The standard FOV in X-plane 12 is different from version 11. Who wants to have the FOV like in X-Plane 11 set it to 60. It is the default in X-Plane 11 and looks more naturally to me I think.

Most of what you're doing in a flight sim is a compromise. You don't have any g loading You don't have any control feedback Most users don't even have full-sized controls

B737 OEM Weber seats→cpt-f/o← Ace column yoke - FDS dual mip + 2 cdu - CPflight mcp/efis/full pedestal - FSC non motor. TQ - Sismo fwd/aft overhead - MFG Crosswind rudder - Aerosim B737 tiller - Strem Desk - Ignition button box - Ipad 2 - EFDE gauges -

For me, 4K resolution, 42 in monitor, in order to get some view close to what is in a real acft., top of cowl, and left and right wing tips, all necessary for proper VFR flying, I have to set the FOV to 93 and adjust the instrument panel to see what I see in the real acft when I look without turning my head left/ right, up/down. There are only very few planes that are designed properly to do that in every sim I've used, and it's most of them from before the PC sims came into being.

The best way to simulate this is to set the correct FOV with one of the online apps available, and use something like TrackIR that allows you to move your 'monitor' around the cockpit.

XP12.1.3b5 - Zibo 4.3.07 - Plugins: ZHSI - FDStoXP - FSCB737TQ - Midwest Cpflight - Sismo OrbitXP - FlywithLua - TerrainRadar - X-ATC Chatter - X-Keypad - Avitab - Traffic Global - FollowtheGreens - Navigraph 10.24

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

How is that going to change the readability, size, spacing, aspect ratio...? Do you know what TrackIR does? You can easily accomplish very similar result by having the proper controller and assignments. I've been around and testing just about everything you can think of, for Full motion, to building my own chairs, tracking systems.... What I post is my practical results after many thousands of sim and flying hours.

Radiancefield

When I sit someone one in a 172 for training I adjust their seat for them to always be the same and make sure they see the same thing every time and all the necessary points of view as described above.

If you take a monitor into the real C172, you will see the apps are giving you a correct field of view.  There is no way you will see the the views as in your screenshots. In your real C172 are the screens really that far away from your eyes? Of course not!

You can try this one, it's the horizontal figure to use. Should only take a few minutes to figure out. You can test it by looking that the objects on the screen, they should match up in real life (for

I use Ultrawide too but I measured my FOV to be accurate and it's about 59/60 depending on where I sit (monitor as close as possible to my face).

It depends on a nr of factors, Resolution, Size, Nr of monitors... that are not taken into account by the designers and next to impossible to design for all possible settings.

Most of what you're doing in a flight sim is a compromise. You don't have any g loading You don't have any control feedback Most users don't even have full-sized controls

Take a frame, the same dimensions of your monitor, to the real aircraft. Sit in the pilots seat and hold out the frame in front of you - what you see through that frame is what you should see at home when looking at the monitor if the FOV is correct (what an online FOV calculator will give you).  To be able to see at home what you see in the real aircraft, you would need a monitor the same width and height as the cockpit itself.  I guess such a monitor exists.

Again, nothing but complaints where none exist.  The new lighting model has meant I have more or less ditched MSFS after 1700 hours using it.  XP12 new features are amazing.  If XP12 is so bad, why not just fly MSFS?

The standard FOV in X-plane 12 is different from version 11. Who wants to have the FOV like in X-Plane 11 set it to 60. It is the default in X-Plane 11 and looks more naturally to me I think.

You can try this one, it's the horizontal figure to use. Should only take a few minutes to figure out. You can test it by looking that the objects on the screen, they should match up in real life (for instance I measured the middle panel of an A10 in DCS and it shows 5 inches on my screen, the same as is in real life).

The only way to set the, approximately what I see in RW, for the default mode (W) is to use the FOV 93 and use the Plane Maker, or change the .acf file with a text editor, to modify the in cockpit eye position.

Personally I set the seating position in sim so the instruments are the correct distance from my eyes.  I then use TrackIR so I can move my head realistically around the cockpit.

I have noticed that at the same field of view settings as x-plane 11, the apparent field of view seems lower in x-plane 12. I don’t know if this is a regression, or a fix to the math.

I will say it again  FOV apps for Flight sims are completely useless, but if that is all know and want to know about it be my guest.

OS: Windows 11, CPU: Ryzen 7 5700X, GPU: AMD RX 6600 XT, Ram: Corsair 32 GB 3600 MHz, Mainboard: Gigabyte B450M S2H, Power Supply: BeQuiet! System Power 9 600W, Monitor: LG UltraGear 27GQ50F" @ 1920x1080 SSD: WD_BLACK SN770 NVMe 1TB

You can try this one, it's the horizontal figure to use. Should only take a few minutes to figure out. You can test it by looking that the objects on the screen, they should match up in real life (for instance I measured the middle panel of an A10 in DCS and it shows 5 inches on my screen, the same as is in real life).

