New feature idea, Peripheral vision

[HagarTheHorrible]

I alluded to this in another thread but, I think it could really do with a topic all of it's own, it's potentially that brilliant, not that I'm blown away by my own brilliant, insightful, inventive mind (honestly).

 

If 777 are true to the work they did in RoF then they are keen to try out new features and push the boundaries, so might I suggest a possible new feature for BoS.

 

Check six.  There seems to a regular discussion in the combat flight sim world about how far it's possible to see when checking six.  How far can a pilot turn his head versus what can be seen through peripheral vision, what is realistic.  Most sims seem to give a pretty lenient interpretation of how far back it's possible to look, probably for game play purposes 

 

It is my contention that it is probably possible to check six but that the further back you look the less you actually see.  If that wasn't the case then peripheral vision wouldn't be called, peripheral vision ?

 

My thought is that the current view limits remain but that as you get towards the six position any potential aircraft in your six becomes increasingly opaque  so that it becomes increasingly difficult to spot.  From what I understand manoeuvring or increased "G" loads make it more difficult to easily look around so maybe as pilots manoeuvre  the peripheral vision "blurer" could extend gradually forward, much as blackout/redout view limiters do at present as "G" is increased.

 

I think this feature might have a beneficial effect on the game, recreating the difficulties of spotting objects in your peripheral field of view, without artificially limiting it and it also makes ambushes and co-op flying more useful as game elements.

 

 

[FuriousMeow]

If it's a setting that can be turned off, why not. But artificially limiting the edge of the view due to a percieved "peripheral" issue is a little gimmicky. Peripheral is simply vision outside of your focal point. So if you manage to turn your head and rotate your eye balls enough so that the focal point is right on the aircraft then I see no point of it blurring.

[LukeFF]

Sounds like a gimmick to me as well.

[Bearcat]

Me 3

[HagarTheHorrible]

Awwwwwwww !!!!!!  

 

Miserable buggers.  It's Friday night, go out and have a beer and come back when you're in a more positive, conciliatory mood.

 

 

 

 

It's not really a gimmick, honest.

 

Just think of it along the lines of black out, red out or "G" effects.  It doesn't blur your vision as such it just causes the object in your deep six to be more opaque, say 50% or 25% for arguments sake,  As you turn and the object comes increasingly into your main field of vision it becomes increasingly solid and therefore easy to spot.

Edited September 6, 2013 by HagarTheHorrible

[J4SCrisZeri]

Gimmick 4 me 2

[eklund]

What you have to understand is that it is not possible to "simulate" peripheral vision since when you look at the screen, you use your foveal vision. Trying to simulate how human vision works will not give you the effect you are looking for. Try buying some more screens together with trackIR and you will have the effect that you describe.

[79_vRAF_Friendly_flyer]

I would perhaps suggest a more grainy field of view rather than opaque planes.

[RAF74_Winger]

recreating the difficulties of spotting objects in your peripheral field of view, without artificially limiting it

 

Unfortunately for this argument, peripheral vision is much better at detection of movement than the vision in the foveal region. This is why jugglers can do what they do.

 

W.

[Matze81]

When really checking their six, pilots don't just turn their head! The whole upper body plus the head is turned, which gives you enough of an angular change to use your central vision to check behind you. So, making the vision more opague in an attempt to simulate peripheral vision would actually take away from realism in this case.

 

My 2 cents. No offense intended.

 

 

[6./ZG26_Emil]

I think it's a bad idea. View just needs to be restricted in the usual way to make it hard to see behind. Most people who've flown the 109 extensively inline will be familiar with it's poor rear visibility and already have a habit of turning to keep an eye on the enemy.

[HagarTheHorrible]

Obviously my pure genius is just far to brilliant to comprehend by you mere mortals.

 

I understand completely, so I have just one thing to say.

 

[eklund]

peripheral vision is pretty good

 

6 years ago when i started my eye training i did something science wouldnt believe, i managed to see for seconds perfectly with peripheral view, it would happen to me several times a day and i dont know what would happened if i had kept the perception longer than 5 seconds, maybe a 360º view?

 

but on a night stroll by the beach i saw a low light aproaching to me which disappeared right above my head, next day i peed 40 times and my skin was xtreamly hot without fever

 

however much i trained after that no more i could have that perception

 

btw great idea

 

It is not possible to see perfectly in peripheral vision since your eye and the corresponding mapping in the brain just don't work that way.

Either you were hallucinating or you are just a confabulator, sorry to say.

