FOV and Input Lag/Latency

[Bobby Pennington]

I just made a video of what using the correct FOV per all the calculators and the math and how it can destroy your experience. I've been chasing my tail with my G27 settings and it turns out the biggest problem was the stupid FOV.
Visit my boobtube page MulliganF1 for a full description of my setup and explanation.
This is the only way I can give back to the Sim community since I don't make skins, tracks etc., but I'm working on it.
Please let me know if the video helps. Have a great night and as always Opposite Lock to 'ya.

P.S.: I hope I posted this in the correct section. Still learning.

 

[Bobby Pennington]

It's here that you are wrong. The controller doesn't change at all. It has no reason to. It seems different to you because of the visual perception, but in reality it's always the same. If you don't want to accept this reality, just ask to any programmer if it's possible and why a dev would do that. It's like saying "i changed the resolution in the options and now the car is faster". No way the FOV changes your ffb or controller. I also think you are not telling us something. The kind of problems (perception problems) you are having only show up if you were used to a higher FOV and changed to a lower FOV (and viceversa ofc). In one of your comments you said you *were used* to a lower FOV, which i don't think it's true, since we can get used to almost any reasonable FOV with some practice and what you showed was an incapability to drive with your own FOV (the one you were used to). I think you were used to a higher FOV before than posting this.
I'm used to a very high FOV (the default one) and i tried to lower it to 35. It was undriveable, not because of the FFB or anything, but because every bump, turn, oversteer and oversteer were visually enhanced. So every time i tried to correct oversteer i ended up correcting it too much, spinning. This is exactly what i saw in your video, i just saw your brain getting ****ed by the NEW FOV (and not the one you are used to, as you said).
Btw, i don't think the calculated FOV is actually the correct FOV to use. I prefere to have decent proportions than a tunnel vision (my calculated fov would be 15, i said all).

Ok bub, I don't usually do this, but I don't appreciate this comment at all. Sooooooo I went through all of this and I'm lying to everyone. I've taken all this time and effort just to be a fraud. In the video it was done real time ie no breaks between different fov. It's very hard to jump from one to the other.

Mod Edit: Personal insults removed.

 

[BhZ]

Ok bub, I don't usually do this, but I don't appreciate this comment at all. Sooooooo I went through all of this and I'm lying to everyone. I've taken all this time and effort just to be a fraud. In the video it was done real time ie no breaks between different fov. It's very hard to jump from one to the other.

Mod Edit: Personal insults removed.

I haven't said you lied. I actually assumed english wasn't your first language and you made some mistakes when trying to explain things. Even with your last message i believe you haven't entirely understood my last comment. The core of my comment is still true. The FFB doesn't change. The only thing that change is your perspective and that can mislead you when trying to do anything. You can now assume that since i'm younger than you, you are right and i'm just "too young to understand". Do as you wish but the moment that you post something that i, as well as many others, don't believe, I intervene trying to explain how things works if i am able to. I have no reason to disrespect you in any way and in fact i haven't. As i said previously, if you don't believe me, find a reason for a developer to link the FFB to the FOV. Demonstrate to "my kind" that i'm wrong.

 

[Matheus Machado]

I made the jump from running +- 70 degrees fov to a mathematically correct value (around 29 for quite a while and 34 now). I must say it is the best move I've ever made, it made my judgement of cornering lines a whole lot easier as the tracks were now properly wide. It took some time to adapt (one week), but haven't gone back again, since I changed it 1 year ago.

I can't see why some people are implying there is a change in car dynamics because of fov. The physics are the same regarless if someone is running the game on a 8 inch crt monitor or a triple 65 inch setup... The fact you have to turn the steering wheel more is because your road perception is completely different (as it should be with proportion differences ranging in a scale of 3 meters, considering a big fov change). From that video posted here I could see a different steering wheel movement in all three cases, with three different lines taken. If you feel better using whatever fov angle, awesome! Glad it worked for you.

Just please don't share misinformation about fov changing physics. It just doesn't make any sense in any simulation game or software in general. I can't even imagine being a league organizer having to deal with complaints about cheating drivers running certain fov settings and that being the reason for their speed.

 

[Bobby Pennington]

I haven't said you lied. I actually assumed english wasn't your first language and you made some mistakes when trying to explain things. Even with your last message i believe you haven't entirely understood my last comment. The core of my comment is still true. The FFB doesn't change. The only thing that change is your perspective and that can mislead you when trying to do anything. You can now assume that since i'm younger than you, you are right and i'm just "too young to understand". Do as you wish but the moment that you post something that i, as well as many others, don't believe, I intervene trying to explain how things works if i am able to. I have no reason to disrespect you in any way and in fact i haven't. As i said previously, if you don't believe me, find a reason for a developer to link the FFB to the FOV. Demonstrate to "my kind" that i'm wrong.

