If you are talking rear view and a single side mirror perhaps but there is no way to get both sides without some seriously wide FOV. I calculated for 46".. I used my two normal sites.. http://www.displaywars.com/ and http://www.pagetutor.com/trigcalc/trig.html with half values. If your "window" isn't big enough to see the mirrors then you just won't see them. All you can do without a buying bigger monitor(s) is move your current monitor closer. How big a monitor and how far away? My friend has 23" monitors and built a shelf over his G27 motor to place it on and got up to like 38° vertical. Figure out how close you can physically move it before your eyes freak out. I can stand 26" but my giant CRT is not that easy to move so I am stuck at 34" away and 21°.
MrPix and I need a bit of help. Can anyone here (cough tuttle) quickly throw a completely flat square track with a single spawn point together for testing? We are trying to work out if 0.0° seat pitch actually puts the infinite horizon line at the screen center and so far I can't find any tracks in rF2 that can show it properly.. This is what I got testing. Note on the 0.0 it shows the 600 line of my 1920x1200 is in the ground still.
Not wanting to be argumentative... but I've just tried those 2 sites and don't get your result ZP. For the sake of 'our calculator', can you confirm the maths behind it using the 2 sites you've linked to as I want to check that I'm not doing something wrong. If I use the first link... for a 46" screen the vertical display height comes out at 22.55", half that is 11.275" and put it in to the second link ... I get a theta value (angle X) of 13.22 degrees, double that and I get 26.44 degrees... FOV..... which is what 'our calculator' comes to as well. Can you check my maths by revisiting your 2 links and confirm whether I am being a bit of a plank or whether you are... either way... not fussed, just want to get it right
Being into simracing for quite some time I usually turn down the fov to a lower value. I like it to be realistic and therefore I also adjust the viewing angle (seat pitch) to match the horizont line like it would be in reallife. Friends of mine that have a go in rf2 or any other sim with this settings are struggling in a big way. The don't have any idea of how fast they are and usually miss every corner. Not only while breaking but also while cornering. This gives me the feel that a higher fov might be more natural or understandable. I don't know how isi did their calculations for the default settings but it looks like they're a good compromise. PS: A different viewing angle (seat pitch) usually destroys all the 3d geometry for me. Then it looks like lightpoles are not straight anymore and so on... something I really don't like...
Yeah I messed it up somewhere.. Your math is right.. Which means the calculator is correct. Aren't you glad I had you test it by messing up? My methods are cruel but fair.
I think posts like that already spawned in this thread or another, maybe it was even me who said this all but it is so important I feel it doesn't hurt to say again . Exactly, whenever I showed my setup to friends who are used to playing NFS, flatout etc. with no physics and super high fov they can't drive rf with calculated FOV at all, brake wayyy too late and always think they're going like 10kph. No matter how much experience with real driving they have, they think this is wrong because they have the mindset that when you set in front of LCD it should look like NFS. They just give up after 10mins and tell me "hey thats nice but.." and I know what's in their heads, they just don't want to tell, that I'm crazy for enjoying such seemingly boring driving. But the thing is they are wrong, they are used to wrong settings, because nearly every non-sim does this absolutely 100% wrong, always did wrong and will always do wrong because FOV like 70deg makes it look much faster in straight line. Much more attractive, and thats what arcade games need for success. Now, it's not wise in ALL situations use exactly the setting that calculation gives, if you have small monitor and for some reason can't put the monitor closer, calculation can give you something like 18 FOV. Using such value is just as crazy as using too high FOV because you just can't drive with that. This is something Zeos doesn't want to hear and imo is too extreme approach, in his eyes there are only 2 modes - correct FOV and incorrect FOV. I see it different, I just look at it like some curve where point 1 is correct FOV (usually rather small) and point 0 the most incorrect FOV (the highest value sim will allow you to set). So if you just can't drive with correct FOV, it is still 100x better to use say 0.8 rather than 0.3 (let's not forget that by lower number I generally mean higher FOV). I am really curious how many simracers still don't have a clue about this approach but I'm afraid the number is very high, maybe like 60% of simracers and 95% of arcade racers. Interestingly even some of the fastest guys who disappear in first corner when I try to catch them use absurd view settings, much like Zeos I don't understand how they can drive fast in such conditions. Well, just look at random youtube 10 rf vids. 8 out of 10 will have like 55+FOV. Edit I know I said nothing new, but this needs to spread and spread and spread.. all people need to do (besides actual calculation) to give it some time, nobody likes it after 10minutes but after 2-3 hours it is possible to get used to any FOV and once you understand what is actually correct you don't want to play with high FOV never again. Again, whats fun, not just those who can simdrive fast, but also 80% of all presentations, of all modders, and even sim developers do this wrong. Btw now I was lucky to get very cheap 30" LCD and calculated 32 FOV so I can use 1.0 correct On 22 LCD I had to go a bit higher than correct.
@Osella: Heheh, I concur with what you are saying about most of the sims doing it wrong. Take Race 07 for a prime example, you can't set the FOV below 40 degrees in that sim. In order for that to be correct, I would have to move my monitors quite a bit closer to me,
lol (I think ) yeah you must have started with diagonal of 48 to get that figure. I think Race 07 uses a percentage (of something) system ... not sure how the maths for this actually work though ... will have a play, but I do know I run at about 50% on triple screens to make it look about right.
