So....who has PCars?

1. How can a definite angle exist for a given screen size/ratio, game-FOV, and user-distance to screen? In IR, AC, and (I think) LFS you can change the rendering on the outer monitors only - which therefore allows almost any angle you desire - without changing either the screen size/ratio, game-FOV, or user-distance to screen. Therefore, depending on how the outer monitors are rendered, the outer monitor angles can almost be limitless (or at least limitless between 0 degrees and 90 degrees)...

2. Does bezel compensation affect this even further? If so, then almost every triple screen user uses some amount of bezel compensation...

Mr. Pix, the current picture as it is currently (connected to screen size, screen aspect ratio, game FOV, and game selected), with a second more basic pic beside or underneath it which is a much simpler, direct overhead view which is only connected to the angle (and states the angle at one of the angle corners). Just the angle could be connected to this pic (and maybe aspect ratio if you want to go a step further, but I think screen size would be pointless and a waste of bandwidth, as well as game FOV and selected game since you can't even see those as the picture would be a 100%, exact perpendicular overhead view). Of course you could get fancy and do all sorts of off-centred views and such so as to combine the currently used graphic with the monitor's angle.

WhiteShadow, maybe I have wide bezels but I've stated multiple times that just about every single item in the game's U.I. is viewable and therefore usable. So I do not have a total of 8cm of the RF2 U.I. cut off. Well maybe edges of the irrelevent, non-functional background image, but with regards to the actual U.I. (the functional stuff we click, read, view, etc.) I don't have anything cutting off from what I remember. Also, In a worse case scenario, Nvidia and I think AMD as well support bezel peeking at the press of a button, but I've never had to use that, ever.

 

Nevermind, just not worth the debate, I wasn't asking for advice

 

Random thoughts:
Comparing pCars and AC on pretty much full graphics, pCars has some nice atmospheric elements. AC looks a little too sterile (like iRacing) but has I think better track textures, which are important for judging speed and distance. ISI's tracks surfaces look good too, and it has IMO a good dirty/real look generally about it. But the tracks are spoiled by the flickering textures, jaggies and looking like they were coloured in by a 3 yr old.

In pCars I tried the Caterham seven, Escort and Atom V8. I felt the physics was a bit...well 'easy' for want of a better term. You could take liberties that you couldn't in rF2, AC and iRacing. I understand what some people mean about rF2 tyres seeming more 'detailed', but what I think AC gets better than any other sim is the sense of inertia. You have to coax the car through corners because correcting loses time. There's more of a sense of respecting that the cars actually have mass.

Like AC, the pCars AI cars were too slow; on 100%, no aids, starting 20th it was easy to win at Donington in the Caterham with no practice. But my car/track choices obviously arent' popular because I tried 3 time trials and after about 2 or 3 laps was top of short leader boards at Donington, Brands and Laguna in the Escort. I expected there'd be a lot more laps recorded. I was on course to beat the Atom time at Imola when Steam said I'd been disconnected. Spent an hour trying to reconnect to steam, and eventually managed to login in after it sent me a code because it reckoned I'd changed my computer. That's the second time Steam's thought that. Very annoying when you're locked out of your games because of Steam, which I (at least) don't want anyway. pCars Imola seems similar to AC's. But Laguna is nothing like iRacing's laser scanned version.

The curb behaviour is extremely weird, auto pitting is sad. Also I did a fast lap in solo testing, but had no option to save the replay only leave with nothing or apparently stay to the end ...of what exactly?

First reaction then is pCars is fun and immersive because of the graphics, but physics is rather unsatisfying - at least in the cars I tried.

If we could get the best bits of all these sims into one it'd be rather excellent...except no-one would agree what they are.

 

I am new in ISI forums, bought rFactor2 in 2012 and I have followed developments with close eye. I have not played rFactor2 much because multiview is an achilesheel for me.
My replays are to those who claims that Rfactor2 Multiview UI works perfect and bezel correction is only one example that it dont. What is high and low priority development is up to each to judge.

I read this from Community Q&A in 2013:

Q: Any plans to have proper support for Triplescreen? (angle, distance, bezel etc…)
A: Yes. I (Joe) am currently working on a complete setup for triple screen including arbitrary angles between screens, bezel correction, and proper FOV based on distance to screens.

This is from 2013, I think it is time to get also multiview updated.

 

pC runs like it has hidden assists. It probably needs to go through the NFS Shift community work to unlock its capability.

 

"Just not worth the debate"? What debate? I'm sorry you misunderstood my post. I was just asking questions (#s 1 and 2) out of curiosity because you and some others around here seem much more knowledgable about triple screens than me. I was just interested in how something works and thought I'd ask. Sorry for asking. I didn't know trying to explain some interesting simracing stuff on a simracing forum just isn't worth it to you.

"I wasn't asking for advice". Lol, wow! Geez. All I did was offer some ideas. Just friendly advice/ideas from an enthusiast to another, nothing more . But thanks for the response - real nice and appreciative.

 

Yes hidden assists are on. Host can turn off aids online,Force Manual Gears > Yes, Force Realistic Driving >NO, Allow ABS > NO, Allow Stability Control > NO, Allow Traction Control > NO. I dont know if this can be done offline too.

 

Yes it can. Weird thing is, when you first boot up the game and choose "Pro" as your gameplay mode, you would assume all assists are off by default. Because "Pro" = "simracer" right? But if you go into the gameplay section, all assists are ON by default in "Pro" mode. I had to set it to OFF manually.

