You get motion sickness because your brain is confused why you arent moving while looking at a realistic looking image where you should be moving would it be real. Only a very limited people have this condition
Haha! you people are something else! you keep insisting that there is a correct field of view, yet no one can use it as is, get motion sicness of it, and that makes distances out of proportion. i feel like galileo galilei here... " You tried to pseudo-scientifically prove that a calculated FOV is wrong because it "feels" wrong." - I explained in my first post why it is wrong technically (fishbowl). youre the one who's trying to prove it's right when EVERYTHING tells you its wrong, if you would just open your eyes. And that soccer video!! haha! you are the ones driving with binoculars on. and the earth is flat again, hahahaha! I'll leave it at this now, and get some popcorn...
No. Not even "no one can use it". I don't because I have a normal size single screen and am not comfortable seeing so little. Motion sickness, sure, if you try to use it on a small screen and can't handle it. I've known people who couldn't handle the normal (high) FOV either, yet for most of us we're fine. Who knows. Well... actually... you didn't explain that very well. I'm interested, because I explained (with an example) how the fishbowl effect happens, while also revealing (if you weren't aware) that it's purely a function of viewing distance. A FOV of 189° can look 'right' if the image is big enough and you're close enough to it. As Zeos says - it's simple maths. So please - go ahead and explain your fishbowl theory.
But is there an error in the math? When you change FOV in rF2 you change more than simply the width of the scene that is drawn on the monitor. Changing FOV in rF2 appears to work something like changing the focal length on a zoom camera lens. A lower FOV makes distant objects appear closer by drawing them larger relative to closer objects. In other words lowering FOV compresses depth. Thus, changing FOV in rF2 changes two things the width of the scene captured or drawn on your monitor and secondly, perspective the representation of depth by how big distant objects are drawn. My understanding of the "FOV Calculator" is that it is based on what you would see looking through a window the same size as your monitor. Using a window with the same dimensions as your monitor, you look through the window from the same viewing distance as you use for your monitor. You then adjust FOV to have as much of the scene drawn on your monitor as you see through the window. This should establish a natural width to the scene drawn on your monitor, however I can't see that this method guarantees a natural perspective. One of the parameters for the "FOV Calculator" is viewing distance. AS I move closer to the window I see more so, according to the "Calculator", I should use a larger FOV, but a larger FOV changes perspective, distant objects look farther away. IF FOV set up per the "Calculator," I don't see moving my chair farther away as distorting the perspective requiring adjusting the FOV which is contrary to the algorithm for the "Calculator." Another difficulty I have with the "FOV Calculator" is what does changing the FOV in rF2 really do? For example, GPL had two different, distinct utilities that claimed to change the FOV. Both produced different results in that the resulting images did not look the same. I think maybe one changed the focal length and the other affected only the width of scene displayed. I think to create an algorith for calculating FOV in rF2 you would need to know more than we have: 1. exactly what does the code for changing FOV do 2. what size monitor was rF2 designed on. and 3. for what FOV was rF2 designed. In conclusion I am not saying that on a practical level the "FOV Calculator" does not produce a usable FOV for the user. I do use it as starting point. I am saying you have not mathematically proven its correctness, at least not to me. (once saw some math professors get into argument over to whom the proposition was most obvious.) SW
No, it's not like that. Every accomplished photographer knows it. Let say you use a wide angle lens to make a photo focusing on an object, then use a tele lens pointing at the same object, then crop the wide angle photo so that the object has the same dimension in the crop as in the tele photo, you'll see absolutely no difference between crop photo and tele photo, the perspective hasn't changed so demonstrating your theory is wrong. Changing FoV in a game is like changing lens in photography.
