FSX compatible though .... so .... no restritions there at all.
There's an interesting read on how to set up cockpit views (2D) and VCs (less important here). And at the bottom there's a section on zoom factors regarding modern 16:9 widescreens while FS9 panels are set up for 4:3.
I use the native 1920x1080 (24" screen) for VC aircraft, with 0.75 zoom set after starting FS9. With 2D only aircraft, I can leave that, giving me a stretched panel with oval dials. Or I can set the resolution to 1280x960 in the FS9 display options, with 1.00 zoom and less than sharp image quality. A 3rd option is to use windowed mode, leaving me with a window barely bigger as what I had on my old 17" CRT.
Post by aerofoto - HJG Admin on Mar 6, 2019 20:08:33 GMT
Information contained within the link is "interesting", but, unlikely to address the fundamental issue perceived by some .... and which is the progressively subsiding horizon line in response to ZOOM FACTOR reduction (in attempt to achieve a more distant looking horizon effect), and which also then distorts the peripheral scenery in proportion to such adjustment/s .... it's not just a scenery horizon elevation point issue.
As I've stated .... "several times now" .... these L-1011 panels are "not our own".
Although we were authorized to edit/improve them .... and did so by adding a great deal more functionality than was ever featured within their original versions .... we "did not" compile their original format (upon which our panels are based) and are therefore unable to alter what we've inherited due to the original panel source code not being available to us .... and a complete rebuild of these panels is simply not going to happen.
I therefore repeat what I've stated previously .... and which is supported by the earlier raw screen captures above as well as the following additional flight tips too ....
No major view issues are evident if people fly properly .... MEANING .... avoid flying approaches to landing overweight and also fly these at the correct airspeed/s too. Doing this will more than satisfactorily ensure reasonable forward visibility throughout the entire approach to landing .... precisely as has been earlier documented/demonstrated above.
Ensure these basic pre-requisites .... and RWY visibility will "never be an issue" .... unless the ZOOM factor is reduced so much that it becomes so.
This next detail "might" be assisted (in a minor way) per the linked information, but, one first needs to appreciate the default FS horizon line on the ground versus that at very high altitude pose 2 different artificial view perspectives .... but .... at high altitude cruise, if people feel they need to adjust their horizon line, then, this can easily be achieved using SHIFT+ENTER and SHIFT+BACK SPACE keyboard commands "in FS2004" (or CTRL+SHIFT+Q and CTRL+Q in FSX) and which can also be applied in any measure to suit one's personal preferences, but, if these views are ever adjusted for altitude, then, one mustn't forget to re-adjust them again for landing .... or one will likely be confronted with a totally unrealistic/unacceptable view of virtual tierra firma by the time one's ready to commence one's approach and landing.
As I've stated .... "repeatedly" also .... the panels we offer were never designed for ZOOM value reductions to be applied (and which is the cause of the primary issue) .... but .... if one insists upon applying such, and against our recommendations anyway, then, a value of no less than "0.85" should ever be applied at the very most .... or view related issues "WILL" be absolutely ensured. Any associated peripheral scenery distortion consequent to further ZOOM reduction also can't then be avoided under any circumstances either.
That's the way it "is" I'm afraid .... and will have to "remain" .... for reasons repeatedly stated
I also additionally need to state .... if one wishes to modify one's PANEL.CFG file, then, we can't provide support for whatever's applied beyond what we currently offer, since any such editing won't then conform with what we currently market and support