The lighting, and other what I call useless features simply to compete with the Other guys has set back XPm for RW pilots for years

How far do you want to take this? Are you aware that the spacing and size of the instruments also contribute to the envelopment of scanning, extremely important in IFR flying?

A light field is a type of field created by certain skills that triggers combo effects when a combo finisher interacts with it. Light effects remove conditions or apply Resolution through Light Aura.

Slowlight

That's an interesting statement. You don't think your brain will accommodate the "sense of speed / height / distance" to work appropriately in the sim and make it seem natural after a while, or are you a real pilot and it's the going back and forth with RL that is bad? Or is it simply because it is mentally tagged as unrealistic per se?

How far do you want to take this? Are you aware that the spacing and size of the instruments also contribute to the envelopment of scanning, extremely important in IFR flying?

Okay, so it is not only me haha.. I wondered why the 737-800 looked so distorted from the outside-view.. But now with 60 everything looks great.

and that gives me, in 4K mode see pic 1, which is yet Not good enough for what I see / needed. A closer to RW is pic 2 that I have to create using ,.F keys and actually tilt the forward view -1.0 just to get close to what is needed. They may look the same but pic2 is associated with the Right and Left wing to views, pic3, pic4, and assigned to Cycle Views button. In RW when I sit in “the same location” and look waaay down the rwy I also see the first storage tank to the West / right.

Who said SimHeaven was part of XP12? Again, you complain about something when an add-on will achieve exactly what you want. There are a couple of add-ons available that place all TV and cellular masts in the USA. I use ortho with these add-ons to give a very realistic environment for flight.  Why don't you install these rather than just complain about XP12?

I assign a Look Up/Down to see the complete panel, and View Left/Right to see the wing tips to a couple of my Jstick axis for a quick view and use a Lua script, that cycles through multiple preset views, assigned to a button, when I need fixed views, like Ground reference maneuvers...

Soccerfieldlights portable

Personally I will always use the correct FOV otherwise perspective, sense of speed / height / distance will all be wrong - in my mind a much worse compromise if flight is to be simulated realistically.

Yes, I prefer 60 over 80 for a standard aspect ratio screen.  80 seems more geared towards an ultrawide.  Mind you I use 45 degrees for my setup, as that feels more natural to me

I use Ultrawide too but I measured my FOV to be accurate and it's about 59/60 depending on where I sit (monitor as close as possible to my face).

Using the correct FOV is, of course, going to give you the correct world view, but ONLY through the frame as placed in a real cockpit - and that does not give you the peripheral vision so important to human vision and places a large proportion of the panel outside the view. If you then move your seat back, in most aircraft you will be behind the pilot's seat (and anyway will need to change the FOV). Track IR or VR is an option, but those without such equipment, or for some reason unable to use it, will have to compromise. In my setup, the correct FOV is 43 degrees, but I tend to use 60 or above. I guess an alternative to multiple screens, as mrbitsyflyer says, would be a very large TV with the centre of the screen well below head height, but I would not want to sit as close to the screen as needed and my desk would have to go.

To add to my comments above, I just calculated that, if I used a 72" TV 40" from my seat the FOV would be 76 degrees horizontal 48 degrees vertical - giving a panel width close to real life - hmm...

You seem to be making problems where none exist.  There is one correct FOV for a seating position and monitor size. Use an online FOV calculator to set it right.

Yes, I prefer 60 over 80 for a standard aspect ratio screen.  80 seems more geared towards an ultrawide.  Mind you I use 45 degrees for my setup, as that feels more natural to me

Rubbish.  A FOV calculator will give the correct world view for your seating position and monitor size.  Every FOV calculator out there will give you the same result.  What you don't seem to grasp is you need to take other steps if you want to replicate what you see in the real aircraft.  A good solution would be a multiple monitor setup so you get to see more cockpit at the correct FOV.  Or, like me, you can use something like a TrackIR so you can easily scan around the cockpit.

Thanks to remind me this useful fov utility ; with 2 x 32" wqhd (32/9) for cockpit view (internal without cockpit) , I had set them both to 60° with xp12 beta  but it was quite not satisfying ; with a view distance around 110 cm , the utility give 39,3 that I rounded to 40° ... and this is much better and accurate  now !

OS: Windows 11, CPU: Ryzen 7 5700X, GPU: AMD RX 6600 XT, Ram: Corsair 32 GB 3600 MHz, Mainboard: Gigabyte B450M S2H, Power Supply: BeQuiet! System Power 9 600W, Monitor: LG UltraGear 27GQ50F" @ 1920x1080 SSD: WD_BLACK SN770 NVMe 1TB

My screens are about an arm length away from me.  Have to admit, I've not done the math to work out what my FOV should be.  I know that Russ Barlow did an excellent video on that subject, so I really should plug in the numbers at some point.

In  the C172, if I sit in Real World and look outside and memorize the FOV, buildings end of taxiways.... and then get in the sim and try to set it the same there will be something else that does look properly.

