I can code in php... it wouldn't be drag and drop (just looked up some java that may help this become real), but could accept values and then update via a submit button the dymanic images on screen.... happy to give it a go.... give me a few hours and I'll have the basics up... if you like... do you have the images without the numbers/checkboxes etc?
Forget the science, sense of speed is so much better at higher FOV. Who cares if distance is distorted? I'm running 75 (that's right) and TV cockpit and wow, so much more fun than default and better feel also. Maybe with massive monitor or with triple but sticking with 75 for my single 24" monitor.
Everyone chooses how they wish things to be displayed on their own systems, no worries Kknorpp001 Just so you know btw, with a higher FOV, things get to be like the right side mirror on cars, where objects may be closer than they appear heheh. This reduces the time you have to react to a situation that is happening ahead of you because your sense of distance is distorted.
Sense of speed is really irrelevant in the long run. You are going from corner to and what you need is to be prepared to enter it in the right spot in the right gear. If you drive basing things on how fast the scenery warps around the edges of your screen you are probably doing it wrong. Distance and turn severity are near impossible to judge correctly at a super high fov.
I appreciate your opinion and I'm with you on a whole lot of things but calm down please. Not everyone likes the way your doing things and they have full right not to. I disagree with you on the importance of the sense of speed. How could you say sense of speed isn't important at all? What the? Why are a lot of people into racing in the first place? Yes, the speeds at which racing takes place. A lot of people don't own a big monitor so I can imagine they want to run a higher FOV then what would be realistic, just to get the sense of speed. Just do everyone a favor and chill down a little. Everyone has their right to have their own opinion. Remember, no offence at all, I agree with a lot you are saying.
See modified picture(s) in the above post. My friend. For a New Yorker, I am extremely calm. I just try to put across sensible, well written and fact based arguments but unfortunately it is usually with people with a less calm and less fact based position.
Hmm.. On small monitor higher FOV means all objects are yet smaller. It really doesn't help. Lower FOVs (lower than 65, as some one referred this value) may be applied for 22" displays which are available for anyone I believe. I'm curious what does 'sense of speed' mean for some of you. Is it feeling about correct speed, or desire for a speed as high as possible.
Neither of both Not a desire for a speed as high as possible, just the feeling of you racing down a track at a speed someone would EXPECT to travel at. It's just someones feeling thats important. Now again, I will say the following: I'm with you about realism, simulation, correct visible range etc.. But I just want to say I understand the opinions of people driving with 55 degrees of FOV.. In the end, we all drive for our pleasure and for fun, so there are always people that would choose fun above ultimate realism. I can live with that, thats all
Of course, no one want to force others to use any value of FOV. Maybe argument that lower FOV gives more FPS would be better But maybe some one's expectations are just wrong? Maybe he thinks that speed sensations must be huge, judging from cams mounted on F1 cars? I always suggesting to get a ride on a highway. try speed 200 and check sense of speed. I believe this thread is dedicated for them who are looking for more realistic and/or better settings rather then to force to "convert" to only one correct religion I think that arguments have been given and proofs the reason of changing FOV. If some one don't want to use it - it will not be taken as cheating I'm sure. But have no idea why one who don't want to use low FOV is trying to argue against it, here in this thread. although... it is free world. Personally I changed FOV to lower one (not to correct one) because it helped me judge the distance, hit apexes etx. Subjectively it gives more time for reaction. So in my case it is not about calculating things but it gives me better experience and control. I see no reason to artificially make the sim harder than reality.
Well...we've to think at our eyes as the perfect system to evaluate distances and speeds. Is the best as we're using this "system" every day in the real life. So, the best thing to do with the game FOV, is to adjust for a similar angle of view for our fovea (the area for the central vision we're using most of the time) In a fake environment (like the monitor projection) we're already missing the stereopsis who help us to evaluate the correct depth perception....and if you push on a so different FOV you're learning how to react using completely different parameters..and it's true; they're theoretically wrong. Sense of speed caused by grandangulars/fisheye is fake; When you're going at 60Kmh and your wide angle get you a sense of speed for 110...you're going to drive with a wrong style. You've less time (ratio between the perception of a reference track object to turn/brake created by the FOV and the real object distance) to react and you've a wrong perception for everything. This can affect your driving skills or potential, especially for fastest cars. Well, you can learn how to make a perfect lap with a wideangle but we can learn how to swim with just one arm...but it isn't the most natural way...for the human body. Try to drive your real car watching the road through a videocamera with a wide angle...and let me know what you feel when you slam into the first wall after the corner... Of course we're free to use what we like most...just to talk. I personally prefer to use a realistic fov..not because I'm a maniac for realism, but because I drive far better using this setting.
