What is up with the optimization of this software

No, I have my monitors angled 45 deg. Problem with multiview is that you must use locked FOV if not you are getting those crazy screen angles. I make new pics tomorrow with that locked FOV, Subviews= 2 and 3

 

What is wrong with you, don`t you read all of my topics? This is why my answer was: "go to : C:\Users\xxxxxx\Documents\rFactor2\UserData, open config, edit this line like this: SubViews=3 and you get correct angle to our monitors" and "When I go to config and edit SubViews=0 or 1 rFactor2 / Launcher / Video setup, multiview has no tick and that tick means multiview is off, if I edit SubViews=2 and or 3, rFactor2 / Launcher / Video setup, multiview has tick and that tick means multiview is on."

Get it now or is there going to bee more spam from you?

 

OK, this is how i see it
Sub views=2 is the true multiview. It renders all three screens fully usable, you can look at them individually and see perfect scaling.
Sub views=3 and 0 work when looking only at the center screen. The outer screens are only for your peripheral view. With the setting at 0 screens should be set up straight across. With the setting at 3 the screens should be at 45 degrees, thus it's still considered multiview in the config. But you're still only looking straight ahead.
TK

 

??? The person said that with multiview-off, the outside monitors image is stretched/distorted. What did you do? You told him to change the subviews number to apparently fix the issue, well in reality all you basically did was tell the guy to turn on multiview. Simple as that. Your setting is no different than the regular multivew setting.

If I'm not understanding correctly, then please show the difference between all 3 because all I see in your pics is 3 pictures with the regular multivew-off, and 1 with regular multiview-on. So only 2 settings really. Can you not see that??...

 

Hamsters in the loop......

 

You're like a little child who only understands what a child wants to understand.

When you look this picture you can see that there are boxes to HDR, MultiView and FXAA and when boxes has a tick it means that they are on, right?
Box to MultiView has tick when Subviews=2 and Subviews=3 are used in config file and this is reason why I did Reply With Quote "C:\Users\xxxxxx\Documents\rFactor2\UserData, open config, edit this line like this: SubViews=3 and you get correct angle to our monitors" I was only trying to help and did not realize that I get lot of **** like this from you when things are not like they seem to bee.

 

You're completely missing the point.

Whilst rF Config may have a tick in MultiView when SubViews=3 what actually gets rendered is _exactly_ the same as when MultiView is disabled (SubViews=0).

So even though rF Config might say you're running with MultiView enabled you're actually not, what's being rendered is exactly the same as when MultiView is disabled, rF2 is rendering to a single flat plane which should be displayed with the monitors also in a flat plane i.e. zero angle between them.

 

As Noel, Tuttle and many others told you, subview=0 screenshot looks very similar to subview=3. I bet both those are multiview off. If rfconfig reports subview=3 as multiview ON it's probably a bug. Your posts only serve confusion until we get ISI dev to confirm. ^^ above post

 

Something not intended to be an expected value can't be considered a bug at all.

The system is intended to accept just 0 and 2 and that variable it's automatically filled at the time you tick Multiview off or on.

If you force other values you're just entering unexpected numbers.

 

"Hamsters in the loop......"

I made some new pictures and not to get the outside monitors image stretched/distorted game forces me to use FOV 17, multiview on (Subviews=2) however mirror angle seem to bee wrong and pictures I have made is not how I see my monitors when I am playing rFactor2, res. 5760x1080 (3 x BenQ XL2420TE) FOV 17 90 deg. corner on the track looks like 140 deg. corner and this makes racing impossible, scaling is totally wrong, it seems that rFactor2 multiview is made to old CRT/LCD which is square (H=W), rFactor2 does not have the true multiview and it seems that this problem with multi GPU problems has low priority from ISI and it seems never to happen or is it ISI devs, when?

Multiview on Subviews=2


Multiview off Subviews=0


Multiview ??? Subviews=3, rFactor2/Video Setup, box Multiview has a tick, this pic looks to me that size of the mirrors are not like: Multiview off, Subviews=0


This hamster is finish with final loop.

The End

 

You're starting an infinite disinformation.

What I'm reporting it's not what me or you think it is right. It is what the coder, who did the multiview code, is telling you. You're free to enter random values as you like, you can also open a TGM and put some numbers here and there...and then see what happens, and then starting a thread telling other guys TGM has a bug.

Point is multiview is just working on Subviews=2 and it is working as expected. Applying a distortion to be compensated with angled monitors. Period.

The fact you have the multiview ticked when using 3 means nothing. You're just messing up with numbers.

Also I'm gonna ask you to stop this "rFactor2 does not have the true multiview" argument because it is totally false.

 

Are you claiming that this is the true multiview? :
Not to get the outside monitors image stretched/distorted game forces me to use FOV 17, multiview on (Subviews=2) however mirror angle seem to bee wrong and pictures I have made is not how I see my monitors when I am playing rFactor2, res. 5760x1080 (3 x BenQ XL2420TE) FOV 17 90 deg. corner on the track looks like 140 deg. corner and this makes racing impossible, scaling is totally wrong, it seems that rFactor2 multiview is made to old CRT/LCD which is square (H=W).

Yes messing up with numbers means nothing, I agree with you

 

How on earth do you get to this conclusion?

All monitors are rectangular. For H to equal W would mean a square monitor.

640x480, 800x600, 1024x768 = 4:3
1280:1024 = 5:4
1280x720, 1920x1080, 2560x1440 = 16:9
1280x800, 1920x1200, 2560x1600 = 16:10

None of those are square, they're all rectangular.

 

I edit my topics my it is "rally English" and it is typo, funny you did not get the point what I ment

 

All I can think of is pace notes... "3 right into square left monitor, 200" XD

 

I own old Pentium dual core, 2x 1950GTX, 3x Samsung SyncMaster 930bf max res. 1280:1024 PC is from 1999, screen`s and GFX cards are from 2003 and believe me or not multiview on (Subviews=2) works fine with this old Pc, scaling etc.

 

So you're saying that with 3 x 24" 16:9 monitors you need to set a FOV of 17° to not get distortion?

That makes perfect sense as a vFOV of 17° is correct for a 24" 16:9 monitor at a distance of 1m from the driver's eyes to give a realistic perspective.

Sitting the same distance from a 19" 5:4 monitor would require a vFOV of 18° to give a realistic perspective, as a 19" 5:4 (1280x1024) monitor is a little higher than a 24" 16:9 (1920x1080) monitor.

What vFOV do you use on the 19" set up?

 

I feel bad for the hamster...

 

Yes

Yes but the problem is that with FOV 17, 90 deg. corner on the track looks like 140 deg. corner and this makes racing impossible, scaling is totally wrong.

Fov 18

 

This doesn't make any sense, a vFOV of 17° is correct for that display configuration so a 90° corner will look like a 90° corner. In fact it'll look exactly the same as on the 19" set up at 18° (allowing for the slight differences because we can't set FOV to any more precision than 1°).

Are you able to grab either photos or screen shots from both configurations so we can compare them?

Edited to add:

Here you go, two screen shots attached.

One is 3 x 1920x1080 at 17° vFOV, the other is 3 x 1280x1024 at 18° vFOV. All looks fine to me, there's no way one of those will result in a 90° corner looking like 140° whilst the other looks like 90°.