FOV with something new.

[David Cordell]

I just noticed something that I don't recall being mentioned in all the other threads around the simosphere about FOV(field of view).

For the longest time I played with a FOV much higher than my calculated correct FOV because at first I didn't know any better and then once I learned the basics, I wouldn't lower it much because it was too hard to get used to. Once I finally forced myself to start lowering it, I found it to be true what all the FOV nerds would say about it being easier to hit braking points and how it hinders peripheral vision with the single monitor.

My correct FOV for my monitor and eye point relationship is 31degrees. Up until a few weeks ago I have been running around 44-48deg which was much better than the 65-70degs I ran for a long time before that and my lap times and consistency got much better the lower I took the FOV and closer to correct.

In the last couple weeks I decided to force myself to slowly and incrementally take the FOV to 31deg. When I finally got to 31 I noticed 3 things....

1. Peripheral vision got horrible so I turned on all 3 virtual mirrors and that cured that issue.
2. My lap times continued to fall due to being able brake even later with much more control.
3. The rotational rate of the car(world), in sharper corners, for the first time looks right.

Number 3 is the new and fantastic revelation of using my calculated correct FOV. With higher FOV's and in sharp corners, the car(world) always looked like it was rotating too slowly and It tricked my brain into thinking the rear was sliding even though it wasn't and it made it difficult to catch a slide when the rear was really sliding because of this overly slow rotation due to the pinched view of the world.

It's like a whole new world in sim racing now. I am able to get through the esses at Mid Ohio and the hairpin at Sebring with ease and without the sense of the car over steering when it's not. I am not sure what the scientific term for this phenomenon is but I would like to know.

For the record, I am not an FOV nazi that thinks everyone should use their calculated correct FOV. I have never heard anyone mention this aspect of it before and just wanted to let others know.

 

[ouvert]

cause it was always fine, no matter what drivers I had .. and I went through all those drivers as they were released .. also on sigle screen there is no reason why it should affect it as it is not tied to drivers .. it is just ingame camera setting ..

 

[Blkout]

Wow! Like I said before, FOV has absolutely nothing to do with the dash or how much of the track you can see vs the dash, pillars, etc. Seeing more or less of the dash is just a side effect of the focal length of the lens changing.

Its fine if you want to believe that. Less obstruction in your FOV is always an advantage. If only cars were made completely of glass we wouldn't have to worry about blind spots, sadly they do exist though.

 

[Blkout]

Best "sim-FOV vs reality" explanation ever

Its not, but I've heard this many times. You can easily focus on a line on the road if you want or you can relax your eyes and see lots of things in your peripheral vision including the dash of your car. Its not nearly as cut and dry as you posting a wood frame in front of your face. In fact, if it where that cut and dry, you would be able to do that and never even notice the wood frame, but I bet you will because your eyes see a lot more in your peripheral vision than the FOV Nazi's want to admit.

You can adapt to just about any FOV you want, narrow or wide, especially if you're highly skilled. There are plenty of sim racers using a behind the car view and very fast at that. That's not realistic at all but why are they so fast when they aren't looking through this magical wood frame that some call the perfect FOV? I'll tell you why, because they have almost no obstruction of view of the sim car they're driving in that view, same as using the bumper cam. No obstruction from view means no distractions and you can focus completely on the road. Doesn't make it realistic but it will certainly make you quicker.

This sort of reminds of the argument of wheels vs. gamepads. There are people that are equally quick using both, but certainly one is more realistic. Reality is when I sit in my car, my eyes focus on the road while I'm driving, but I do quite clearly see other things above, below, and to the side of my focus, that's peripheral vision. When I sim race, I like my immersion to mimic that. when I use a FOV calculator that removes all of the dash and leaves me looking like my head is planted against the windshield, certainly its easier to hit brake points with no obstructions in my view, however its a real deal breaker for my immersion because I don't sit in my real car with my head against the windshield.

We can all debate this to death and it won't change anything, this debate will always rage on just like wheels vs gamepads for sim racing. I'm fine with whatever anyone choose to believe but lets not pretend that eliminating obstructions in your FOV isn't an advantage.

 

[JeffL]

I'll say one more time low fov doesn't eliminate obstructions. You keep saying that but there is absolutely no truth to it, none. Look at the picture I uploaded, your wrong and if you don't want to admit it then your just arguing for the sake of arguing.

