Lothar of the Hill People

Hey Olham, the simple linear scaling gives an okay approximation, but the relationship between FOV and aspect ratio is nonlinear. So your method can't tell which of the combinations are better than the others, and if anything the intuition can be misleading. For example, while it looks like 24:15 is the most accurate ("clean") because you don't have to round, really 30:19 is more accurate spatially despite the 30.4 you got. And what about VFOVs of 13, 16, 18, and 20? Doing 3D spatial correction shows that you're not going to get as good of results using any of these compared to the set I suggest. 26:16, which you recommended to Creaghorn and others, is downright awful compared to 27:17 FOV at a 16:10 aspect ratio. I'm curious which one you're actually using--what seemed to feel best, math or not. Think of it like gamma correction, which is done to photographed and rendered images because of the nonlinearity in how we perceive luminosity. Non-gamma-corrected images look "alright", in that darks are darker than lights, but the degree of darkness and lightness is off. OFF would look a lot uglier if you disabled gamma correction in your graphics driver.

Have you tried just waiting a bit? Seems after you attack, they often come around for a pass of their own... but you have to go first. That's always how it seemed to work in my old DFW C.V campaigns anyway.

Just updated the calculator to version 1.3, which compared to the original expands the search space and eliminates accurate FOV combinations not possible in OFF. Having just 4 combinations of accurate settings to test beats going through all 88 by trial and error! But it's great we have the choice with OFF. Most graphics engines fix one or even both of the horizontal and vertical field of view, which is one reason cheap conversions of console games to PC look so weird. I can no longer edit the above post, but here are the updated results for a few common and uncommon aspect ratios. 4:3 aspect ratio (r = 4/3 = 1.333), such as 800x600, 1024x768, 1280x960, and 1600x1200: 16:9 aspect ratio (r = 1.778), such as 1280×720, 1366×768, 1600×900, and 1920x1080: 16:10 aspect ratio (r = 1.6), such as 1440x900, 1680×1050, and 1920x1200: Notice the 0.001 error on the ultra-wide 30:19 FOV. If you're going to go massive multi-monitor or huge projection screen that fills your peripheral vision, you definitely want to go for an overall 16:10 aspect ratio for almost no spatial distortion in OFF. 5:4 aspect ratio (r =1.25), such as 1280x1024: 66:35 aspect ratio (r =1.886), such as 1980x1050: A couple more options for Olham!

Olham's calculation's are incorrect, but there is a better solution. See this post and continue further discussion of the topic in that thread.

As discussed off-topic in this thread, Olham's simple calculations, while maybe a useful first approximation, aren't very accurate. Nor are they useful for people in different display situations. So I've created a simple Excel-based FOV Calculator for OFF. Just enter in your resolution and it suggests a range of the most spatially accurate FOV settings. Here are a few common aspect ratios for those of you without Excel. Just divide your horizontal by vertical resolution to calculate your aspect ratio to find which example applies to you. The first example will provide a good contrast to Olham's method: 4:3 aspect ratio (r = 4/3 = 1.333), such as 800x600, 1024x768, 1280x960, and 1600x1200: As illustrated in the program output, 20:15 FOV renders a picture close to a 4:3 aspect ratio, but not perfectly. The narrow angle of this FOV setting (width 1) suggests it's good at some distance from a small CRT monitor, but 25:19 (width 4) is nearly as accurate in terms of aspect ratio and much more appropriate for sitting close to a large bank of monitors or on the floor in front of an old low-def big-screen television. Here are some more common aspect ratios: 16:9 aspect ratio (r = 1.778), such as 1280×720, 1366×768, 1600×900, and 1920x1080: The 35:20 suggestion isn't possible in OFF, 33:19 being the widest FOV that's both feasible and relatively accurate. 16:10 aspect ratio (r = 1.6), such as 1440x900, 1680×1050, and 1920x1200: 5:4 aspect ratio (r =1.25), such as 1280x1024: And an uncommon one for Olham: 66:35 aspect ratio (r =1.886), such as 1980x1050: Poor fellow, only two of his suggestions are feasible. But I have no idea what weird resolution for which OFF's default of 23:16 would be appropriate... the rendered aspect ratio is r = 1.448.

