Latest Roadmap Update - May 2018!!!
- Thread starter Christopher Elliott
- Start date
AMillward
Registered
Also- Bigger screen, wider FOV to make everything smaller. I think...
DrivingFast
Registered
I am extremely satisfied with my installation, has lower costs (180 €). And I have no eyes at all. Not at all. The FOV is absolutely perfect, and perfectly adapted to the distance / size ratio. Insofar as my FOV is very good (calculated on two sites and identical results), and that I do not hurt to the eyes nor to the head even after 4 hours of piloting, I do not see where is the problem.
I add that it is only from 50 cm that I see the pixels of the screen.
patchedupdemon
Registered
What’s sites give you that Viweing distance,that’s crazy
Last edited:
ppl who sit so near to the objects that they look at,have eye problems
that means whole planet has that kind of problem
older generation wasnt looking so narrow.
they used to look far and thats why they had good eyes
newer generations (whole planet) who stand so close to computer screens no matter if the screen is 2 meters far) have eye problems
We ALL have that problem.
all objects in towns are so near that makes our eyes more atrophyc.
ophthalmologists can assure you about it.
laters
that means whole planet has that kind of problem
older generation wasnt looking so narrow.
they used to look far and thats why they had good eyes
newer generations (whole planet) who stand so close to computer screens no matter if the screen is 2 meters far) have eye problems
We ALL have that problem.
all objects in towns are so near that makes our eyes more atrophyc.
ophthalmologists can assure you about it.
laters
That your eyes don't hurt does not mean that you will not do damage to them when you are so close to the screen. Same when a chain smoker notices that his lungs are damaged even if it didn't hurt for the first ten years of smoking.
My eyes got worse and worse the last ten years and I won't deny that using the PC alot is one of the reasons why that happened. Interesting fact is, that my eyes or head don't hurt that much either. At the end it is your health and not really my business, but if you sit that close to a screen every game will look like a PS2 game and you will be able to count the pixels. And again, your tests with 50 AI cars are not representative or speaking for normal conditions. If you can't accept that, then we can't help you.
DrivingFast
Registered
60 cm is approximate because I do not remember exactly.
I had calculated to the nearest centimeter.
Both sites are the sites listed on the S397 forum.
http://www.projectimmersion.com/fov/
https://andyf.me/fovcalc.html
SAME RESULTS !!
1. Yes, as I find clear sky to be dull. I'm also in the UK so got to be realistic
2. Yes, I will race between 20 (F1) to 35 (GTs and LMP2s) with a V8 Supercar grid being 27 with my custom car
3. Yes.
4. Yes, otherwise I won't see anything with my 30degree FOV.
5. I typically race in late afternoon as that looks nicer to me, and often race into the night if I'm doing endurance.
All locked to 60 (no clouds becuase Straya):
The FX6300+1050ti seems to be a really stable combo.
I notice a big difference between simtek GT3 and Studio 397 gt3, the second is much more heavy
If you do a standing starting with 40 cars of s397 GT3, you will notice the problem, like a posted here a few pages before.
Lazza
Registered
Wrong way round. You don't start with a FOV and work out your viewing distance; you start with your viewing distance and work out the correct FOV.
A screen that big at that close distance will have quite a good FOV (large coverage) but obviously the pixel/degree count is quite low so pixels are more likely to be obvious/annoying.
This isn't TV viewing, so the usual guides regarding viewing distance aren't relevant. If you want correct perspective so things look life size, you need to have a close screen (even if it's big) or see less of the world.
DrivingFast
Registered
Last offtopic message, regarding our discussion.
Only two things have greatly improved my experience on RF2 :
- Taking into account the many tips on the dedicated thread in this forum, then the practice to get the right settings according the advices : for 2 years, the FFB of my T500RS is of a remarkable quality.
- Having a room dedicated to RF2 to leave my family quiet + huge TV + bring as close as possible the TV behind the wheel (really closer) + extremely accurate calculations of my FOV (in reality to 0.5 cm [LOL]). Even if the VR is necessarily better, frankly my immersion is incredible, really.
I recommend that screen owners try to do the same. Believe me, it's worth spending an afternoon to settle everything perfectly!
Only two things have greatly improved my experience on RF2 :
- Taking into account the many tips on the dedicated thread in this forum, then the practice to get the right settings according the advices : for 2 years, the FFB of my T500RS is of a remarkable quality.
- Having a room dedicated to RF2 to leave my family quiet + huge TV + bring as close as possible the TV behind the wheel (really closer) + extremely accurate calculations of my FOV (in reality to 0.5 cm [LOL]). Even if the VR is necessarily better, frankly my immersion is incredible, really.
I recommend that screen owners try to do the same. Believe me, it's worth spending an afternoon to settle everything perfectly!
Ari Antero
Registered
@Adrianstealth PCIe X16 2.0 vs PCIe X16 3.0 with ASRock Z87 OC Formula , DDR3 2666 MHz, I7 4770k (4 th gen. CPU) No OC, CPU, RAM and 1080Ti with default setup.
Game settings
S397 Callaway GT3 at Nola C, no AI
PP Ultra
AA 5
In-game all Max.