Ok Bhz, I'm settled down after this reply. You know how it feels to hear someone say you can't drive. That and I've got a rare liver disease so I'm in a transplant program which doesn't make me peachy all the time. Sorry bro.
I never mentioned fov having an affect on ffb. My wheel was to sensitive with the lower fov. So when I was using the low fov I went in to profiler and experimented with the steering axis sensitivity until I got it where it felt somewhat normal. That setting was 20% and it bugged me for a long time.
When I started the fov experiment I was able to turn my wheel sensitivity up to 100%. That's what you see in the video comparison. So when I turned the fov down to what I used in the past, I didn't turn the sensitivity down, so it was very very hard to drive.
I hope this makes sense and I apologize if I overreacted.

 

[Bobby Pennington]

I made the jump from running +- 70 degrees fov to a mathematically correct value (around 29 for quite a while and 34 now). I must say it is the best move I've ever made, it made my judgement of cornering lines a whole lot easier as the tracks were now properly wide. It took some time to adapt (one week), but haven't gone back again, since I changed it 1 year ago.

I can't see why some people are implying there is a change in car dynamics because of fov. The physics are the same regarless if someone is running the game on a 8 inch crt monitor or a triple 65 inch setup... The fact you have to turn the steering wheel more is because your road perception is completely different (as it should be with proportion differences ranging in a scale of 3 meters, considering a big fov change). From that video posted here I could see a different steering wheel movement in all three cases, with three different lines taken. If you feel better using whatever fov angle, awesome! Glad it worked for you.

Just please don't share misinformation about fov changing physics. It just doesn't make any sense in any simulation game or software in general. I can't even imagine being a league organizer having to deal with complaints about cheating drivers running certain fov settings and that being the reason for their speed.

Maltheus, I've vehemently said it does not change the physics or the way the car handles.
You're right about the steering inputs and 3 different lines taken. One view was scrunched up, another one was normal and the other one was stretched out. With different fov's over the years I've had to adapt steering, throttle and braking inputs depending on what I was using. That and controller sensitivity.
Hope this explains it. Not trying to mislead or persuade. Just the result of my experiments.

 

[dave kirk]

Wow, I was using a default 50 FOV and adjusting my seat position to my preference, I have just shifted to 35 fov and it is so different, It is going to take me a while to get used to this, is it the opinion that the lower it is the better?

 

[Rodent]

Wow, I was using a default 50 FOV and adjusting my seat position to my preference, I have just shifted to 35 fov and it is so different, It is going to take me a while to get used to this, is it the opinion that the lower it is the better?

This really depends on your setup. The easiest way to get the "correct" FOV is using the excellent FoV calculator by our own MrPix, found here: http://www.projectimmersion.com/fov/

 

[dave kirk]

This really depends on your setup. The easiest way to get the "correct" FOV is using the excellent FoV calculator by our own MrPix, found here: http://www.projectimmersion.com/fov/

Thanks buddy, It calculates 36 but that seems really low when i look on screen, I guess it is just a cause of getting used to it

 

[Matheus Machado]

Thanks buddy, It calculates 36 but that seems really low when i look on screen, I guess it is just a cause of getting used to it

It will give the exact proportions as you would see it in real life. In my case it helped me to get more consistent as I could judge the distances a lot better. Take your time and if you don't like go back to your old value. You can also progressively reduce the value to ease up the adaptstion.

 

[BhZ]

Thanks buddy, It calculates 36 but that seems really low when i look on screen, I guess it is just a cause of getting used to it

Imho, ignore the calculated fov. It will destroy proportions just to give you a simulated FOV. What is not taken into account is the fact that 10 meters will look like 1 meter. Around 50 it gives the best proportions imho.

 

[Ian Cameron]

Imho, ignore the calculated fov. It will destroy proportions just to give you a simulated FOV. What is not taken into account is the fact that 10 meters will look like 1 meter. Around 50 it gives the best proportions imho.

Take it that's for single monitor what about triple, I sit 620mm from screen using 3x27" monitors.
FOV is greyed out at 56

 

[BhZ]

Of course things are different with triple screens. I'm used to single screens, i forgot to mention that.

 

[Cote Dazur]

Imho, ignore the calculated fov. It will destroy proportions just to give you a simulated FOV. What is not taken into account is the fact that 10 meters will look like 1 meter. Around 50 it gives the best proportions imho.

I have to disagree here, calculated FOV is the only way you can get the right proportion, the 1/1 ration, where 1 metre look like 1 meter, anything else is distorted.
One might not like what he sees, because his screen is too small or he his sitting too far, or just because he prefers a distorted view. and that is fine. Trying to reproduce a 1/1 view on a monitor(s) is more often than not a compromise.
Around 50 is totally dependent on how far you are sitting from the screen and how big your screen is, might work for you in your set up or any similar set up, but it is not more than that.

The only time we can all agree on a set FOV value is the in VR, because in VR we all use the same screen size from the same distance, in other word, we all see the same thing.