View File Lothar Field of View Calculator OFFfov - the OFF Field-of-view Optical Vanguard, is now part of the OFF incomplete campaign editor (OFFice) suite of programs. Download and install OFFbase 0.8.5 or newer at this link. Submitter Lothar of the Hill People Submitted 12/04/2012 Category Modding Tools and Add-on Software

Sure thing! I'll make a post to update this on-topic thread, and post a few common examples for those who don't have Excel. And try 28:15.

But your calculations actually cause distortion! The physical screen of your monitor is not the same thing as the virtual screen on which the rendered image is projected; you can't just do a simple linear mapping. FOV has absolutely nothing to do with zooming in and out. I've written a ray-tracing engine, trust me. A wide angle works just fine with certain aspect ratios and viewing situations--such as up close to a giant screen. Since everyone hates trigonometry, I've slapped together a little Excel spreadsheet that does all the math and recommends the most accurate settings for your resolution and relation to screen: It will take a little time for mods to approve the download but hopefully it'll be up soon.

Sorry buddy your formula's not "normal", just wrong. Projecting a 3D world onto a 2D screen you're dealing with a virtual camera, virtual lense--so you have to deal with angles in order to preserve the aspect ratio. For example, the 23:14 you recommend yields an aspect ratio of 1.66 at 1920x1200, while correcting for angles I suggested a 22 hfov for the 14 vfov for an aspect ratio of 1.58--much closer to the real 1.6 aspect ratio of the screen (1920 / 1200). Let me update my 1920x1200 table showing the aspect ratios r: 30:19 (r = 1.601) - closest virtual camera 27:17 (r =1.606) 24:15 (r =1.615) 22:14 (r =1.583) - farthest virtual camera 30:19 is the most spatially correct at that resolution, but is most comfortable sitting close to larger displays. Smaller monitor, sitting farther away, you'll probably end up moving down the list a bit to find the sweet spot.

Version 0.8.4 which I hope to release later today supports FM 3.1. I also submited your 3.1 to SimHQ since they still have the old version 2, so hopefully Doug will get it up there soon.

Thanks rjw! You're welcome to vote for the mod and leave a review at the bottom of the download page.

The calculations are actually a bit more complicated. I'm also running at 1920x1200, and at that resolution I'd recommend trying: 30:19 (29.98) - closest virtual camera 27:17 (26.90) 24:15 (23.79) 22:14 (22.23) - farthest virtual camera As you can see with the rounding error, 30:19 is the most spatially accurate for this resolution. But it may feel a bit fish-eye (it's more complicated than a matter of zoom), so a virtual camera farther from the virtual screen (a smaller FOV) may feel more natural. Any other combinations will have much more spatial distortion. Whatever the resolution, doing a little math first greatly narrows down the trial and error. Use the wikipedia H= equation to find the horizontal FOV (H) for each of the eight possible vertical FOVs (V) between 13 and 20 at your monitor's resolution. Even the Windows calculator can do arc (inverse) tangents! Then try out the ones that yield an H closest to an integer.

Thanks Andy, sounds great. But it's not quite JSGME-ready for the correct location. Putting JSGME inside the 'CFSWW1 Over Flanders Fields' folder prevents mods that patch the 'WW1Scenery' folder from working, including mods from myself, Bletchley, Creaghorn, etc. See OlPaint01's notes on paths for the OFF version of JSGME. I'm happy to help repack it so it easily works alongside other mods, just let me know.

Just posted a couple things in the Downloads section. While two weeks is a long time, there's plenty of life left in OFF! First I've repacked the ENBseries graphics mod, which adds Bloom and High Dynamic Range (HDR) lighting, in a JSGME version with an installer and Creaghorn's settings. Should make it easy to try out if you're curious. The biggie is Lothar Maps, which makes flying around and exploring in OFF fun again. This mod gives you a choice of 3(!) new maps to replace the notoriously awful in-game map. All three are based on Google imaging, from Google Maps and Google Earth. I recommend starting with the 'Lothar Google Mix' map, here's a peek up close (the front shows up in-flight in red): A major update to OFFbase is also in the works, including some surprises from Bletchley. Stay tuned!

