Glasses Wearers...
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Londinium, UK
Age: 51
Posts: 158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a spam can flyer I was recommended getting glasses with PolyCarbonate lenses. If the windshield goes then you have a second chance to save your eyes. The good people at Boots did me a prescription pair of sunglasses and "normal" lenses for £200. (Buy one get one free thingy). I choose "Aviator" style frames so the peripheral vision is as good as possible.
For my day job - I wear a normal frameless pair of glasses with the lightest thinnest lenses possible. These cost about £200 as well.
IMHO - if you can wear Contact Lenses without suffering discomfort go for those. I find my astigmatism isn't corrected enough with CL, and also on long flights my eyes dry out.
Good luck - you'll be dipping into your pocket whatever choice you make!
For my day job - I wear a normal frameless pair of glasses with the lightest thinnest lenses possible. These cost about £200 as well.
IMHO - if you can wear Contact Lenses without suffering discomfort go for those. I find my astigmatism isn't corrected enough with CL, and also on long flights my eyes dry out.
Good luck - you'll be dipping into your pocket whatever choice you make!
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: FUBAR
Posts: 3,348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As the one who re-opened this thread after 6 months I have to say that it is drifting a bit downwind from my original query.I thought I would get a better response here than in Questions; anyone care to read my previous 2 posts (hoping/assuming you can! ha ha)and give me an opinion/solution?
Psychophysiological entity
(" Bifocals with a small 'D-segment'are prefered to 'execs'because they allow proper distance correction of the runway peripheral vision 'streaming'cues when landing an aircraft")
Mmm.....did rather go into nostalgia mode did I not? It's an age thing...like needing specs really.
Still, it seems that "they" prefer the small D, which makes sense. As I mentioned, when I finally got good specs, I plumped for those, as they gave me the readers that I needed for the Jeps. (At times three, I erred on the side of being too powerful, so that the fine print in poor light would never be a challenge.) With the small D, the bulk of the lens is available for your prime needs.
I chose a large frame because of the panoramic view that they offer and indeed the ease with which the lens can be upgraded or repaired. The rim is only about 1.1mm at the thickest part and did not cause any significant interference to my peripheral vision.
I suppose that with the vary-focals, as you panned towards the edge, because of the hourglass profile, you would be at, or around planar, as your vision passed the edge, so there would be no step of focus. Again, the needs of the individual have to be determined not only on the fundamental prescription, but also on the patient's ability to process round extraordinarily complex lenses like vari-focals. The following is the case against vari-focals.
Personally, I much, much prefer a distinct switching point as I look up or down. The brain's ability to accept a change of magnification is miraculous enough...to ask it to slide up and down on a continuously variable magnification, is to me bewildering. The problem is, that although this miraculous organ seems to be able to cope with such a high workload most of the time, it is in its nature to suddenly throw us a curved ball.
This change of processing can be demonstrated in its simplest terms with the psychology test of looking at a wire-frame box. The average human will have their analysis of that shape assessed by a different set of datums at around 7 secs or was it 15? But whatever, having changed, it will dwell a time, then change back....and keep doing this flip-flopping to and frow trying to make the best of a difficult-to-assess image.
When we are in the late stages of an approach, there is a vast amount of calculation going on at any given time, I just can't accept entering this critical phase and then hitting the brain with variable datums.
But then there are trombone players. I'm not kidding, it seems that users of vary-focals start to ‘play' the lens in the same manner. Using pre-set levels of magnification just as a trombone player would to hit a set note. Learning to play that instrument is (I'm told) is a question of sliding onto a frequency from as near to it as possible. With practice, the fine tuning is reduced. Now, imagine doing this with your eyes.
Mmm.....did rather go into nostalgia mode did I not? It's an age thing...like needing specs really.
Still, it seems that "they" prefer the small D, which makes sense. As I mentioned, when I finally got good specs, I plumped for those, as they gave me the readers that I needed for the Jeps. (At times three, I erred on the side of being too powerful, so that the fine print in poor light would never be a challenge.) With the small D, the bulk of the lens is available for your prime needs.
I chose a large frame because of the panoramic view that they offer and indeed the ease with which the lens can be upgraded or repaired. The rim is only about 1.1mm at the thickest part and did not cause any significant interference to my peripheral vision.
I suppose that with the vary-focals, as you panned towards the edge, because of the hourglass profile, you would be at, or around planar, as your vision passed the edge, so there would be no step of focus. Again, the needs of the individual have to be determined not only on the fundamental prescription, but also on the patient's ability to process round extraordinarily complex lenses like vari-focals. The following is the case against vari-focals.
Personally, I much, much prefer a distinct switching point as I look up or down. The brain's ability to accept a change of magnification is miraculous enough...to ask it to slide up and down on a continuously variable magnification, is to me bewildering. The problem is, that although this miraculous organ seems to be able to cope with such a high workload most of the time, it is in its nature to suddenly throw us a curved ball.
This change of processing can be demonstrated in its simplest terms with the psychology test of looking at a wire-frame box. The average human will have their analysis of that shape assessed by a different set of datums at around 7 secs or was it 15? But whatever, having changed, it will dwell a time, then change back....and keep doing this flip-flopping to and frow trying to make the best of a difficult-to-assess image.
When we are in the late stages of an approach, there is a vast amount of calculation going on at any given time, I just can't accept entering this critical phase and then hitting the brain with variable datums.
But then there are trombone players. I'm not kidding, it seems that users of vary-focals start to ‘play' the lens in the same manner. Using pre-set levels of magnification just as a trombone player would to hit a set note. Learning to play that instrument is (I'm told) is a question of sliding onto a frequency from as near to it as possible. With practice, the fine tuning is reduced. Now, imagine doing this with your eyes.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: FUBAR
Posts: 3,348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Loose rivets, thanks a lot for that,very eloquent;Must admit I like the "idea"of "playing the lense",don't know if my poor fuddled brain will though? Speechless Two, fortunately I'm not so far gone(yet)to have probs with o/h panel,main difficulty is with the sh*tty Ryanair photo-copied Jepps at night;I wonder if higher approach speeds play more tricks with the peripheral vision(ie quantity due speed info arrives/as opposed to rotary problem of sheer quantity of detail? as loose rivets has suggested.)I'm going to email the CAA with my prescription and see if they can expand a little on the"official view" taking into account the difference between my near/distant correction,I think that may be a critical factor;once again thanks for your inputs,I'm hoping to get it right from the off.Cheers.