 

[Brandon Wright]

Take it that's for single monitor what about triple, I sit 620mm from screen using 3x27" monitors.
FOV is greyed out at 56

Triple screen users don't get to adjust the FOV slider for some reason, we have to adjust the Distance Spanner in the triple screen app. I have the same setup and similar distance as you but I end up using between 450-500mm in the triple screen app instead of the actual distance between eyes and monitor because that feels more correct to me.

 

[BhZ]

I have to disagree here, calculated FOV is the only way you can get the right proportion, the 1/1 ration, where 1 metre look like 1 meter, anything else is distorted.
One might not like what he sees, because his screen is too small or he his sitting too far, or just because he prefers a distorted view. and that is fine. Trying to reproduce a 1/1 view on a monitor(s) is more often than not a compromise.
Around 50 is totally dependent on how far you are sitting from the screen and how big your screen is, might work for you in your set up or any similar set up, but it is not more than that.

The only time we can all agree on a set FOV value is the in VR, because in VR we all use the same screen size from the same distance, in other word, we all see the same thing.

Calculated FOV doesn't give the exact proportions, it just give the "simulated FOV", which is different. To demonstrate it, just try the calculated FOV on a 50" and the calculated fov on a 21". You'll notice that the proportions are not the same. And again, if it was about proportions, it wouldn't be called "field of view"...

 

[BhZ]

Triple screen users don't get to adjust the FOV slider for some reason, we have to adjust the Distance Spanner in the triple screen app. I have the same setup and similar distance as you but I end up using between 450-500mm in the triple screen app instead of the actual distance between eyes and monitor because that feels more correct to me.

Basically you did what i do in my single screen. You based your decision on perception and not on the right, calculated distance. I've been at Monza multiple times as a spectator, and as some of you know, once the event finishes, the spectators can walk on the track. I walked on the parabolica. Now, if you set your fov to 30 for example, the parabolica will look like a U-turn, while at around 50 it was very very similar to real life. FOV will always change the proportions. At that point everyone will decide what he prefers, calculated FOV or more realistic proportions.

 

[Brandon Wright]

Basically you did what i do in my single screen. You based your decision on perception and not on the right, calculated distance. I've been at Monza multiple times as a spectator, and as some of you know, once the event finishes, the spectators can walk on the track. I walked on the parabolica. Now, if you set your fov to 30 for example, the parabolica will look like a U-turn, while at around 50 it was very very similar to real life. FOV will always change the proportions. At that point everyone will decide what he prefers, calculated FOV or more realistic proportions.

The main reason I went with a different value was because if I put in the 650mm (or whatever my actual number is, I forget but it's around 650-700) it created issues with the head bolsters on the seat. When I'd scoot my seat back to the desired position the head bolsters would stick way into my view and block my view of the side mirrors and windows. The only way to avoid that was to put a lower value (higher FOV) in the distance spanner.

 

[Cote Dazur]

Calculated FOV doesn't give the exact proportions, it just give the "simulated FOV", which is different. To demonstrate it, just try the calculated FOV on a 50" and the calculated fov on a 21". You'll notice that the proportions are not the same. And again, if it was about proportions, it wouldn't be called "field of view"...

You are mistaken, please read this extensive explanation here: http://www.projectimmersion.com/fov/perspective.php

As per your example, you will exactly see the same thing when calculating your FOV, you will just see less of it on a smaller screen. That is the all point of calculating FOV.

 

[BhZ]

You are mistaken, please read this extensive explanation here: http://www.projectimmersion.com/fov/perspective.php

As per your example, you will exactly see the same thing when calculating your FOV, you will just see less of it on a smaller screen. That is the all point of calculating FOV.

You don't just see less. The "length perception" is different and is not realistic. My calculated fov would be 15. As i previously stated, the way the track looks like when choosing a lower fov is not realistic. The Fov changes the field of view and is made to have a realistic fov, nothing else. Still, you sacrify realistic proportions.

EDIT: btw, i've already looked at that link months ago. First of all, that's his opinion on whether is important or not to have it, but it doesn't talk about proportions at all, just FIELD OF VIEW.

EDIT2: Of course with the length percetion changes the speed perception as well.

 

[Ernie]

I'm using a FOV of 28, which is the calculated one, on my 21:9 ultra-wide singlescreen (BenQ XR3501).
Referring to the opening post of this thread a FOV of 28 should be laggy and undriveable. But for me this is absolutely not the case.

I'd never recommend a drastic change in FOV, because the changes in visual perception are huge. It's not a surprise, that the driving feels different, because distances, road width, turn radius, elevations, etc. differ a lot from a visual point.

FOV is an area, which you have to get used to. If you want to go more into direction of using a calculated FOV, then you should lower the FOV in small steps. Decreasing it 3-5 degrees and drive 2-3 races with it. If you are comfortable with the view, try lowering the FOV a few degrees more. That's how i have done it.

However, if you're using just a small singlescreen, you have to find a compromise, because the calculated FOV doesn't give you enough peripheral vision to drive properly. I think the calculated FOV * 1.5 could be a realistic aim for a small single monitor. And try to have the eye distance to your screen as less as possible.