 

my credibility:

Bachelor degree in cognitive neuroscience

Master degree in cognitive neuroscience

[eklund]

also as you know about brain calcifications is my independent opinion you can see them here in the base of this normal brain as smoke trails:

 

 

but well at least his teeth is strongly calcified as well which is desirable

 

so how could a brain without calcification work, that is an anormal brain

 

well we can agree that man is cognitionly superior to apes

 

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMHiOCD-0aI

 

OK. I will stop arguing. You are clearly nuts.

[eklund]

why i dint mention fluoride and my sister is a doctor and she agrees that nearly all adults have parts of the brain calcified

 

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pineal_gland

 

The pineal gland is a midline structure (the geometrical center) shaped like a pine cone,^[6] and is often seen in plain skull X-rays, as it is often calcified.^[7]

 

That does not have anything to do with what you are trying to say. As i said, you are nuts and I'm done discussing. I can see that you clearly know nothing about how the brain works.

I will say this one last time, don't argue more and link stupid youtube videos, i will not respond because you have very clearly demonstrated that you lack any education in the specific field.

Done, bye. Have a great time.

[eklund]

i mean what it takes to be nice

 

of course im nuts, ive been the last two days puking due to my monthly antipsicotic shot, but in what way does that make me wrong

 

i understand my claim of calcified parts of the brain with a video of apes showing more intelligence in a certain area than university students is wild but i give proof:

 

you just lost the argument im a nautic engine engineer who is starting the master now and i wouldnt get on a discusion with an illiterate that loves engines like you do but what annoys me is the disdain of ideas based on the disdain of people who have them

 

so you believe that monkeys showing more intelligence than humans in a field is fake?

 

i saw it in the news why would they fake that

 

I'm not doing a ad hominem. I'm not arguing with you because you do not have enough knowledge in this field. If were to argue, i would have to educate you about everything which i don't have time for or want for that matter.

 

Monkeys have better working memory than humans. That does not make them intelligent. Black people have better working memory than white people. Working memory is a small part of intelligence, humans have loads of other cognitive functions and networks which make them much more intelligent than monkeys.

 

THIS IS A GOOD EXAMPLE OF WHAT I DON'T HAVE TIME FOR.

[DD_bongodriver]

Yes it's calcified.

 

No it wouldn't increase cognitive abilities.

[eklund]

two last questions of yes no just for my education that will take you 20 secs

 

is it true the majority of adults have the pineal gland calcified as the wiki says? 

 

if the answer is yes could our cognitive abilities improve if we didnt have it calcified ?

 

if it takes longer than yes or no its fine with me if you ignore the questions

 

Pineal glands major function is to produce various hormones and control sleep cycles. If i remember correctly, it secretes calcium. It will look calcified in a x-ray but it will probably not affect its function.

Even if it was damaged, it will not have any big effect especially not in intelligence.

[Panzerlang]

I alluded to this in another thread but, I think it could really do with a topic all of it's own, it's potentially that brilliant, not that I'm blown away by my own brilliant, insightful, inventive mind (honestly).

 

If 777 are true to the work they did in RoF then they are keen to try out new features and push the boundaries, so might I suggest a possible new feature for BoS.

 

Check six.  There seems to a regular discussion in the combat flight sim world about how far it's possible to see when checking six.  How far can a pilot turn his head versus what can be seen through peripheral vision, what is realistic.  Most sims seem to give a pretty lenient interpretation of how far back it's possible to look, probably for game play purposes 

 

It is my contention that it is probably possible to check six but that the further back you look the less you actually see.  If that wasn't the case then peripheral vision wouldn't be called, peripheral vision ?

 

My thought is that the current view limits remain but that as you get towards the six position any potential aircraft in your six becomes increasingly opaque  so that it becomes increasingly difficult to spot.  From what I understand manoeuvring or increased "G" loads make it more difficult to easily look around so maybe as pilots manoeuvre  the peripheral vision "blurer" could extend gradually forward, much as blackout/redout view limiters do at present as "G" is increased.

 

I think this feature might have a beneficial effect on the game, recreating the difficulties of spotting objects in your peripheral field of view, without artificially limiting it and it also makes ambushes and co-op flying more useful as game elements.

 

An excellent idea, in my humble opinion.

[SCG_Neun]

I tend to agree with the theory behind your suggestion, because, unless humans are owls....we cannot turn all the way around in the seat of a 109 cockpit and face squarely to the rear....any vision to the side is peripheral vision, isn't it?  So the quality of the image directly on our six.....would be reduced to some degree.  Just sit in a chair and turn your body around as much as you can......either right or left glances have a reduced quality of whatever is behind you.

