I think you are misunderstanding where he is talking about the angle. If you base the angle from your view, then you would be correct, but if you base the angle off the center monitor things change. If you set up your monitors based from you, then 45 degrees would yield a gap on a 40 degree hFOV. However, if you pivot the screens based on the center monitor, then you might not be looking directly at the side monitors but more looking at them at an angle, but still can have 45 degrees or more and have no "gap" as you are talking about. The only thing that changes is the perspective of the total image rather than just the angle. For my setup, my total hFOV is roughly 110 degrees based on the angled side monitors. If they were parallel to the center, then my hFOV might be different, but the perspective would look off. That being the case, I have my side monitors roughly 38 degrees off of the center monitor and that nets me straight lines for the most part when I am looking at the total image. A couple of images to give an idea of what I am saying: This second image is how mine is setup, based on the center monitor rather than based on my eyes.
Blakboks, I believe I read that rF2 multiview is 3 cameras solution and that is what it looks like to me. And as such it works very well with angled in monitors. I believe Maxym is right in that the side cameras are set to 45deg. It gives a very natural look with 45 degree angled monitors (just like your vids says it should) once you get the FOV correct. But correct FOV is crucuial to having it look right. BTW, I deduced some time back that a stretched (panoramic?) rendering (no multiview, like all games I've ever played), should look better with the monitors aligned straight across (no angle). That way the stretching done in outer regions will be compnsated by natural perspective of seeing the side screens at a non-perpendicualr angle. While this helped it was not sufficient to make the outer edges look right. Things at the extreme of the sceen still looked stretched unless I put my face 6" from the monitor. Perhaps if I had messed with the FOV it could have been made to look right but changing the FOV was not easy in whatever game I was using at the time (GLP?). I'm not sure why 3 cameras has to be such a drain on FPS. Granted it has to run a routine 3 times but the scene size of each rendering is 1/3 of the whole. There must be some "overhead" code that has to be run for each rendering so that the sum of the 3 is (a lot) greater than one pass on the whole. Somebody needs to get clever and fix this.
No, I am considering the side monitors to be angled in off the center monitor . I think where you're confused is that you assume that the side monitors could somehow be at a different angle from the cameras that are rendering them (if we're talking about a 3-camera system); or that upon rendering, the sides of the rendered image (which is ultimately a flat, 2D image, remember) are somehow skewed inwards. They would not be, I guarantee it. Whatever angle the side cameras should be is the same angle that your monitors should be. Also, the cameras' origins will always be in the same place (which would be the virtual position of your head--between your eyes). Anyway, rF2 does NOT use a 3 camera system, it uses a 1 camera system. In other words, it expects you to basically have a really wide monitor (if you're using 3 monitors, then it expects a monitor 3x as wide as normal). It expects your monitors to be 2-Dimensional.
Really? Are you sure? Then what does multiview do? You said you do not have 3 monitors so I assume you have not seen the result of multiview..
Ok, here's a perfect example! I found an in-game screenshot from rF2 online. I applied it to 2 different monitor setups. Both shots are shown as if turning your head to look at the same angle to the side. Here's how it looks like on the outside monitor on a 3-screen setup with 0° between each monitor (flat). Here's how it looks like on the outside monitor on a 3-screen setup with 45° between each monitor. It's pretty obvious to me that the 0° setup provides much better perspective than the 45°. The 45° view makes the sides look stretched. Also, notice how the yellow line at the side of the road starts to bend inward just a tiny bit on the angled monitor screen. View attachment 3847 View attachment 3848
Well, take a picture for me, then . Take it so the camera is positioned right where your head would be (right between the eyes), and angle it toward a side screen, preferably with some overlap of the center screen. That will offer the same perspective as though I was sitting in your chair. Otherwise, I think the images I just posted is proof enough that rF2 doesn't use 3 rotated cameras. But to answer your question, all multiview does is tell the game to use all monitors and set the hFOV and render resolution according to the new aspect ratio (3x16:9 or 48:9) to get the image to fill all three screens without stretching. What I'm not sure about is how it handles monitors of different resolutions or aspect ratios (i.e. if you use 2 monitors, 1 16:9 and a 4:3 monitor--but really that's irrelevant to this discussion.
