FakeThinkpad
Registered
+1 on the Eye level slider
About cockpit view settings URGENT!
- Thread starter RafBR
- Start date
Paul_Ceglia
Registered
there should be unlimited fov control meaning just easy to use in game adjustments to setup the perfect view in a snap. Im not sure if its possible to do but it would be great. More and more people are using triple screens these days and large screens as well so it just makes sense to have FOV adjustments made easier. I guess unlimited seat adjustments would be good when rfactor goes gold and FOV 1 to 150 IMHO......
ZeosPantera
Registered
Well your FOV should be set once for your hardware, Monitor size/position. Getting the sim to allow you to set all those parameters and override the mods settings is what the goal would/should be.
Paul_Ceglia
Registered
Yes but i always find myself adjusting the seat position for different cars which is fine I just think unlimited control would be nice to set that perfect view kinda like the camhack for RBR. I have one question about FOV...when moving the seat position forward is that changing the FOV or just pushing you closer into the windshield?? Does changing FOV affect the aspect ratio in a way???
ZeosPantera
Registered
Just imagine your moving the camera lens forward. Ideally it should be where the drivers eyes actually are. So, no, you are not changing the FOV/aspect when you move the camera/seat. Just the camera/seat.
Terence Groening
Registered
I think I'll add some PLR variables to control the seat "orientation" so you can adjust where the camera is pointing.
ZeosPantera
Registered
I think I will buy you a cupcake.
While you're at it. Maybe the ability to adjust the multi-view angles to match hardware? I think by default you needed a 45° angle for your side monitors to make it look right.
Paul_Ceglia
Registered
Christopher Snow
Registered
Yes, and well observed--I remember way back in rF1 when the 79-F1 mod came out...
...sitting inside my brand new Williams FWO7...in front of my projector...trying to diagnose what was wrong with the actual camera position and orientation...
...and I concluded, as you've alluded to hear that CAMERA orientation and SEAT orientation are not the same thing at all.
I ended up then thinking that the drivers head (camera) must have had a downward aspect to it...of something like -4 degrees (looking forward, but tilted along a vertical (neck) axis leaning forward from what you might expect).
I reached this conclusion by very carefully aligning the view forward to match my own cockpit horizon...and then looking right and left inside the garage, where it became immediately obvious to me that as my "head" (the camera) turned off to the side, it also leaned forward too...ending up with me looking "downward-and-left" instead of actually just "[horizontally]-and-left." The texture lines on the sides of the garage walls made this all immediately obvious too...because they all decended left or right (so my camera orientation was such that I was obviously looking downward at them, to some degree).
I remember feeling too like I eventually solved this by manually editing one of the camera files (perhaps by trial and error even). So, even though I can't remember which file...or how I did it...I do still feel confident it was "do-able" in rF1. And if I discovered how once, I can do it again...if motivated.
===
That said^, your idea, of adding camera controls as WELL as seat position controls is spot on. We really DO need both...and I'd be surprised to learn rf-pro (rf1) or rf2-pro doesn't already have them...so the technology and software development necessary to implement this should already have been done, IMO.
Whether or not we "get it" for a measily $80 (my price) is another thing, of course.
And in any case, consider me as one who's "hopped, too, onto the bandwagon."
CS
...sitting inside my brand new Williams FWO7...in front of my projector...trying to diagnose what was wrong with the actual camera position and orientation...
...and I concluded, as you've alluded to hear that CAMERA orientation and SEAT orientation are not the same thing at all.
I ended up then thinking that the drivers head (camera) must have had a downward aspect to it...of something like -4 degrees (looking forward, but tilted along a vertical (neck) axis leaning forward from what you might expect).
I reached this conclusion by very carefully aligning the view forward to match my own cockpit horizon...and then looking right and left inside the garage, where it became immediately obvious to me that as my "head" (the camera) turned off to the side, it also leaned forward too...ending up with me looking "downward-and-left" instead of actually just "[horizontally]-and-left." The texture lines on the sides of the garage walls made this all immediately obvious too...because they all decended left or right (so my camera orientation was such that I was obviously looking downward at them, to some degree).
I remember feeling too like I eventually solved this by manually editing one of the camera files (perhaps by trial and error even). So, even though I can't remember which file...or how I did it...I do still feel confident it was "do-able" in rF1. And if I discovered how once, I can do it again...if motivated.
===
That said^, your idea, of adding camera controls as WELL as seat position controls is spot on. We really DO need both...and I'd be surprised to learn rf-pro (rf1) or rf2-pro doesn't already have them...so the technology and software development necessary to implement this should already have been done, IMO.
Whether or not we "get it" for a measily $80 (my price) is another thing, of course.