You bring a false argument to the debate only confusing people that are trying to figure it out.

 

[David Cordell]

Its fine if you want to believe that. Less obstruction in your FOV is always an advantage. If only cars were made completely of glass we wouldn't have to worry about blind spots, sadly they do exist though.

What's sad is you think a correct FOV is some how cheating but the really sad thing is how you completely don't understand FOV and think the advantage of a correct FOV comes from a less obstructed view out the cockpit. . Having a correct FOV is not a cheat or necessarily an advantage, it's just factually correct if you were sitting in a real car and looking through the same size hole as your monitor. Alternately, having an FOV that is too high is a disadvantage because the 3d world image is pinched/compressed around the vertical axis which flattens out the track and makes something closer to you look farther away.

Think of the passenger side mirror in your real life car and notice how it says "Objects in mirror are closer than they appear". The passenger mirror gives you a higher than realistic field of view. This is the same principle and is what you are doing when you increase FOV higher than the calculated correct FOV.

For the sake of this silly argument you keep harping on, I already offered you a way to test the effects of FOV without the dash or pillars being a factor. Use just a single monitor. Switch camera view to hood or bumper and set your FOV to 50 and do some laps on a tight track and then set it to 100 and see which FOV gives you better lap times and deeper and more consistent braking points. I repeat....switch to bumper view for this exercise so your goofy dash notion is not a factor.

The FOV vs. dash view obstruction is the epitome of not being able the see the forest for the trees.

FFS, THE WORLD IS ROUND!!!!!

Again, the point of this thread was not to have the same old argument with the FOV deniers(flat earthers) but to discuss the phenomenon of the skewed rotational rate of the world around the vertical axis because of a FOV that is too high or low.

 

[Ace King]

Reality is when I sit in my car, my eyes focus on the road while I'm driving, but I do quite clearly see other things above, below, and to the side of my focus, that's peripheral vision. When I sim race, I like my immersion to mimic that. when I use a FOV calculator that removes all of the dash and leaves me looking like my head is planted against the windshield, certainly its easier to hit brake points with no obstructions in my view, however its a real deal breaker for my immersion because I don't sit in my real car with my head against the windshield..

Agree! Some of these race videos with their calculated FOV just looks very unrealistic as the view as you stated really does appear like their head is planted against their windshield and just looks very wrong as that view doesn't look anything close to my view in my real-life car!

 

[David Cordell]

Agree! Some of these race videos with their calculated FOV just looks very unrealistic as the view as you stated really does appear like their head is planted against their windshield and just looks very wrong as that view doesn't look anything close to my view in my real-life car!

And the reason for that is because most of us use desktop monitors instead of giant projection screens.

 

[Robin]

I completely understand the FOV debate. I run a low FOV myself .
But having pixels taken up by dashboard and chassis of the car is arguably unrealistic with a low FOV.
In your own car you only notice the dashboard if you actively look at it, otherwise you look outside the window and perhaps a little bit of bonnet is what's usually in your 'focussed view'.
Our peripheral vision keeps our sensation intact of being in the car and seeing the sides.

So, on a single monitor with a low (or correct) FOV I wouldn't find an unobstructed 'bonnet' view unrealistic at All as long as the driver's eye position is correct and not at the position of the bumper or something.

Richard Burns Rally has a bonnet view which is pretty realistic IMO .

 

[ouvert]

Agree! Some of these race videos with their calculated FOV just looks very unrealistic as the view as you stated really does appear like their head is planted against their windshield and just looks very wrong as that view doesn't look anything close to my view in my real-life car!

Well obviously pheripheral vision is matter of necesarry compromise here .. important thing is how it looks outside ..
Does 50m look like 50m or in case of higher FOV like 100-150m?
Does that 90 degrees curve look like 90 degrees or is it like with higher FOV flatened, etc...

Correct FOV doesn`t need to be right for you, but it is mathematically corectly calculated FOV so all dimesions, proportions, distances, relations between objects in different distances fits the real world ..
You don`t see your rearview mirrors or dashboad in real car unless you move your eyes, you see it by pheripheral vision we don`t have it in sim
On tripple screen you are adding horizontal pheripheral vision, and by moving your ingame seat further so you see dashboard you are adding vertical pheripheral vision ...