That's a good article to get people into this subject. However, now that this article comes up again, i feel i should point out that that article has some inaccuracies. Firstly, the images demonstrating a change in focal length are actually taken from different positions and then made so that the subject of the photo appears the same size in each - hence the background changing "perspective". (Actually, perspective never changes - in order to view perspective correctly, you must make sure that the FOV of the image you are viewing takes up the same FOV in your vision). This "perspective changing" effect is known as dolly-zoom in cinematography. Second (and more importantly) are the comments about nfs shift. The article states that is is "using a different focal length" in order to "reduce distortion". The thing is, the article doesn't seem to understand how focal-length actually relates to FOV. This is something that really must be understood: When you change the focal length, all you are doing is effectively changing the FOV. Drawing parallels to the FOV formula, focal length is equivalent to the "distance" and camera sensor size height / width (or eye retina size height / width) is equivalent to "screen height / width". Therefore, what the article says about the "focal length being messed with" in nfs shift is clearly not what is happening (as that would just change the fov, not change distortion). So, what I am wanting to ask, is what does nfs shift actually do? (and do any other games do this - pcars? or non-driving games?) I do not own it myself so I cannot really test it out. If it genuinely is changing the focal length then this simply means it is changing the FOV, and that the FOV listed may therefore be incorrect (and perhaps lower than listed). However, considering that the article says it lowers distortion around the edges of the image, I wonder what it is actually doing? Is it changing the way that it renders into some obscure proprietary method? (A bit like fish-eye quake or something: http://strlen.com/gfxengine/fisheyequake/index.html ) If not I guess they could be distorting the cockpit models themselves (squashing them towards the edges), as the cockpits are generally the pieces of models that look stretched the most as they are so close to your view. I guess they could squash them inwards towards the edges?
I 'think' what they're trying to say in that article is this: FOV = how big of a window you're looking through; Focal Length = how far you sit/stand from the window. This may be what GPL does as well, IDK, never played it. @samuelw: what you're describing as "shifting perspective" is a function of both how big of a window you're looking through (FOV), and how far the photographer is from the subject. FOV in rFactor adjusts only what it says it does--the FOV. Which is why you need the calculator, because you need to find out what the proper FOV is for how far you are from your subject (i.e. the screen). If you go to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angle_of_view you'll see some images under section 3: Lens Types and Effects. The water-bottle images show a changing perspective with a changing FOV because the photographer moved the camera further away as they zoomed-in, in order to keep the red water bottle the same size in the frame. However, the rest of the images (i.e. the stick structure in the garden, and the Ferris wheel) shows what happens if you change the focal length of the lens (in other words: change the FOV) and maintain the viewing position--the BG seems to 'appear' bigger, but it's not changing relative to the foreground. But hey, don't take mine or the rest of the world's word for it, grab a camera with a zoom lens and try it out for yourself. Take some photos of things at different zooms without moving the camera. You'll find exactly the same thing. That's the beauty of math/science, it works whether you believe in it or not .
"Some" inaccuracies? Someone should tell him that rectilinear WA lens do exists (at a cost...). And the human view IS rectilinear because the signal from the retina is "rectilinearized" by the brain. So I stopped the reading at the first chapters...maybe the rest is OK.
Well I'm in over my head but here's another article, http://www.gvu.gatech.edu/people/official/jarek/papers/Perspective.pdf, which discuses proper viewing distance. SW
It mainly discusses proper viewing angle, which in our case is dead centre. For distance, it is taking the existing image and calculating the correct viewing distance; we take our viewing distance and modify the game FOV so the image matches it. That's what the calculator is for
Just to bump.. This is one of the very few in-car camera's with a decently low FOV.. So everyone can complain about the lack of a sense of speed. [video]http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=9a3_1382188356[/video]
This is really disgusting. Complete disrespect of other people life. Just put them in jail...for a long time.
Changing to a lower FOV does 'squish' the enviroment. Corners become tighter because of the 'squishing'. It can totally alter your braking and turn in points.
A pitch adjustment similar to the one in AC is needed to enhance the already good immersion in factor2. While I'm not about to start comparing the two sims, I do find it a bit easier in that one to get a realistic view of the road with regard to the steering wheel and instrument cluster. Most race cars have the driver's seat mounted lower for better COG but the driving position still maintains a very good view of the display. I find that when I try to adjust the seat in RF2 to emulate what's actually seen, I'm too far below the dash. For me to properly see the road, the current adjustment puts me a tad too high above the steering wheel and cluster in most cars.
