So you believe its pretty accurate but you don't want it in a game? Ughhh, I think your severly mis-understanding the definition of a simulation.
And I think you're severely misunderstanding the definition of a game My definition includes "enjoyment" and doesn't include Very few game buyers are looking for true realism. GPL was a great success with simmers but a complete failure commercially. Have "true realism" available for those that want want it but don't make it the default.
The vestibulo-ocular reflex has its limits. Any kid that's been dizzy (or that’s blown an extra- vehement raspberry) has experienced that. In any case, head-body motion and vehicle motion should not look like camera shake in a b-movie earthquake. It doesn’t mean that there should be a total removal of negative visual effects on perception of the environment. I have to agree that extremes like tire flat-spotting, high-amplitude bumps in stiffly sprung racing cars and certainly crashes and spins have the potential to overwhelm one’s reflexes and abilities. People’s opinions of their preference of how they wish to experience a simulation are indeed subjective. Human biomechanics, however, is not subjective, it is a science so there is a truth about what people experience under the stress of high-amplitude vibration. This is just one study, but it addresses not only the fact that vibration can cause visual impairment, but negative effects on physical and cognitive performance: http://pubs.drdc.gc.ca/PDFS/unc53/p526574.pdf It appears that vibrations of 2 to 20Hz that shake the body (which suggests amplitude and the amount of damping between the road and the seat of the pants is a significant factor) would cause visual impairment so if ISI wanted to link their flat-spotting tire model to this idea then they might have to simulate blurred vision at least up to about 130km/h (about 20Hz on a 660mm diameter F1 tire). I’m not sure that wouldn’t induce more complaints than accolades despite the accuracy! Not from me though; if ISI is going to the trouble of a tire-model with flat-spotting, why not include all the disincentives to locking up brakes and dragging tires? Simulating the physics of the car on track cannot be disconnected from simulating the biomechanics of the driver if the experience is to look and feel natural. That's why Sébastien Tixier has put so much thought into creating his RealHeadMotion Plugin. In the current versions of his plugin for rF1 and rF2, Tixier appears to have focused on simulating how the vestibulo-spinal tract helps a driver reflexively use his muscles to keep his head level and upright despite the accelerations translated through the vehicle to his body by bumps, cornering, accelerating and braking. His efforts combined with the game’s other tendencies (look-ahead, yaw, etc.), in my opinion, create a fairly natural representation of both the vestibulo-spinal and the vestibulo-ocular reflexes. The driver’s eye movements are complex, using smooth pursuit eye movements (e.g. tracking other vehicles, approaching braking points) as well as saccadic eye movements as one chooses points and objects of interest, aided to a degree by the vestibulo-ocular and vestibulo-spinal reflexes. All of this natural ability to keep the head and eyes steady, oriented and focussed is undone by shaking the environment around on screen. The resulting sensory conflicts are not natural, just disturbing and bordering on if not resulting in vertigo and nausea. The plugin in rF1 gives me the much more realistic (though vicarious) driver’s eye view I expect, not a GoPro-clamped-to-a-roll-bar view or even a helmet-cam view. Try Sebring, Zandvoort 2007, and Rouen-les-Essart 55-70 with and without. With rF2, the plugin makes clipping curbs at Infineon in the 370z too much fun to describe without [deleted] expletives. As for choice, the first order of business is to make the biomechanics realistic, then allow the player to adjust it to their liking. But like driving aids, where an advantage could be afforded those who prefer not to be bothered by too much realism, disallowing or limiting choice at the server level for multi-player is necessary. I’ll be quite satisfied with Tixier’s plugin if ISI chooses not to pursue this further but it certainly would be nice if they drove this aspect of racing simulations forward in rF2. Looking forward v2.0!: https://sites.google.com/site/mididrumcoverpartner/real-head-motion-2 Some Wikipedia references for those who don’t mind some dry reading: Vistibular System: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vestibular_system Vestibulo-ocular reflex: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vestibulo-ocular_reflex Vestibulo-spinal tract: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vestibulospinal_tract#Tonic_labyrinthine_reflex Motion Sickness (see reference to “Simulation Sicknees” and “Virtual reality Sickness” about halfway through) : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_sickness Smooth Pursuit Eye Movement: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smooth_pursuit Saccadic Eye Movement: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saccade
I think you hit the nail on the head with these two terms. "helmet-cam view" is exactly what I'd call the 'head motion' that defaults in rF2. And the "GoPro-clamped-to-a-roll-bar" is a perfect wording for taking away all head movement. I live on a rough road, and doing my own little observations, I've noticed that my head still swings side-to-side, however, my eyes remain locked on the road. Almost all of the movement of the environment that I notice happens on the periphery of my view, not within my focused view. Which leads me to believe that an acceptable solution would be to have some sort of a 'target' for the cockpit camera that's at some distance from the car, and still allow the camera to shake from side to side, but keep it pointing at this target. Of course, there's the issue of where exactly the target should be located, but I'd be willing to bet that you wouldn't need it to be all that far away from the car until changing its position would be negligible. I haven't tried out Real Head Motion (yet), but maybe this already does that?
