Been flying a few aircraft with VC's and I have a question regarding these.
In order to be able to have a reasonable view of the aircraft primary instruments and the outside world, and runway when landing, I have to zoom out to about 45%. This however, tends to put everything out there a bit out of proportion and perspective in terms of distance as being seen from the flight deck.
Just wondering if there is a remedy for this by doing a few tweeks. Any suggestions would be appreciated.
Post by aerofoto - HJG Admin on Dec 20, 2020 21:50:22 GMT
VC type panels normally solve such view related issues by default.
Depends on what VC panel/s your using .... and for what aircraft type/s.
I'm only hazarding a guess when I say this (what I relate next), but, if there's a view related issue with any VC then it could be (I don't say it is though) caused by the simulations approach to landing pitch attitude possibly not being right (it may be too high) to start with (suggesting an FDE related issue) .... and which could then possibly rob one of adequate RWY visibility during any approach to landing .... although I've yet to see/experience this using any of the few VC's I have.
Need to know more in regard to precisely what you're flying.
Doubt if we/HJG can help with this though .... but .... maybe someone else can.
Post by aerofoto - HJG Admin on Dec 21, 2020 1:48:57 GMT
A couple of views using one of my VC featured simulations .... and which is also compared with the same views using its 2D panel view as well .... both of these relating to the AW-650 ARGOSY ....
2D VIEW (comparison)
2D VIEW (comparison)
Normally I find most, if not all, default VC Panel views to be "perfectly fine" as supplied .... at least that's been the case among the few VC's I have.
On rare (very rare) occasions I have adjusted the default view (primarily to "experiment") as demonstrated per the above VC images .... to establish a view combining what I determine being the best in regard to both scenery and just essential instruments (airspeed and altitude .... ROD too if practical) only , but, I "NEVER" adjust the Panel/Scenery ZOOM Factor .... since doing so can result in distorted (stretched/distanced .... or otherwise exaggerated) view related perspectives .... and even cause some scenery horizons to both descend and begin recede somewhat behind panel combings too in conjunction with the proportion of ZOOM factor adjustment applied.
OK, thank you Mark for those images. To me it would appear that if you zoomed out to display the same amount of Panel in your VC image as the 2D Panel the exterior views would be about the same. So it could be, that there are some difference between Products and its authors\developers. Below I have some cockpit images of the PMDG 737-800 aircraft. It would seem that is a bit of a difference in perspective\distance, in terms of the VC vs 2D Panel views, which could affect the actual landing \toutchdown point.
2D Panel at its Default 70 zoom setting.
VC at same setting as 2D Panel. Not enough essential flight display showing.
VC at 50 zoom setting with essential flight display showing but runway seems to look a bit more distant and affecting proper perspective\judgement as to when to initiate flare.
Post by aerofoto - HJG Admin on Dec 21, 2020 20:25:57 GMT
it could be, that there are some difference between Products and its authors\developers.
Such differences will always be evident when comparing the work/products of different authors/developers (sometimes it pays not to compare because designers, like end users too, each have their own preferences and which take precedence) .... that's even evident among some of what we've imported and offer too.
Some panels don't demonstrate the same view/perspective in response to ZOOM adjustment/s .... as is evident per at least one of the panels we host.
Some people prefer to adjust the ZOOM factor in order to create a more distant scenery horizon .... particular when sitting at one end of a RWY and viewing the other.
Any time one adjusts (reduces) the default ZOOM it's going to result in a stretched scenery horizon line as well as making whatever's near appear more distant .... and whatever's distant even more so .... that's what it does and with the added possibility of the scenery horizon line receding below the panel too in proportion to such adjustment/s and in some cases.
Looking at your imagery though .... the most I'd possibly be inclined toward doing is "panning" the VC panel view/up/down in order to establish your preferred instrument view/expose the primary instrumentation and then resetting/adjusting "elevation" of the scenery horizon line (just a little only) accordingly and in relation to the panel view, but, doing the latter can also promote another potential issue too .... because any such "adjustment" of the scenery perspective to satisfy low altitude views might then need further adjustment for high altitude views (the scenery horizon line usually reduces somewhat with altitude) .... at least that's the case with most 2D panels .... "if you can sense what I'm trying to communicate"
Beyond this attempted explanation, and again looking at your imagery too, my impression of both 2D and VC views is these are probably the designers attempt to best deal with the artificial visual illusion/s presented by FS in regard both high and low altitude flight .... simply to promote "the best overall default view" in the case of both scenarios.
Again .... probably some minor "panel and scenery elevation adjustment" might be appropriate .... to the extent of "personal preference" .... and then just getting "used to that".
In "MY CASE" and in order to satisfy "MY OWN PERSONAL PREFERENCES" .... that's all I'd ever be inclined toward doing, and indeed have done, at the very most
Otherwise .... what you've presented looks, to me, to be a very good/reasonable sort of 2D/VC panel.
VC in general: I dont like them much: They are framerate unfriendly, up to making smooth flying imposible even in an i7 machine. Many of them dont let you see the overall picture, essentialy for safe operations esp. at landing. They try to do a childish job of "reality" instead of a simulation of essentials.
I dont miss VC.
Even if they are well done like in an IL 18 simulation its cumbersome to find essential controls quikly in the "single pilot operation" of a 4 or 5 pilots cockpit of the real thing.
Post by aerofoto - HJG Admin on Dec 22, 2020 17:59:44 GMT
I find David MALTBY's and Rick PIPER's VC's to be very FR friendly.
These being the only ones I have .... but even so .... I seldom ever use, if I ever use, their VC's .... since I, personally, still prefer 2D panel perspectives
Might add a few images of these later .... "IF" I can squeeze in time because daughter/s, and mummy too, told me/warned me I've exceed my allowed flying time for the month .... though my packing them all off to "a distant shopping mall" whilst also allowing them use of my VISA card, whilst I stay home, might be promoting of a few more otherwise "illegal flights"
Post by aerofoto - HJG Admin on Dec 22, 2020 19:25:32 GMT
I don't recall experiencing that problem Walter.
In fact .... so far as I recall .... I've only ever had/seen what I consider being a good view of all of the essential instrumentation and from the VC perspective prefer .... when I use it .... and seldom though that may ever be.
I'll have look when, and if, I can pack the girls off for a "PAID" shopping expedition
Post by Mike Monce - HJG on Dec 23, 2020 13:12:28 GMT
"Try to look around like in a real cockpit, the seats block the view to the instruments"
Go into cfg file and adjust the first entry (lateral coordinate) in the eyepoint section. sounds like it is set too far aft which makes the VC vantage point behind the seats rather than on, or slightly in front of the seats. You may have to experiment a bit.