[SCG_Neun]

but its already restricted, peripheral view is just not even there for screens are smaller than human peripheral view

The peripheral view is being simulated, if you have a small screen it's being simulated on a small screen, large screen larger.......triple screens, even better.  As I understand the suggestion, it's just a reduced image quality on anything tracking in your immediate six position.  Six position is a tactic based on this limited view.  Right?  I don't know how it would play out or how significant it would factor into the sim, I'm just saying I understand the suggestion.  It could be a substantial addition on spotting trailing enemy fighters who are a considerable distance behind your aircraft....How about the need to scissor a bit from side to side to get that better glance quality and the effect this would have on speed and the ability of the enemy to close the distance.  Right now....you just hammer down and turn around and the visibility is the same.......

Edited September 7, 2013 by JagdNeun

[SCG_Neun]

Well then, maybe I'm not thinking right on this...If not, it wouldn't be the first time raaaid....

[AX2]

Just did an experiment..

I put my chin on my shoulder, I can see my six.

[HagarTheHorrible]

I tend to agree with the theory behind your suggestion, because, unless humans are owls....we cannot turn all the way around in the seat of a 109 cockpit and face squarely to the rear....any vision to the side is peripheral vision, isn't it?  So the quality of the image directly on our six.....would be reduced to some degree.  Just sit in a chair and turn your body around as much as you can......either right or left glances have a reduced quality of whatever is behind you.

 

 

Peripheral vision allows you to see things but it you are far less likely to notice something unless it draws your attention such as rapid movement or a flashing surface rather than because you see it clearly,  something that no sim, to the best of my knowledge, has ever attempted to resolve, you look around and regardless of how far you look around it is as if you were looking directly in that direction even if in reality you would only be able to see to the six o'clock position from the corner of your eye.

 

The other thing to consider is that because there is no, or minimal, physical effort in looking around in a sim  and because we can see to our six, albeit using our peripheral vision, we would do the same in real life.  People are lazy, Fighter pilots are no different, even if their life depends on it.  I can guarantee that the vast majority if not all pilots do not check their surroundings to the absolute maximum possible, that if you were testing how far you can see, sitting in a chair, you might try and suggest is absolutely possible.  It is just too much of a strain, and therefore tiring, to constantly move from side to side and strain your eyeballs to the limits of what is capable even for relatively short periods, let alone a couple of hours.  That very tiredness is just as likely to make you miss something. If you don't believe me, just ask yourself if you always, but always, look over your shoulder before pulling out to overtake another car whilst driving ?

 

I'm not suggesting it shouldn't be possible to check six, just that it should be easier to miss something that might, in reality, be in our peripheral vision.

[FuriousMeow]

I always look over my shoulder to verify there aren't vehicles to my right or left, doing otherwise is reckless. The only problem I have seeing behind me is the structures of my own vehicle, I don't have a blurry mess where cars can be. I can clearly make out their shape, size, color, direction their facing and if they have their turn signals on.

[SCG_Neun]

Thought this would put the turning around for a nice glance in perspective.......I just found it interesting...

 

 

http://hushkit.wordpress.com/2013/08/02/an-raf-pilot-reviews-the-messerchmitt-bf-109-cockpit/

 

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFj8NDqZhlc

 

Edited September 7, 2013 by JagdNeun

[II./JG27_Rich]

Thought this would put the turning around for a nice glance in perspective.......I just found it interesting...

 

 

http://hushkit.wordpress.com/2013/08/02/an-raf-pilot-reviews-the-messerchmitt-bf-109-cockpit/

 

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFj8NDqZhlc

I have that horrible man on my channel too Neun LOL. But there you go again a man that gives you the wrong impression about bailing out of a 109. You should listen to the second half of that video about that 109

Edited September 8, 2013 by II./JG27Richie

[FuriousMeow]

I noticed two things about that video. 1) He never bothered to actually attempt to get his head close to the side of the canopy to look back and 2) It was stationary! 109 pilots checked their 6 by yawing a little to look back.

 

This has nothing to do with a gimmick blurring of peripheral, but intentionally not getting close enough to the side of the cockpit to look behind and also not using the standard method of 109 pilot's to check their six by yawing a little so that really doesn't help at all.

 

I'm not even a LW only pilot and knew that yawing a little was the preferred method to check 6 in 109s.

[HagarTheHorrible]

I noticed two things about that video. 1) He never bothered to actually attempt to get his head close to the side of the canopy to look back and 2) It was stationary! 109 pilots checked their 6 by yawing a little to look back.

 

I love this idea of poo pooing (where are my Black Adder tapes when I need them) any videos of real pilots, who have real experience flying some of these aircraft and, because it doesn't necessarily accord with their own view they dismiss it out of hand. We had the same dismissal of the views of pilots, saying what they thought, of the SE5a against the Albatross, by the TVAL pilots, based purely on 10 seconds of video footage of an SE5a gently weaving behind it's opponent.