Totally different then when your flying in a race car and your whole body is getting beatin and banged up and your bruised everywhere and your head is going in all different directions boom bing bamn wham bang, just all over the place real quickly in random directions, due to bumps, TONS of vibrations, head buffeting, the car throwing you around, you get beat up. People that havent raced race cars try to imagine it so they just picture the same feeling as a regular car, and then they sort of "modify" that feeling and say ok but its gotta feel stiffer, its going to have more acceleration etc etc etc. Im sorry but its not like that, its totally different. Its like what Lewis Hamilton said, "if your trying to imagine it...dont even waste your time".
You can't show videos taken from a rigidly mounted camera and proclaim it to be anything like human eyes. Yes even helmet cameras are rigidly mounted and will vibrate wildly compared to the same image seen directly with your eyes. I agree that shake does exist, but IMHO the default shake in rF2 is overdone. You can't simply take a video clip and model the same effect in the sim. You end up modelling a camera perspective, not a human perspective. The human brain and eyes can and do compensate for this shake up to a point. I don't think anyone is arguing that head shake is totally unrealistic, but neither should it be modeled to match rigidly mounted camera recordings.
I'm going to say the same with other words: The drivers in those video's are experiencing vibrations/g-forces but their inner-ear is correcting their vision to be a lot more stable than a rigidly mounted camera on their helmet. What WE see is the vibrations we see (in some sort) in rF2, which is a good thing when simulation camera perspective. BUT when we are driving our simulation pretending to be a race car driver (man, it sounds childish now, sorry for that LOL) we want to experience what a driver see's: a much more stable vision than a camera's perspective
You got a race car? Help me understand...let me take it for a spin Besides, you don't know how rough my road is... But seriously...I really didn't mean for that to be the end-all discussion--hence the "little" part. I totally believe that you can get beaten around quite a bit. In fact I have head motion enabled for the very reason that I'd like to partially like to experience what one would in a race car. I also notice that you've taken my comment way out of context...I wasn't trying to say that there should be 100% dampened motion, either. When I get my PC back up and running, I'll have to share a quick little rendering I made to show exactly what I'm suggesting...I think you'll appreciate it...maybe...
your body gets bruised all over it if you dont got exact padding and seating for your body, I couldnt even see the huge number on the car behind me in my mirror because everything is vibrating so much. Its crazy.
Is there any way to get rid of the shaking? I put all those lines in .plr to 0, but still to much shaking =(
Exactly the same thing that can happen if you stop focusing on it in the software, too. If you focus on the track, looking as far ahead as you can, the shaking becomes just movement which adds to immersion. If you focus on the car, or aren't looking ahead of the car by the amount you should be when driving in sim or real life, you will probably be affected by it, especially if you;re saying in your head how pissed off you are at it.
It would be nice if it scaled with fov, the lower the less shake. Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 4 Beta
I've got a viral inner ear infection that is causing some vertigo right now. It's almost gone but not gone enough that playing this game on a 46" tv doesn't give me motion sickness I found out tonight. The head shake was definitely part of that.
I know exactly what you mean and I've experienced exactly what you mean XD. High speed on a bike gives a lot of head movement, crosswinds can affect it a lot, so can the helmet you wear and how it is shaped. Kinda what I feel is there is a lot of movement and shaking around but I find myself still looking mostly at reference points though, so while my head is shaking around, I'm just looking for certain spots to judge my inputs. Which is where i think that if you are looking at the vibration and looking at the car and track almost trying to measure it, you think it looks super overdone. But when I think back to the times in rF2 where I've been super focused and in the zone with my laps, I can never remember seeing the vibration or caring for it. What bothers me about some of these things is when the alien type people start to turn these things off in the name of getting faster laptimes/whatever. Like the rainspray thing, that must be somehow locked for all drivers at some point, or at least relativly the same kind of effect. I dunno, just to me seems to go against the sim grain, things like auto pit stuff, crash recovery aids and buttons, etc.