Was that screen shot taken in multiview mode? I see all the problems with the lower shot. But that stretching is what multiview corrects. Multivew really is like a rotated camera view. The top picture is like what I hoped to see with my monitors in a straight line (and no multiview). The streching of the scene is countered by the fading perspective of the monitor. And like I said, it for me worked partially, I think I just needed to get the right FOV setting. I think we're both saying the same thing as far as 3 camera look paired with angled monitors, and non-3 cameras with straight monitors. I just disagree that rF2 doesn't use 3 cameras in multiview.
Yes, you can tell because the UI elements are all on the center screen. If someone just used a really funky resolution without multiview, then the UI would be stretched across the entire width of the image. Which would just be weird...
OK im confused which is the best way????????? by the way i have never used multiview till today looks great i use in nvidia bezel correction and use 5268x1050 bezel corrected
That's not correct. If you use Eyefinity, even if you don't activate multiview the UI elements are on the center screen. But the image on the side monitors looks distorted when they are angled, as you said. If multiview is activated, the side monitors look much better, although I haven't made tests to get the correct angle. I would say that means different camera angles are used in multiview, don't you?
Yes different cameras are used for multiview its quite obvious when you look at the fps and frame buffer size, it also take longer to draw 3 different cameras rather than 1 super wide frame.
It would be great to get some info from ISI regarding Multiview and how it's handled. Since Eyefinity handles the resizing outside the game, giving rf2 the impression that you're using a single superduperwide monitor, it's quite natural that it's a one-cam view, but if multiview is set to any particular angles or even better, can be adjusted! that would be great. I've read a few threads touching this topic (i think in the version logs) but I can't remember seeing any info about angles or camera angles..
No one , there are just two correct combination, 0° Monitor angles : No multiview needed, no stretch. 45° Monitor angles : Need multiview But do not activate multiview on a 0° angle screens setup : it'll be wrong and ugly. And in both situation if you experience stretching it only means that you use a too high fov. I use 27° vertical fov for my 6048*1080 resolution, no multiview (0° angle) and i have no stretching at all, just perfect perspective.
I don't use multi view, it eats up fps & I'm now convinced things look better without it I can run close to maxed out at 4450x900 res with mostly solid fps, but turn alot f things down so there is no loss of physics feel ( I do keep HDR switched on )
Not correct. Whether in multiview or not the UI overlays are in the center monitor only. Here's a video I just made at Mid Ohio. It shows a fence along the right and a tent in the background. Notice the tent doesn't stretch as I drive forward. Nor does the fence. Without multiview it would have streched a lot. FOV = 25 http://vimeo.com/48794244 really? better in what way?
The slight stretching at the outer sides seem to increase the perception of speed for me I'm running a fairly low FOV ( 35 ) as I'm 35" away from centre screen so the stretching is only slight
Fairly low is relative to your setup, heheh. Mine is at 21 and I should probably be using 20 to be correct in what I see.
It would be so awsome if we could get assess to the 3 dimensional lattice in Blakboks' first post. It would be a perfect tool for adjusting our monitors and FOV to reduce (minimize) warping and distortion. Be great if is was an fF2 scene so we could sit in our cars and make the adjustments.
IMO i tried a low fov and i don't believe the view fits the track or things around you for starters im sure that a driver can see all mirrors while sitting in the car, at this low fov i cannot see any mirrors there for it does not seem to be the correct view. i believe your view is what a driver would see from sitting in the drivers seat and im sure they can see all there mirrors. but in saying this every 1 to there own.
Sitting in a real car, I have to turn my head about 35 degrees or so to see the left mirror when I am sitting in the left seat. To see the right mirror I have to turn my head about 85 degrees. For me to be able to see the right mirror in cockpit view of a GT car, I would need to have my monitors extend to almost 180 degrees around me which is no where near what it currently is. With my vFOV set to 21, I am not able to see the right mirror and I have to turn my head about 30 degrees or so to see the left one, so about perfect IMHO. Of course I do have triple monitors and that makes a huge difference. If I only had a single monitor I would need to use head tracking software to be able to drive comfortably. The biggest thing for me is that I have 2 different brands of monitors in use. One brand for both outside monitors and another for the center. This creates issues with the screen top and bottom not lining up correctly. If I want most of the stuff to line up in the image I see, my outside monitors need to be about the same level on the bottom, but then the outside ones are a little short on the top edge compared to the center. I imagine that the reason for this is because I have the outside ones behind the center a little to reduce the bezel compensation. If I could afford to build a monitor stand, I might consider dealing with the larger bezel area where the 2 monitors meet, but for now this has to do for me.