 

Most, if not all WW2 fighters, would have yawed left and right to get a better view of their behind. The early, pre Gustav hood, 109's maybe more than others. It might seem negligible but small differences make a difference either to pilot work load and therefore fatigue or just performance and position holding in formation.

 

It was painfully obvious to see how tight that 109 cockpit was and I have no doubt that the reviewing pilot was aware that the canopy could be ejected in extremis. It might be foolish to try and surmise what he might have thought without asking a direct question but he may well have been asking himself "Would I like to have been trapped in this cockpit with only the emergency canopy release to rely on if things went pair shaped".

[FuriousMeow]

It's actually poo pooing (if that's what you want to go with) any youtube videos for proof of anything - especially when the real pilot is doing anything anyone could do and at the same time doing nothing. Like I said, he didn't get close toe the canopy. He just sat there and didn't rotate his torsoe or use any other motion his body is capable of. Apparently because he's a real pilot in a stationary plane on the ground, his capabilitry of movement is far more indicative of how much someone else can move because... PILOT! Yet he didn't say, "Oi! This terrible restrictive movement has hampered my peripheral. I'm not quite sure what peripheral means but because all of a sudden I'm sitting a plane and have to rely on my torsoe my peripheral is apparentrly a blurry mess and I am suffering from cataracts!"

 

It's certainly fortunate that pilots, just like people who drive, or walk, or even just sit in lawn chairs, have the same vision capabilities. You don't have to sit in a plane to know that looking behind you and focusing results in a... brace for it... focused image!

 

I've flown quite a bit in real life, thanks to one of my uncles, so I'm not quite sure why flying from one person to the next is so different than one pilot on the ground not actually trying to look behind himself matters so much more.

 

But of course, you have the mental prowess that impresses yourself so much that you must be correct. It's not like pilot's, and vehicular operators since you made the point of bringing that in, aren't taught to not sit and stare at one point but to constantly scan around so as to not let themselves go into a trance where they miss objects because those objects haven't changed much relative to the vehicle operator for the past minute.

 

Instead you decided that short clip supported the gimmicky implemenation you wanted, so instantl;y this one clip that showed the expert piot not using any movement other than an olive on a toothpick method of looking behind him was substantial enough to win your heart.

[HagarTheHorrible]

 

But of course, you have the mental prowess that impresses yourself so much that you must be correct.

 

Goes without saying really.

 

Nobody else is impressed so if I don't support my own views, no one else will.

[GP*]

General rule of thumb to all on the forums: don't engage "raaaid" -- you may win the battle of wits, but you will never win the battle of wills against him. 

 

But anyway, modeling peripheral vision in a sim would be really tough to pull off. I think the fact that we had widescreen monitors already does this (somewhat) for us -- we can see one section of the screen at a time sharply, with the rest (i.e. the off-axis portions) falling within the realm of our peripheral vision. 

 

With regard to checking six in an aircraft, yeah, you turn your hips, shoulders, head, and then your eyes to get the best view of your six as you can, as multiple people have mentioned here before. The real limits of this are 1) rearward visibility and 2) the G forces being applied while trying to move your nugget around. Rearward visibility is what it is, and you have to fly and fight within those limitations. Moving your head around under G is tougher, obviously, but not impossible. Modeling the former is obviously being done, while modeling the latter would be a mistake IMO, since it'll probably be screwed up.

[SCG_Neun]

I think FuriousMeow and Prefontaine have pretty well summed this up for me.  The main issue is the lack of visibility and the need to yaw from side to side which really isn't that much of a peripheral vision matter, and if I'm not mistaken, we already have the G-Forces modeled into the sim, or I would think that feature will be standard for a sim of this quality.   I also had a better feeling for a glance back through the side rear cockpit glass on that 109 and how poor the vision would really be considering the angle of the glass.  If you could model anything it would be a reduced clarity based on that angle of glass....which I think would be a factor.... For a 109 pilot, well......what can I say....if the modeling was perfect I think we would have a disadvantage in terms of visibility, but then a 109 pilot was more tactically concerned about attacking from altitude and with slashing passes and not doing the ballet with an I-153.  I thought the video gave some really neat visual on the smallness, particularly of the 109 cockpit, in fact even having seen a real cockpit, seeing that guy inside and how snug it all was, well it was enlightening.

I have that horrible man on my channel too Neun LOL. But there you go again a man that gives you the wrong impression about bailing out of a 109. You should listen to the second half of that video about that 109

You are right Richie! LOL

Edited September 8, 2013 by JagdNeun

[II./JG27_Rich]

[ImPeRaToR]

[...]

THAT is always a good argument, well said!

Edited September 8, 2013 by ImPeRaToR