View File Lothar Maps This mod offers several alternative in-game maps for Over Flanders Fields based on modern Google imaging: Lothar Google Map – Google’s Terrain map illustrating basic topography with modern cities and roads, much of which hasn’t changed from a map-eye view over the past century. While there’s a hint of the underlying topography, this is generally best for flying by human landmarks. Lothar Google Earth – Google Earth satellite imagery was a long way from even hypothetical during the Great War, so this mod applies diffusion and texture filters for a slight painted canvas map effect. Important locations are marked as on the stock OFF map, but overall this is best for just flying by terrain. Lothar Google Mix – This simply overlays the two above maps with transparency. Things may not line up exactly, especially at the extremes of the map, but overall this provides a subtler view of the road and city detail of the Google Map with more of the geographical richness of the satellite view. In any case, the result is vastly more detailed, accurate, and useful than the stock OFF map, despite the occasional anachronism. Try them all to see which you prefer on utilitarian and aesthetic merits. And have fun exploring with fresh eyes the amazing terrain Over Flanders Fields and beyond! Requires: Over Flanders Fields http://overflandersfields.com JoneSoft Generic Mod Enabler 2.6.0: http://combatace.com/files/file/13045-jonesoft-generic-mod-enabler-jsgme/ Installation and Usage: The installer automatically extracts the mod folders into your OFF JSGME mods folder if OFF and JSGME are installed correctly. JSGME will be run when installation is complete, just activate the ‘Lothar Google Map’ or ‘Lothar Google Earth’ or ‘Lothar Google Mix’ folder to enable the mod. It only makes sense to activate one of the map mods at a time, but you can easily switch between them with JSGME. Notes: The front no longer displays in the Briefing Room, but does so (and more accurately) on the in-flight map. Credits: http://combatace.com/user/48442-lothar-of-the-hill-people/ Submitter Lothar of the Hill People Submitted 12/03/2012 Category Maps, Missions, and Campaigns

I've uploaded a JSGME with installer version of the ENB series graphics mod here, preset with Creaghorn's settings from his Homebrew. Should be an easy way to try out the bloom and HDR effects. If anyone has a custom enbseries.ini with settings that work great for OFF, please let me know.

ENB for OFF View File Description: Enhances Over Flanders Fields with the ENBSeries Bloom and High Dynamic Range lightings modifications with settings by Creaghorn. Installation and Usage: JSGME will run after install; activate the ‘ENB for OFF’ mod. Press Shift-F12 in-game to turn the graphics effects on and off. Customization: The enbseries.ini installed in your ‘CFSWW1 Over Flanders Fields’ folder can be further tweaked to modify the graphcis effects to taste. Requires: Over Flanders Fields http://overflandersfields.com JoneSoft Generic Mod Enabler 2.6.0: http://combatace.com/files/file/13045-jonesoft-generic-mod-enabler-jsgme/ Credits: ENBSeries game modifications: http://www.enbdev.com Creaghorn’s Homebrew: http://combatace.com/files/file/10515-creaghorns-homebrew/ OFF JSGME Installer Version: http://combatace.com/user/48442-lothar-of-the-hill-people/ Submitter Lothar of the Hill People Submitted 12/03/2012 Category Modding Tools and Add-on Software

Don't forget desktops and workstations in offices, used by people to get actual work done. Sure there's growth of mobile in the consumer space, when secretaries who type reports all day go home and watch neflix on their Kindle Fire, but who do you think Dell sells most of its machines too? Can't imagine volume business customers lining up for Windows 8.

Fuel tank was punctured by ground fire as I was mapping west of Verdun. Seems like a lovely forest road to take a walk or land an Albatros: Or maybe not!

Typo, support for DX8 is required for CSF3.

At some point interface consistency becomes retarded: toss out your joystick and pedals and fly OFF by touching your screen! Millions of us simply can't get much actual work done with a phone OS. And the irony is there's no consistency at all across apps themselves in iOS, so consistency of experience has nothing to do with Apple's success in the first place. Apple is growing in mobile--phones and tablets--not desktop comptuters where it only has 7% of the market. Killing the desktop computer ecosystem doesn't get you ahead in mobile. So I guess time will indeed tell.

Windows 8 deprecates DirectX 9, and AMD/ATI will no longer support it with their drivers. NVIDIA may continue DX9 support in its desktop drivers for a while, but not mobile graphics chips in laptops and such. Since CFS3 requires DX9, you may be able to run OFF under Windows 8 with a NVIDIA desktop graphics card until they drop support, fingers crossed, otherwise you're SOL. As to why you'd want to install a phone OS on a desktop computer in the first place, I have no idea.