Jim wrote:
>Fly! is a 3D cockpit. I was talking about usability, and IMHO it is a more
>usable panel because of its inaccurate eye point when in use. Just as the
>panel disappears when you use the mouse scrolling and reappears with a click,
>it'd be easy enough to snap to an operational centered viewpoint.
In 3D, its easy to let the user move the eyepoint.
>It amazes me sometimes that people define "reality" in 3D as being something
>that looks like it was done with a video camera. To me its a more realistic
>experience if the gauge I'm looking at can easily be used
I agree. Strangely enough, just a few days ago I had the same
discussion on a forum and said what you say, legibility is more
important than just good looks. They had smudges on the faces,
different varieties of shadows, aging effects (white -> yellow) etc.
My only fear is - maybe I am missunderstanding - that we will
implement some scheme that was state of the art 5 years ago when
someone started work on a sim that was shipped 2 years later. As long
as we don't close doors to future development by choosing the wrong
scheme or waste time by doing several schemes, I am happy :-).
IMHO the decision for a 3D cockpit is not a decision for bad
legibility. Worse than a pure 2D cockpit, hand optimized for the
resolution, yes, but not bad.
>and is closer to
>what it would be in size and perspective from my eyes sitting in the chair,
>not the camera's little box on the screen.
In a 3D cockpit, this can be chosen via FoV. Actually, when I start a
plane and click all the things in the cockpit, I reduce FoV a bit
("zoom in", "move my nose closer to the panel"). OTOH, when I land, I
zoom out very much to see the horizon left and right to judge my angle
etc.
>Best,
>
>Jim
Bye bye,
Wolfram.
_______________________________________________
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