Is correct FOV realistic? No, you don`t have pheripheral vision, your sense of speed is different.
Is higher FOV more realistic? Hell no, your world is optically compressed.

It might not work for everybody, there is nothing wrong with you if it doesn`t, but it is how it is ... there is only one correct FOV, but there are many right FOVs

BTW real racers who tested R3E prefered bonnet view cause cockipt view wasn`t realistic for them.
In real life your perception is completely different and since you are focusing out of car the cockpit is not that obscuring as in sim cockpit view ...

 

[JeffL]

If you use fov calc this is what you get. The whole purpose of calc is to create a realistic window into the world you are driving whether it works for you or not. The purple beyond the monitor is what you see.

 

[RaceWasGood]

sit in your car, have a frame or imagine one same size as monitor, now hold it where your monitor sits, thats what you should see in game

Best "sim-FOV vs reality" explanation ever

Its not, but I've heard this many times. You can easily focus on a line on the road if you want or you can relax your eyes and see lots of things in your peripheral vision including the dash of your car. Its not nearly as cut and dry as you posting a wood frame in front of your face. In fact, if it where that cut and dry, you would be able to do that and never even notice the wood frame, but I bet you will because your eyes see a lot more in your peripheral vision than the FOV Nazi's want to admit... ... ...

Thanks for your thoughts @Blkout, but i was merely expressing my thoughts about @Hash_V8's explanation on immersive FOV and what you actually see if/when you set it up like that. As far as i'm concerned everyone's free to use whatever fov, cam-position etc they feel is working best for them. Peace mate!

 

[Tomas Torasen]

If you use fov calc this is what you get. The whole purpose of calc is to create a realistic window into the world you are driving whether it works for you or not. The purple beyond the monitor is what you see.
View attachment 119634 View attachment 119635 View attachment 119636 View attachment 119637

I understand the logic and dont necessarily disagree with it. But.. how realistic is it to look through such a narrow frame? It doesnt look like that when you drive a car. Correct fov, yes - realistic, no. It might be realistic in a certain part of perception, in another not.

From what I understand fov equals focal length in photography. We always see around what represents 50 mm, what is in another word called the "normal". Everything above that is tele/longer, which gives a more compressed view/makes things appear closer to each other than they actually are.
Below it is wide angle, makes closer stuff appear as being much bigger compared to stuff further away than is actual.
So if this effects focal length which I think, the frame of the monitor size certainly doesnt mean it's realistic in that way.

 

[Blkout]

Spirited discussion here. Good to see people in both camps here but this will always be a debate and contrary to what some people believe on this subject, there's no single RIGHT answer. Use what you prefer but someone will probably tell you anyway that you're wrong because they believe they're right. That's the internet.

 

[mrs1986]

I was using a 57-58 FOV and it seemed right, but after trying the calculated FOV of 23, it seemed too little view, but at the same time, the cars in front of me seemed a lot more real, like the size is correct.
Like one of the images explain up there, we see reaaly wide comparet with what we can get in a computer monitor, that causes our brains to think is wrong respect the high FOV...
Any way, i will try TrackIR andd see what happens with my setup and the real FOV... Now with a 28 monitor there is a lot of things that I lose while driving...

 

[JeffL]

I understand the logic and dont necessarily disagree with it. But.. how realistic is it to look through such a narrow frame? It doesnt look like that when you drive a car. Correct fov, yes - realistic, no. It might be realistic in a certain part of perception, in another not.

From what I understand fov equals focal length in photography. We always see around what represents 50 mm, what is in another word called the "normal". Everything above that is tele/longer, which gives a more compressed view/makes things appear closer to each other than they actually are.
Below it is wide angle, makes closer stuff appear as being much bigger compared to stuff further away than is actual.
So if this effects focal length which I think, the frame of the monitor size certainly doesnt mean it's realistic in that way.

. Fov is exactly realistic or very,very close. That's is why they ask you for screen, size, distance and width. It is geometry and most fov calcs are sim specific based on their fov calcs which is pretty close in all modern sims. It you have a giant screen right in front of your face it is not a narrow window anymore.