And in any case, consider me as one who's "hopped, too, onto the bandwagon."
CS
Christopher Snow
Registered
I will respectfully disagree, if I may.
Camera and seat really are two different things...and (IMO at least) seat should take into account features of the actual car (while camera might not).
For example: Porsche 917--this car (in coupe form) sported a roofline (incorporating frame tubes) of about 36" off the road surface--with 4" of ground clearance. 32" vertical inches then, from the bottom of the drivers butt to the top of his head, while wearing a helmet...
...but only in theory. take away maybe another 0.25" under his ass for fabric, and fiberglass seating...
...and take away another .75 inches on top of his head...because the overhead frame tubing at the top of the door runs right over the top of his helmet.
So now you've taken off another inch and have only 31" left.
For a typical racer, this might not matter a bit (race drivers tend to be small in frame and light of build...
...but for a guy like me, who has a build similar to Dan Gurney (6'4"-185 lbs.)...every millimeter matters.
I probably couldn't even get into a 917 coupe, let alone find enough comfort or seating/pedal flexibility to give me a chance to do my best in the car*...
[* You can't fit a "Gurney Blister" to the top of a 917 (as you can on a Ford GT40) simply because of the presence of that top frame tube on the right side over the door (and maybe too because of the top of the doorline itself).
====
All THOSE ^^^ SHOULD be incorporated into the "seat position," imo...of any mod...if the mod is accurate.
In the same way, it's not possible just to "move the seat back" in a 68 F1 car...because the seat itself is literally part of the chassis structure. As it stands now, we are allowed to do this up to something like "50" in seating controls...but if the car were--say--a real 68 Lotus 49...you would only be able to do so by also gaining height. The back of the tub is slanted at an angle (there are two) of about 45 degrees...so in the real car for every mm or inch you moved backward, you would also move UPward about the same amount.
That is unless the car company built a special "long-tub/long wheelbase" version for you alone.
Or maybe for you (me) and for Gurney too.
If you want to build a guy like me a "long-wheelbase" version of the car, hey...I'm all for it. But if you want me to just shoehorn myself into the standard version of the car (the way Gurney did himself into the '62 Porsche F1 car**)...
[**Gurney said he "felt like a giraffe" sitting inside the car...but he still won the French GP that year with it].
..then keep seat position tied down tightly, with a strong bias toward reality, IMO. Keep it different from camera position--that way I can at least hope to understand what I'm seeing...without having to reverse-engineer it first.
I can't drive off the hood in real life...or the roof...or from atop the trailer I'm towing behind my car...and even though each has its merits.
But I can tune my cameras to match what my eyes would see. ;
But not if I have to put my seat too far back.
The passenger behind won't be happy with me...lol!CS
Last edited by a moderator:
taufikp
Registered
Please, do provide it as a "per car" setting, not global, as you'll probably have it set up slightly different for each car.
magicfr
Registered
Hey, I'm maker of the plugin, I think you will have better result with this =>
PitchDefault = 0 //-- So you look horizontal
VerticalShiftDefault = 0.2 // which should place the camera approx 20cm higher.
Or any value you want
And it's 20s you have to wait for the plug to be activated, because there is a bug in rFactor2, the plugin systeme is called only when the Plug Logo disapear at top left of the screen.
Paul_Ceglia
Registered
I will respectfully disagree, if I may.
Camera and seat really are two different things...and (IMO at least) seat should take into account features of the actual car (while camera might not).
For example: Porsche 917--this car (in coupe form) sported a roofline (incorporating frame tubes) of about 36" off the road surface--with 4" of ground clearance. 32" vertical inches then, from the bottom of the drivers butt to the top of his head, while wearing a helmet...
...but only in theory. take away maybe another 0.25" under his ass for fabric, and fiberglass seating...
...and take away another .75 inches on top of his head...because the overhead frame tubing at the top of the door runs right over the top of his helmet.
So now you've taken off another inch and have only 31" left.
For a typical racer, this might not matter a bit (race drivers tend to be small in frame and light of build...
...but for a guy like me, who has a build similar to Dan Gurney (6'4"-185 lbs.)...every millimeter matters.
I probably couldn't even get into a 917 coupe, let alone find enough comfort or seating/pedal flexibility to give me a chance to do my best in the car*...
[* You can't fit a "Gurney Blister" to the top of a 917 (as you can on a Ford GT40) simply because of the presence of that top frame tube on the right side over the door (and maybe too because of the top of the doorline itself).
====
All THOSE ^^^ SHOULD be incorporated into the "seat position," imo...of any mod...if the mod is accurate.
