Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by 64r, May 8, 2014.
what do you mean?
Yes the drivers head remains static in translation but like you said you can turn/pivot your head around (in pitch and yaw) and if you used a camera perspective at the windscreen surface then the available perspective would be all wrong (as well as the size of all objects in the scene would be wrong because you've brought the eye closer to the objects than it should be....ofc this is less apparent the further away objects are). For example, the closer you move towards a window, the more of the world on the other side of that window you can see. It's like if your in a car and want to peer over the edge of the windscreen to see more of the road, you have to lean in closer to it. Well this is the same problem, your breaking the law of what should be viewable from the drivers perspective if his head is supposed to be in a fixed-location by using a camera view located at the windscreen instead.
I don't know , my fingers just typed it without thinking But I think my sig say's it all , we just don't know how
I'd like to respond with a quote from einstein...."The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is comprehensible".
So this becomes more of a problem with my idea then when you use multi-monitors the common way? I see no problem to calibrate/zoom/adjust FOV once on every monitor and then you are set!
Yes, because for just one example, there would be no continuity between the displays next to each other to start with.
I think this is why I typed 2 FOV's because the screens are showing one FOV but your eyes see another FOV or some thing like that .
Oh could you fix the typo in the last quote you put DrR1pper "thing" , ta
Hmm, I guess the only way to prove that this would work is to build it....but first I need 3 camera views...can I glue trackside cams on each side of the ISIcars?
So here's the problem on the right side image with 3 separate cameras per windscreens (for example). You end up with empty areas of view that should otherwise be in view to the driver if the triple screen monitors are put next to one another. But it is achievable with the triple screen monitors with the correct seperation distance between them. So it's completely doable (if the game would let you use a camera view for each monitor) however (and this is the issue i'm trying to convey to you) this still doesn't address the issue of correct/realistic perspective and i really don't think i can address it any better than i have tried already.
It's perfectly possible to use the lower right hand arangement of monitors with a single drivers camera view and avoid seeing any of the car, so long as multiview allows you to cut up the single driver camera view into sections like you can on iracing (which last i heard it still cannot be done in rf2). In this way you can also avoid wasting screen space on viewing parts of the car that separate windscreens.
Also a handy description on 'how to create a peep-hole'
Ok, I see what you mean but this should be fixable with customized FOV since you can't turn your head more than 90 degrees on either side you have more degrees/FOV/pixels to spend on "forwardview" on side cams, but then the picture would be distorted and we end up having to do a lens which would correct those distortions (like oculus rift, lol). This was way more complicated than it first seemed to be!
Better to wait for the oculus rift then, and maybe somehow make gfx virtual addons of real hardware to put in the simulated car-cockpits and put them exactly where you have them in reallife so you can find your buttons or whatever just by looking in the virtual cockpit and then move your hands to that part and find a real button/wheel/gearstick which you have mounted in your simrig... I dunno, could work in some cars maybe..heh
I still can't let this go, lol sorry. Last night I had problems to sleep because this stuff was spinning in my head. DrR1pper, the problems you speak about can't be resolved by using headtracker either?
Hi Dr1ripper ,
I couldn't stop thinking about the subject and wanted to explain better what I meant by multiple FOV's .
So basically you have 4 camera view's , camera 2/3/4 are fixed and render the windscreen and pillars only and I guess raindrops/dirt and wiper from the cockpit and have adjustable FOV's and aperture (I think that's the right word to use) to position the screens to your monitor .
Camera one is your normal head camera rendering outside the car only .
My knowledge on how this stuff works is absolutely nil and by no means would I expect this in rF2 , it's just an idea of concept as i'm sure anything is possible , but I most definitely am not smart enough to work out how .
I hope you can make sense of that , I mighta got carried away with some of the detail.
Hey Chris, if the problem can't be resolved without headtracking then it can't be resolved at all since headtracking only serves to add another layer of problems to the issue.
If i've understood your drawing correctly (and a good illustration drawing btw ), if we take take out the head tracking for the moment and focus on why i think it's not possible to use a 2 stage fov (for each monitor).
Correct me if i'm wrong but are you saying that the "image overlap" regions are to be discarded and so only the "immediately straight ahead" is in view (represented by the rectangular boxes behind each monitor?)? If so, that's not possible to achieve because it requires the camera (fov 2, 3 and 4) be an infinite distance away from the monitors/windscreen. Removing the "image overlap" regions cannot be achieved any other way if you were to somehow use a 2 stage fov system. If you use the current single fov system, this problem will never ever arise and all physical laws of perspectives and geometry remain consistent with nature.
My view remains the same on this, there is just no need for such a system.
What you're asking for is ofc possible but very unrealistic and unnatural. A principle reason for why this is so being that fov's 2, 3 & 4 can see more outside the windscreens than the driver should be able to from his fixed position (but ofc free to turn his head to look around).
Here's the same pic with only the monitors/windscreens and fov's and their respective fov line of sights. As you can see, fov 2,3 & 4 have overlapping fov images and this should not be possible. fov 1 represents the fov that a driver would see from his fixed position and as you trace the dashed fov lines, note that they do not overlap each other at all.
I hope i managed to explain myself well. If not, please do not hesitate to ask or rebuttal me back, i truly enjoy these discussions.
EDIT: hahahaha....that for those of you wondering, yes that was a 1 minute reply back to PMC. They're actually from a PM conversations that PMC just had with me and he surprised me with posting it here and he asked that i post my reply back to him here also. So you can keep your sanity, lol.
LOL , right now were all on the same page
OK I may have over thought the bit about the over lap image , that only (in my head ) seemed to be an issue when you pointed out missing images in your other diagram ,
My pic would be innacurate at that part as cam's 2/3/4 are only rendering the inside of the cockpit an not the outside world only cam 1 would be rendering everything beyond that as it does now but seperatly from the cockpit .
Like I said though this is only hypothetical conversation and I doubt its possible in rF2
I will add though that some sort of headtracking system with auto zoom on cam/FOV 1 and also up/down would have to be the go
I think you helped me highlight the issue i was struggling to explain PMC.
When Oculus support is implemented , would this sort of thing be more possible for multy screen user's ?
I do also see some issues with how best to set up your screens ie. how to best angle them and also using a big screen for the windscreen although smaller screens would be the same as already is , but I guess some 100mm poly pipe painted silver discretely positioned around the main screen (roll bar ) would hide any ugly bezel type corrections particuly with the side screens , you would have to some how split the difference of the front pillars.
EDIT: So if you were to angle your front screen at say 40degrees and side screens at say about 15 you would have a bit of a over lap which could be hidden by said roll bar .
It would still be ok with the conventional setup I guess ,but you would still have to align the window so the front edge is just short of the side mirror panel
Separate names with a comma.