 

After setting it to Pro then disabling everything tucked away in the menus, the game still runs that way. That is why I said it will likely take an effort like that from NFS:S community to make this more interesting in the PC for some of us.

 

Yes, I looked in to this to and it seem to me that the only possibility to get rid off all aids is to host.

 

Like Gran Turismo 5, when driving online it could really be a surprising and challenging experience on certain (Premium) cars. Complete shock to the rest of the game.

 

Looking forward to your findings. getting pcars next week and the first thing on the list (as usual) is getting rid of all help.
Would sux if there where items not possible to turn off imo.

 

My findings won't come until eons from now, I am not digging into it only reporting what I find online . I'm still waiting for my refund to be done correctly, asked for it over a month ago. This inability to eliminate these assist layers from single player was one of the two main reasons I decided to step away despite losing 7 dollars in the currency exchange.

 

NVIDIA Control Panel > Spam displays with Surround > configure > Bezel Correction V1& V2 = 120 = 4cm bezel = 6000 x 1080(bezel corrected) vs 5760 x 1080 (recommended), triple screens 3 x 1920 x 1080.

If you look the numbers it is easy to see what happens and how the bezel correction is working, Bezel Correction zoom out the monitor width, not the height. Each monitor has resolution 1920 x 1080 and this is why bezel correction hides part of you visible picture behind the bezel. Maximum resolution > 3x 1920 x 1080 = 5760 x 1080 it is not possible physically to stretch monitors to 6000 x 1080, right? Height (1080) is unchanged it is crystal clear that also FOV must remain unchanged and it crystal clear also that Bezel Correction (Width ZOOM only) scaling is incorrect.

It is also crystal clear that ISI is aware problems with multiview UI which you seem not to be.

Community Q&A
A: Yes. I (Joe) am currently working on a complete setup for triple screen including arbitrary angles between screens, bezel correction, and proper FOV based on distance to screens.

With this I hope you finally can face the fact with pros and cons with multiview like it is today, It is usable to some but not to all of us.

 

FWIW, AC still has some aids on too in "pro" mode that can be turned off in "custom". I think that depends a bit on the car.

I always try to "search and destroy" and it's annoying if a sim still has stuff on you can't turn off. A cynic might say they're "obfuscating" the true tyre behaviour.

Since you mention it, I didn't notice any threshold on the brakes in pCars, so ABS was probably the reason. I wasn't pushing but even I'd notice something somewhere.

The physics was all a bit dead though...now you mention it. The Atom did power-oversteer but snapped in slow motion even compared with AC.

Can someone tell me how you leave the solo practice mode (or whatever it's called) and save your lap times or replay? - that was the only reason I was doing time trials and didn't know they'd be uploaded.

 

? I know how bezel correction works. The GPU is basically rendering an extra wide screen that you can't see.

I know that RF2's in-game menus (UI) aren't multiview aware.

I know that ISI know that their U.I. isn't multiview aware and that they don't have all the customizability options that games like LFS (I think), IR, and AC have.

I've said it multiple times and all say it again. All I'm saying is that even with a multiview-unaware U.I. + not the slimmest bezels around, I still am able to see everything in the RF2 U.I. All lines of text, all buttons to click on, etc. So the reality is that the U.I. not being multiview-aware is not actually a problem 99.9% of the time, well, unless someone has massive bezels like 30 or 40 cm wide ones, lol.

 

@WhiteShadow - 6000 is what you have to set your width to for bezels? Jeez, that's 4.5% oversize... no wonder you experience problems with the UI. With my narrow bezel 27" monitors, I'm only at 5847. Only 1.5% oversize. Honestly, I couldn't imagine trying to use monitors with as wide of bezel as you have as it would drive me crazy.

 

Assetto is set to run with factory settings. GT cars will have TC or ABS, you can turn it off completely with ctrl+ key but that wouldn't be realistic.

For excellent driving proof in pC, look no further than taking the C9 out and abusing the throttle and late braking.

 

Considering that GT cars have adjustable TC and can be turned off, "TC is not used by drivers than only in wet and slippery conditions" (from the mouth of GT driver.) it is realistic to be able to turn it off.
Also AC "factory" ABS isn't an aid, its modeled as the ABS fuctions in any particular car. (very different from GT race car to a civilian sports car for example.)

 

Unless I'm mistaken, you've just pointed out exactly where rF2 is lacking. In rF2 the side screen angle is determined by the things you've listed, at some point it should be able to cater for your current screen layout. At the moment it very much limits you to a single correct side screen angle, which will be the same as each screen's h-FOV (note the h-horizontal).

What gets drawn in the screens doesn't overlap or leave gaps (otherwise you might manage to fake bezel correction!). So if the centre screen has a h-FOV of 80°, the edge of it is showing you what's at 40° away from centre, and the next screen will start drawing what's above 40° from centre (of the centre screen), across to 80° from centre at the middle of that screen (120° at the far edge). The centre of that screen has to be pointing directly toward you for it to look right, and since it's showing what's 80° off-centre it obviously has to be at a 80° angle, and will be 80° to your side. Then it all works.

When they allow you to specify your screen size and angles, the game will instead adjust the multiview angles to suit your layout and your screens become windows into the game world exactly where they are, instead of needing to be in the correct position for everything to look right.

So back to your question, the angles are currently determined by the h-FOV, which depends on the screen ratio and v-FOV (not directly; horizontal:vertical FOV isn't the same as the screen ratio).