My screens sit three inches behind my wheel, not my base. (with special bracket and 24 in screens ) it is exactly what you see in a car minus peripheral. Remember that your eyes have a focal point and a peripheral point. Photography is based on Focal.

 

[David Cordell]

Spirited discussion here. Good to see people in both camps here but this will always be a debate and contrary to what some people believe on this subject, there's no single RIGHT answer. Use what you prefer but someone will probably tell you anyway that you're wrong because they believe they're right. That's the internet.

The problem with this discussion is it's like having a discussion about the earth being flat or round. The science and the math gives us the correct answer. This is not like a discussion about religion where there is no right or wrong answer.

One may prefer to use an incorrect FOV for comfort due to the small size of the canvas/monitor and some may prefer to use the correct FOV. But make no mistake there is no opinion about this, these are preferences only. Mathematically there is a right answer and many people, like I used to be, were uncomfortable to use it.

No one is wrong for preferring to using an incorrect FOV.

 

[Ace King]

It's nice to discuss different opinions like adults, not like many other topics you read in forums.

 

[Blkout]

The problem with this discussion is it's like having a discussion about the earth being flat or round. The science and the math gives us the correct answer. This is not like a discussion about religion where there is no right or wrong answer.

One may prefer to use an incorrect FOV for comfort due to the small size of the canvas/monitor and some may prefer to use the correct FOV. But make no mistake there is no opinion about this, these are preferences only. Mathematically there is a right answer and many people, like I used to be, were uncomfortable to use it.

No one is wrong for preferring to using an incorrect FOV.

I just disagree with the supposed "science and math" that gets posted about "correct" FOV, but that's ok because like I said, its the internet and anyone can create something and call it "science and math." I know what my eyes see when I drive my real life car and I've been doing this driving thing for 24 years so when I set up my monitors for sim racing, I use the FOV that most closely resembles what I see in REAL life so that's all the "science and math" I need. No calculators needed, I just mimic what I see when I drive a real car. FOV calculators do not give me what I see in real life so I have to question that "science and math" in those FOV calculators since it doesn't give me what I see in real life.

Ever noticed that every FOV calculator give a different FOV number? How could that be since "science and math" are so precise? Certainly every FOV calculator should all give the same number when calculated, right? Or could it be that FOV calculators often don't account for all variables? I'd say the latter but you can trust whatever given FOV calculator you use and take it as exact "science and math." I just trust my eyes and that seems to work quite well. No need to stare at square frames and pretend to block out things that my eyes normally see. I work with numbers every day and math should be precise because it follows rules but what math often doesn't do in all cases is account for variables when they were unknown or not factored in the equation. Sometimes math will give you a number but it still doesn't work in a real world scenario due to things that math can't account for.

To each their own for sure, but I don't trust everything I read on the internet either.

 

[ouvert]

I understand the logic and dont necessarily disagree with it. But.. how realistic is it to look through such a narrow frame? It doesnt look like that when you drive a car. Correct fov, yes - realistic, no. It might be realistic in a certain part of perception, in another not.

From what I understand fov equals focal length in photography. We always see around what represents 50 mm, what is in another word called the "normal". Everything above that is tele/longer, which gives a more compressed view/makes things appear closer to each other than they actually are.
Below it is wide angle, makes closer stuff appear as being much bigger compared to stuff further away than is actual.
So if this effects focal length which I think, the frame of the monitor size certainly doesnt mean it's realistic in that way.

and guess what is vertical FOV of 50mm lens on 35mm format (the almost human eye equivalent)? 27

Ingame FOV is equivalent to lens focal leght in the way that changing FOV ingame is like changing focal lenght and moving car seat position is like moving camera ... there is no exact "=" between them

you could simplified it to:
Focal length is distance from monitor
Camera format is screen size
Field of view is field of view

@Blkout every correct FOV calculator gives you exactly the same vFOV number every time .. for the same variables (distance to screen, screen size) .. just like camera lens have exactly the same vFOV for its variables (focal lenght, sensor size)
Some sims are using vFOV, some hFOV, some different representation .. but it is the same ... it is like saying that we are not traveling the same speed if I`m going 50kmh and you are going 31.068mph cause those numbers are not the same

 

[JeffL]

its the internet and anyone can create something and call it "science and math."

I've seen climate deniers use the exact same phrase. LOL