Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/HUD view

HUD view

 * Reason:The high quality image clearly depics an aircraft head-up display as seen by the pilot. High EV,
 * Articles this image appears in:F/A-18 Hornet, Head-up display
 * Creator:U.S. Navy. "Rasmussen"


 * Support as nominator -- Trevor  MacInnis   contribs  04:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Support: Wow high EV, I don't think we have any other pics like this do we? (The description needs some links though. Ryan 4314   (talk) 09:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I added some links to uncommon terms. -  Trevor  MacInnis   contribs  14:26, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose Even if this weren't a third party photo, the image quality is pretty low...though I imagine it's pretty hard to get a shot of a HUD.Stevage 09:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Support The quality may not be fantastic, but short of any of us training to be fighter pilots we're not going to get a better picture... The EV is huge (i thought I knew most of it from flight sims but i didn't know jack apparently!) and the setting is very realistic in regards to the height above the cloud level etc. The HUD display itself may seem slightly blurred but that's the way it is - they cant get it any clearer without affecting the clarity of vision available to the pilot... Great FP for me... Gazhiley (talk) 09:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Due to parallax it seems that the virtual horizon is not on the horizon. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:24, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose Poor quality. Try VPC --Muhammad (talk) 17:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Muhammad. A lower-quality image that is difficult enough to get like this strikes me as a Valued Picture. Doesn't hit the historically impossible to recreate criteria of FPC (that allows lesser-composed images to get through), but it's certainly valuable for the difficult to get. Staxringold talkcontribs 17:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. If the virtual horizon were on the real horizon, I would probably support. As far as I'm concerned, the job of the image would be to illustrate HUD, and it does that brilliantly except for the aforementioned glitch. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 19:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose per myself. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:15, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. Great look at an actual HUD. The virtual horizon is a non-issue as far as I'm concerned. There are lots of explanations, like the camera being low, or the fact that pilot is high enough (20K feet) that pointing the nose at the physical horizon would actually be a nose-down attitude. -SidewinderX (talk) 10:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. A very good illustration. Without using training aids it would be difficult to find a better image of any quality. The Horizon line is a non-issue IT IS IN THE CORRECT PLACE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The horizon bar does not take into account the curvature of the earth, so the bar is constant regardless of visibility.Petebutt (talk) 22:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

--Shoemaker's Holiday Over 208 FCs served 00:02, 25 September 2009 (UTC)