Weather sunny
PCIe X16 2.0
Min. FPS 145
Max FPS 175
Bus Usage 30-40 %
PCIe X16 3.0
Min. FPS 185
Max FPS 215
Bus Usage 15-25 %
As you can see above PCIe X16 2.0 is huge bottleneck in rFactor2 with single car on the track. Keep also in the mind that when weather options are used and when there are more cars on the track PCIe X16 2.0 BUS usage is going up and it is sometimes it is as high as 90% and PCIe X16 2.0 bottleneck is much greater vs PCIe X16 3.0.
Game settings
S397 Callaway GT3 at Nola C, no AI
PP Ultra
AA 5
In-game all Max.
Weather sunny
PCIe X16 2.0
Min. FPS 145
Max FPS 175
Bus Usage 30-40 %
PCIe X16 3.0
Min. FPS 185
Max FPS 215
Bus Usage 15-25 %
As you can see above PCIe X16 2.0 is huge bottleneck in rFactor2 with single car on the track. Keep also in the mind that when weather options are used and when there are more cars on the track PCIe X16 2.0 BUS usage is going up and it is sometimes it is as high as 90% and PCIe X16 2.0 bottleneck is much greater vs PCIe X16 3.0.
Last edited:
Sebastien Sestacq
Registered
LMP2 Oreca 07, LMP3 Norma M30, Porsche 911 RSR GTE, Corvette C7-R GTE, Mystere GTE and #soooooooon....
DrivingFast
Registered
Given the exceptional quality (really in my opinion) of S397 cars, especially DLC but not only, I fully understand the immense impatience of users... and I am part of it !
The quality of ISI content was already incredible, while having relatively variable qualitative results.
But S397 has perfectly taken things in hand.
The quality is however very homogeneous.
The quality of ISI content was already incredible, while having relatively variable qualitative results.
But S397 has perfectly taken things in hand.
The quality is however very homogeneous.
Quality of S397 content (3D models, sound samples) has improved a lot from ISI times, and it has increasingly gotten better and better quality. But there have been some issues: poor AI (Radical), 'Test Driver 1' (GT3) and lack of skins being the primary ones of late. Let's hope for a really high quality Endurance release, hopefully to be followed by a really high quality Tatuus open-wheel release within a few months; and some good QA on 3PA/partner content like KartSim, Zandvoort/Botniaring etc. as well. ISI content was often out-shone by mods which was a bit of an embarrassment; I've enjoyed the latest Enduracers Flat6 and Endurance mods as being high-quality across the board, but the S397 content is just about equal to it which would not have been the case a couple of years ago.
I also have to say I was pleasantly surprised by the lack of patches for 1110, which seems to mean some decent testing took place. Those are positive signs and S397 should be applauded for these efforts.
@Ari Antero those are interesting PCIE 2.0 graphs. My motherboard is X58 and of that vintage. I just did some research, and it seems that PCIE 3.0 chipsets weren't released until late 2015, which is a lot more recent than I'd thought (3 years not 5). For the most part it seems that PCIE 3 bus is not being heavily loaded/bottlenecked at this time by almost any usage type; they've released a 4.0 spec after long delays and I believe are about ready to release 5.0 and so I wonder what the manufacturers will aim for next and when that will come?
I also have to say I was pleasantly surprised by the lack of patches for 1110, which seems to mean some decent testing took place. Those are positive signs and S397 should be applauded for these efforts.
@Ari Antero those are interesting PCIE 2.0 graphs. My motherboard is X58 and of that vintage. I just did some research, and it seems that PCIE 3.0 chipsets weren't released until late 2015, which is a lot more recent than I'd thought (3 years not 5). For the most part it seems that PCIE 3 bus is not being heavily loaded/bottlenecked at this time by almost any usage type; they've released a 4.0 spec after long delays and I believe are about ready to release 5.0 and so I wonder what the manufacturers will aim for next and when that will come?
Adrianstealth
Registered
Massive thanks Ari
I think this is a bottle neck
Was going to wait for new cpu’s But also tempted to simple grab a socket 1155 with PCI 3
Good info cheers again
DrivingFast
Registered
Knowing the real problems of RF2 on this subject, and a GTX 1080 TI being extremely powerful, it was obliged that there is an important bottleneck (when one is informed of this problem of course).
For my hardware (GTX 780 + i5 2500K), which is much less powerful and not OC, I wonder if I really risk a bottleneck.
Ari Antero
Registered
Your i7 2600k is sandy bridge and it don`t support PCI Express Revision 3.0. You could maybe get around with MOBO which has PLX chip but that is probably more $ then its worth and I am not sure how how good MOBO`s with PLX chip are working.
patchedupdemon
Registered
I’m not sure but I don’t think it’s a hardware problem,it’s just the way rf2 is coded,so as long as you are stuck on pcie 2.0 you won’t have as good as performance,than if you were on 3.0
Ari Antero
Registered
PCIe X16 2.0 vs PCIe X16 3.0. ASRock Z77 Extrem6 , DDR3 2666 MHz, I7 3770k and 780Ti
S397 Callaway GT3 at Nola C, no AI
Game settings.
Res0lution 2560x1080, 144Hz
S397 Callaway GT3 at Nola C, no AI
PP Medium
AA 5
In-game
High Shadows
Shadow blur fast
Rest of in-game options are at Max.
Weather sunny
PCIe X16 2.0
Min. FPS 145
Max FPS 160
Bus Usage 35-50 %
PCIe X16 3.0
Min. FPS 160
Max FPS 200
Bus Usage 25-35 %
Now you know