In the same way, it's not possible just to "move the seat back" in a 68 F1 car...because the seat itself is literally part of the chassis structure. As it stands now, we are allowed to do this up to something like "50" in seating controls...but if the car were--say--a real 68 Lotus 49...you would only be able to do so by also gaining height. The back of the tub is slanted at an angle (there are two) of about 45 degrees...so in the real car for every mm or inch you moved backward, you would also move UPward about the same amount.
That is unless the car company built a special "long-tub/long wheelbase" version for you alone.
Or maybe for you (me) and for Gurney too.
If you want to build a guy like me a "long-wheelbase" version of the car, hey...I'm all for it. But if you want me to just shoehorn myself into the standard version of the car (the way Gurney did himself into the '62 Porsche F1 car**)...
[**Gurney said he "felt like a giraffe" sitting inside the car...but he still won the French GP that year with it].
..then keep seat position tied down tightly, with a strong bias toward reality, IMO. Keep it different from camera position--that way I can at least hope to understand what I'm seeing...without having to reverse-engineer it first.
I can't drive off the hood in real life...or the roof...or from atop the trailer I'm towing behind my car...and even though each has its merits.
But I can tune my cameras to match what my eyes would see. ;
But not if I have to put my seat too far back.
CS
I understand what your saying but what in confused about is how many cameras there are?? one for seat and one for drivers head?? Why does it matter which cam you adjust when they would yield the same results. For me i use triple screens I like a very low FOV its @ 20 with the seat position push way up to basically have my monitors as a the windshield with very little dash showing GTs and meganes. The seat position is the seat your actually sitting in while playing the game so when adjusting that in game your basically controlling the drivers head head level i think. Im pretty new to all this though so i could be wrong but it makes sense to me
(...)
====
All THOSE ^^^ SHOULD be incorporated into the "seat position," imo...of any mod...if the mod is accurate.
In the same way, it's not possible just to "move the seat back" in a 68 F1 car...because the seat itself is literally part of the chassis structure. As it stands now, we are allowed to do this up to something like "50" in seating controls...but if the car were--say--a real 68 Lotus 49...you would only be able to do so by also gaining height. The back of the tub is slanted at an angle (there are two) of about 45 degrees...so in the real car for every mm or inch you moved backward, you would also move UPward about the same amount.
That is unless the car company built a special "long-tub/long wheelbase" version for you alone.
Or maybe for you (me) and for Gurney too.
If you want to build a guy like me a "long-wheelbase" version of the car, hey...I'm all for it. But if you want me to just shoehorn myself into the standard version of the car (the way Gurney did himself into the '62 Porsche F1 car**)...
[**Gurney said he "felt like a giraffe" sitting inside the car...but he still won the French GP that year with it].
..then keep seat position tied down tightly, with a strong bias toward reality, IMO. Keep it different from camera position--that way I can at least hope to understand what I'm seeing...without having to reverse-engineer it first.
I can't drive off the hood in real life...or the roof...or from atop the trailer I'm towing behind my car...and even though each has its merits.
But I can tune my cameras to match what my eyes would see. ;
But not if I have to put my seat too far back.
CS
In rF 2, in hdv file you can define/limit seat adjustment range (values are +/- from default position, which are Eyepoint z and y values). You can of course set that range to 0 = no adjustment at all. So it's all up to mod makers.
magicfr
Registered
Another thing is missing in rFactor2, and I think the OP made the confusion with seat height.
For Direct3D to rendering the rf2 virtual world, the dev are setting up a projection matrix.
In 99.99% of the time, the projection center is set up in center of the screen.
Which means, to have realistic view the real viewer/driver/player must have eyes in center of the screen too.
But when you setup cockpits, desktop, etc , The eye is not centered with the screen.
iRacing came with a nice option to shift the center display up and down, which is not the same as moving the 3D virtual head up and down.
This is something I miss a lot in rFactor2.
Cheers,
Seb
For Direct3D to rendering the rf2 virtual world, the dev are setting up a projection matrix.
In 99.99% of the time, the projection center is set up in center of the screen.
Which means, to have realistic view the real viewer/driver/player must have eyes in center of the screen too.
But when you setup cockpits, desktop, etc , The eye is not centered with the screen.
iRacing came with a nice option to shift the center display up and down, which is not the same as moving the 3D virtual head up and down.
This is something I miss a lot in rFactor2.
Cheers,
Seb
ZeosPantera
Registered
This would allow someone with TWO projectors to set them up so that the center of the driving view is between the two seams of the projected image. That would be an astonishing improvement for cockpit setups since two projectors will probably be plenty wide, not buying three is more cost effective and not needing to drive the frame-rate for three projectors saves hardware costs...
I like this idea. Make it so #1!