LED stadiumlight

>>Again, nothing but complaints where none exist.  The new lighting model has meant I have more or less ditched MSFS after 1700 hours using it.<<

pc2 ZHSI: self build i7-8700k 4,8 GHz - Arctic Freezer II 240 - 64go ram - GTX1080Ti + GT710 - psu Corsair AX760 -  LittleNavmap 24" + lcd mip : 2x 18" cpt/fo - 1x15" - 1x12" - 2x5" cdu -

My screens are about an arm length away from me.  Have to admit, I've not done the math to work out what my FOV should be.  I know that Russ Barlow did an excellent video on that subject, so I really should plug in the numbers at some point.

I am late to this topic, but I  just got version 12.  On my iMac the Field of View setting of 80 makes the cockpit panel almost impossible to read; however the panel is in the correct location.  When I return it to the old version 11 settings 60 degrees it is almost normal with regard to readability, but then the vertical puts the panels off the bottom of the screen, so I have to 'pan' down so to speak.

Rather than just complain about a beta release of XP12, use the available add-ons and hardware to get what you are after.

Why do you suggest the correct FOV does not meet the requirements of the real world?  The world will only be correct with the right FOV.  It is then up to you to do what you require for the cockpit to meet your requirements.  I use TrackIR to scan. You could use a three monitor setup to see more of the cockpit at the correct FOV.

VR is the only other thing that would be a useful addition to approximate more closely RW unfortunately with XP12 you will likely need a 4xxx series video and 6 GHz CPU to get a decent FOV in a good VR. The lighting, and other what I call useless features simply to compete with the Other guys has set back XPm for RW pilots for years. You can get a used, not very good, plane for about the same money that would take to make XP12 useful.

Light Field

If you are happy with the way you use, for whatever reason, I am fine with it. It is wrong for you to disseminate useless information that does not apply to Flight simulator as it relates to Real World, and the use of it.

Sit in the real C172 and position your monitor level with the instruments.  You are not going to see much of the cockpit and outside view.  Move the monitor up/down, left & right to see the correct field of view.

XP12, at least in my system, made things more difficult to read the text / nrs. and having to get closer to the instrument panel is more important.

You can try this one, it's the horizontal figure to use. Should only take a few minutes to figure out. You can test it by looking that the objects on the screen, they should match up in real life (for instance I measured the middle panel of an A10 in DCS and it shows 5 inches on my screen, the same as is in real life).

I use Ultrawide too but I measured my FOV to be accurate and it's about 59/60 depending on where I sit (monitor as close as possible to my face).

It is exactly what I am saying. IT IS USELESS. What good is it going to do you if you cannot fly the plane / read the instruments.

if you don't want to use something like TrackIR, set the correct FOV and then move the seating position back as far as you need to.

pc1 XP:   self build i9-13900k 4,8 GHz - Asus Z790 Strix_H - 64go ram - Asus RTX4090 - Asus E-AtX pa602 - Noctua NH_D15 - psu Seasonic Vertex 850W gold+ - 2x NVME - 2x tv UHD LG oled77C3 7680x2160→W134,3" x H37,8"

I use Ultrawide too but I measured my FOV to be accurate and it's about 59/60 depending on where I sit (monitor as close as possible to my face).

You have compromised for your own circumstances, what the OP fails to grasp.  Without a screen the same width and height as the cockpit itself, a realistic FOV will require some other solution to see the whole cockpit.  Personally I will always use the correct FOV otherwise perspective, sense of speed / height / distance will all be wrong - in my mind a much worse compromise if flight is to be simulated realistically.

VR solves some of these problems but it does not look like this will be possible to use in XP12 in most present systems, that Lighting / effect, feature is taking away too many resources?

You can ignore all those “apps” that calculate FOV and go and experience it for yourself. Take notes, take pics whatever it takes to get a good FOV from RW.

Since when is SimHeaven part of the LR release? But to assume that you do install it show me the Radio tower that is 700 Ft. tall installed at the West end of KFUL and thousands of other obstacles and VFR reference ground points in the XP without Ortho?

I know this is long but this only scratches the surface in what is involved, and needed, to get close to what we see in RW and be useful as a tool. You can ignore all those “apps” that calculate FOV and go and experience it for yourself. Take notes, take pics whatever it takes to get a good FOV from RW.

Portablefieldlights

That's an interesting statement. You don't think your brain will accommodate the "sense of speed / height / distance" to work appropriately in the sim and make it seem natural after a while, or are you a real pilot and it's the going back and forth with RL that is bad? Or is it simply because it is mentally tagged as unrealistic per se?

if you don't want to use something like TrackIR, set the correct FOV and then move the seating position back as far as you need to. The cockpit instruments will be too small, but at least the FOV will be correct.

Beta 9 has no negative effects with ortho for me, but I disagree XP12 VFR is useless without it.  Use something like SimHeaven X-World to get all ground features in the right place then VFR flight is accurate. Ortho is even better of course.

You can try this one, it's the horizontal figure to use. Should only take a few minutes to figure out. You can test it by looking that the objects on the screen, they should match up in real life (for