You know... I've been watching this FOV thread since the beginning on all different sites. I would agree that with a 3 screen setup I would certainly try it AGAIN. On the single it wasn't acceptable for me. But I do have my 2 cents that other single screen users might find helpfull. First, yes, you must endevour to position your screen with center at eye level and change your cam file (be sure to find the right one) as Zeos suggests with the OrientationOffset=(0.000000, 0.00000, 0.0000000). In order to get the horizon correctly positioned. Second, before he posted his FOV topic anywhere, I was researching this. I happened to find a US military documenent that discussed this very problem. In their switch to ws avionic screens, they were trying to decide on the vFOV to apply. Well, they wound up using 57.5. I use that on all my mod cams. But the most important thing is to consider your sceen size. I have 3 computers with all different aspect ratios. In the appropriate cam file, adjust the cam setting to match. My game rig is 16x10 so, in my cam file for cockpit I use: LocalCam=COCKPIT { Fov=(92.000000, 57.500000) For 16x9 would be: LocalCam=COCKPIT { Fov=(102.222222, 57.500000) The first number must be adjusted to your aspect ratio to make round objects round as well as the second number being your vFOV. No matter what vFOV you like. Then simply select default FOV in-game. Only adjusting your FOV down by using the in-game setting or only changing that one number is WRONG. REMEMBER, you MUST find the correct cam file. In Hx for example the cam file is 1 for all cars. (not the default.cam) Few mods use that. In other mods, it can be different for each car. On a side note, If the dash overlay was more adjustable, ppl would be happier. It is, but too much trial and error is required in the cam file to tell you what to do here. Would get confusing and dillute the post's point. Additional: the top of my wheel is 1/3 up the screen and the wheel is maybe only 8" away from the screen. Meaning the front of the g25 meets the screen horizontally and the base body highest point would touch the bottom of the screen if it was 8" closer. So it covers pretty realistically. Obutto v1.
Why does iracing ask for so much info in its in game fov calculator if it all only makes a difference of 1 single degree of fov, I'm sure there's more to it then that...
The first FOV value in the cam file isn't used. So you have been changing them for nothing. I would need to see screenshot evidence of what you are claiming.
@Kiro: It would be nice if there were just 1 magic number to fit all, but everything depends on so much information in order to come back with a correct perspective of your environment if you are going for total realism. As mentioned above, distance to the screen plays a large part of the calculated FOV as does the dimensions of the screen itself. If this were not the case, then we would not be having this discussion The article that you read from the military was dealing with a specific screen size and position that was not going to change from application to application so that is why they were able to choose a single vFOV.
I used avionics as a general term, they were actually tactical screens. Camera displays with other info embedded.
that spa onboard is so high its actually hilarious, not only that, but its so pointed downwards lol, the first vid is good though
Hehehe, yeah, take a look at the mirrors on that F1 car in the second video. you can tell it was shot with a wide angle lens. Now if you had a curved monitor at the same ratio as the curve of the wide angle, it would be pretty awesome to look at.
Originally Posted by VLA I'm curious, based on the maths this FOV calculator people are using, I have triple monitors 46", my eyes are 48" to the centre view of all 3 screens, I would appreciate if someone would like to figure out or give us their FOV settings, for a similar setup Thankyou Zeo and Members for your replies. Well, I been using the settings for approx 3 hours play time straight...and am struggling to get used to it. Like many new things I try, I very seldom give up without a good sprint. Having said that I will keep using it for a week or so, but something inside of me is saying this is just not playable, and very far from immersive....since that is what I seek the most. The FOV concept may all be fact and right according to the research ect, But I have to say and this is my view only, and for the sake of immersion, If I was in the hunt for a motion sim such as mine and I was given a trial run, and the game I experienced was rFactor which had a FOV of 27.5 deg or thereabouts... because someone said "that's the proper/better way to drive for realism".....I...more than likely would not proceed any further with driving sims or for that matter be the owner of a motion sim. Now I stress the fact that I respect all the work You and the community offers for people like me and I read a lot more than I reply as I believe I am a student in your world of experiences.....However, to me there is a line between real world and software simulation and I doubt in my Lifetime will we see the two become one. Now, what I experienced with the FOV degree and reading many posts about this Concept here and on other forums and ZEO yourself on my youtube videos and other people's Video's , you always make a post in regards to their FOV is way crazy or wrong ect, and because of your direction/education ect, I adjusted my personal FOV and enjoyed it ever since, but not at 27.5... I run at 55/60. But I am sorry to say for the sake of immersion the correct FOV according to the concept is just not cutting it. Not for a motion simulator such as mine anyway. The Movement, Vibration and Sound was out of sync with the Visual. All in all, as I'm sure you'd agree we all have different levels of perception, what I call immersion may not be realism to some and vice versa, Can another persons Perception based on fact in this case, ie FOV, be transmitted to another and be expected to adjust ? I guess my message here is, If you have a passion for simracing do whatever it takes (within your current means) to get the best experience you can to keep your own passion alive. is all that matters. Finally, I sincerely believe the FOV calculator is crazy and it's wrong, and should not be encouraged, and it would/could be a deterent to potential new comers to the simracing software world, on their first time exposure. Let each try/find their own. Having said that , I'll always look towards your viewpoints.