I disagree...I'm 90% sure I tend to turn faster laps with a higher FOV (to an extent) on my 23" monitor. The difference comes from being better able to spot my marks--braking points, apexes, track out, etc. For braking points, they don't leave your screen when you're 10-20m away as they would when you use a lower FOV. For apexes/track-out, you're actually able to spot them much sooner, because they're actually on your screen; as opposed to a lower/realistic FOV, where they're not even visible until you've already hit them. That being said, I use a relatively low FOV at 35 degrees, but I also have "head motion" or whatever they're calling "look to apex" to help spot the apexes. If I had a triple monitor setup, and a cockpit, I'd definitely be all about getting the most realistic setup, though.
Honestly I never get this problem. I usually take 2 reference points in opposite positions (left and right side) or 2 object on the same side but at different distances from my marks. The first one if for take my attention the second is to act into brakes, turning etc... The important thing for me is that I need to get the proper distance perception for my marks..and I can get this perception just using near to normal angle of views. Of course there're a lot of variables, track by track...object by object...but as already said I never miss a reference point due the limited FOV. I never get those marks as focus areas (i keep my eyes locked on the tarmac)...I have just to "feel" reference points as closed as possible to my front tires before react...and for me it works most of the times. As already said we can use different methods and/or FOV but I really need to use this setup to avoid wrong manouvers. There are plenty of guys that can't get a proper time just using the cockpit view...and they're monsters using TvCockpits.. Imho this is cheating...but this is another chapter.. So it's difficult to say "disagree" or "agree"; Human eyes are working as I said...and the fovea macula we're using to driving in the real life have a limited angle of view (near to normal compared to a 35-44mm for the 24/36 format). So we can just say what works better for any of us when we drive the sim. It's true that in real life we've a huge angle of view (100/120° for stereopsis, up to 200 for limits), but the part we use for driving is just around 44/48° and I guess real racing drivers are using the same eye part we're using for gaming...but this is the useless part of this discussion, I know..
Sure, you can just pick up new markers, but that means having to learn the track completely differently--and for me that takes way more time than with a wider FOV. But that's only half of the story. Sure, we may be able to only focus on 45° at a time, but we can move our eyeballs/head. For all intents and purposes, the game can't. Sure, there's 'look to apex' and TrackIR that help to get around this, but even those are highly imperfect solutions. 'Look to apex' works off the steering angle, so you still have to initiate your turn before spotting apex (at low FOV's on single monitors). TrackIR tracks the motion of your head, but your eyes still have to remain fixed on your screen, which to me is like trying to read something over/under a pair of eyeglasses--very uncomfortable. I'm ok with people using whatever they want to use--I just disagreed with your statement that using a realistic FOV makes (the all-inclusive) one faster. It may make you faster, but it definitely doesn't make me faster.
This is what i said: then Again I never talked for anybody...just for myself. Of course if we talk about the human eye...nobody can say we've a fovea with 80° of angle of view. So you disagree with my personal needs. And it's ok for me. No problem...
Ok, I gotcha... I took your whole post as one big thought. First talking about how realistic fov is most natural, then saying that you drive faster like that. I guess I must've mushed 'em together in my mind.
I guess in a nut shell real FOV is for those that wish to have the most realistic and immersive experience they can get on the computer. With triple monitors it becomes a little easier, but we all still have to deal with the lack of spatial awareness that is inherent with computer generated sims unless you can afford a dome and several projectors to encase you in the video I personally would love to have a system that could run a 270 degree wrap around screen so that I could really turn my head and see cars beside me or move my eyes to see the mirrors with no issues. My bank account won't even let me come close to that though, heheh. Like Tuttle though, I want something that is close to real as far as FOV so that I have the time to react to what I am seeing instead of creating artificial markers to react to so that I don't miss my brake points etc. Reaction time slows down a little as you get older Instead of the normal .4 seconds when I was young, I now have a .5 reaction time to any given event. I do have to make one comment about having realistic FOV though. Maybe it is me or maybe it is the software, but with my FOV set to 17 as it should be, the side monitors make me feel a little sick when I make sharp turns with walls or other large objects in front of me. Maybe my monitors are not at the correct angle for them to portray the scene correctly, not sure.
All our bank accounts hold us back but there is no reason we cannot dream. This is for six 50" screens and three (stations) one with a keyboard and mouse, one with the race wheel and pedals and one with flight stick and rudder pedals.. When my bank account and I are ready and Outerra is live with six screen independent rendering I will need a room to put this in.
