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.

 

[David Cordell]

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?

It's because FOV is not standardized throughout all the sims. That's what calculators like projectimmersion are for.

I just can't take this anymore guys. One person saying 2+2=4 and another person saying 2+2=Jello is totally exasperating.

 

[JeffL]

One last attempt, because from experience @Blkout will never,ever concede he is wrong, there are sim specific fov calculators. Good night fellas

 

[David Cordell]

One last attempt, because from experience @Blkout will never,ever concede he is wrong, there are sim specific fov calculators. Good night fellas

I was just wanting to have a discussion about one of the more complex apsects of FOV(rotation) and here were are stuck arguing the basics of where the sun goes at night or does light really go off when you close the refrigerator door. I guess the basics of FOV are still way too complex for some people to get past.

 

[JeffL]

 

[Blkout]

I was just wanting to have a discussion about one of the more complex apsects of FOV(rotation) and here were are stuck arguing the basics of where the sun goes at night or does light really go off when you close the refrigerator door. I guess the basics of FOV are still way too complex for some people to get past.

I don't think anyone is arguing. This whole thread has been full of various opinions, but that's common on the internet.

I guess the basics of understanding how eyes work are still way too complex for some people to get past. I've had 40 years experience with my eyes so I'd like to think I'm qualified to explain how mine perceive images.

You can continue your original discussion though. I'm certainly not trying to crap on your thread. I simply gave my opinion, some disagreed, some agreed and the discussed ensued. You can get back on topic by continuing your original discussion with those people that agree with you and leave out the petty insults towards those that don't agree with you. Just a suggestion.

 

[JeffL]

Told ya

 

[Paul Bennett]

I think the FOV debate will run an run for a long time, we know it has filled many pages here an elsewhere. There are too many combos of screen sizes an rig setups for all of us to agree. I've used the calculators myself an still made adjustments, so when it's good for you just drive !

 

[JeffL]

Nope, there is a calculation for every setup. It's math, it's math, it's math. but again, nobody is wrong with what they choose .

 

[JeffL]

I just thought of something, if FOV is incorrect than how can they make Oculus Rift Work, put that in your pipe and smoke it for a minute.

 

[David Cordell]

Nope, there is a calculation for every setup. It's math, it's math, it's math. but again, nobody is wrong with what they choose .

Dude.......You and others can take it if you want to. I had no idea basic math was still under debate and, after this ridiculous debate, I am totally out of the mood and a bit dejected. Good luck.

 

[Paul Bennett]

VR fov , how many pages can get out of that one

 

[ZethGAF]

VR fov , how many pages can get out of that one

VR is a worthless gimmick and can permanently damage your vision - I don't think there's much to discuss on that topic. edit: that's a joke

 

[TobiasR]

People should get some blinders and just strap their heads to the headrest in their real cars. BAM, the full simracing experience.

 

[Tomas Torasen]

I just thought of something, if FOV is incorrect than how can they make Oculus Rift Work, put that in your pipe and smoke it for a minute.

I dont think anyone is saying that "field of view" is incorrect. It's just the field of view and perhaps it was you who said it's math.. simple. If it's realistic though is another thing completely. It's not realistic to sit in a room driving a car on a screen with a wheel and pedals and shifter on a sopha, for example. It's highly unrealistic in various, quite many ways.
It's no matter how you turn, your ass will be behind you and a monitor will never be able to represent how our vision works in the real world. It's a two dimensional screen surface that is trying to represent something 3 dimensional, although our brain constantly understand the difference and the false 3d perspective, which means quite alot in terms of apprehension of surroundings and so on.
How our direct focused attention, the switching between that and a more relaxed surrounded vision works in the real world compared to on a monitor is enough I think to make any fov quite unrealistic in different ways.

There is not just one correct answer here, no matter which side you'll take you will introduce unrealistic factors because the medium itself can never be realistic.
If you want realism you better go outside and drive your car and be sure not to put a frame of your monitor size on the inside of your windscreen, because the police will stop you and take your license away, even if you tell them that you are realistic in your way of seeing narrowly.. =)

 

[Tomas Torasen]

People should get some blinders and just strap their heads to the headrest in their real cars. BAM, the full simracing experience.

That explains the hell bent narrow FOV and what that means pretty well.

 

[Emery]

People should get some blinders and just strap their heads to the headrest in their real cars. BAM, the full simracing experience.

That's how it feels when you're wearing a HANS device and helmet!

 

[JeffL]

I dont think anyone is saying that "field of view" is incorrect. It's just the field of view and perhaps it was you who said it's math.. simple. If it's realistic though is another thing completely. It's not realistic to sit in a room driving a car on a screen with a wheel and pedals and shifter on a sopha, for example. It's highly unrealistic in various, quite many ways.
It's no matter how you turn, your ass will be behind you and a monitor will never be able to represent how our vision works in the real world. It's a two dimensional screen surface that is trying to represent something 3 dimensional, although our brain constantly understand the difference and the false 3d perspective, which means quite alot in terms of apprehension of surroundings and so on.
How our direct focused attention, the switching between that and a more relaxed surrounded vision works in the real world compared to on a monitor is enough I think to make any fov quite unrealistic in different ways.

There is not just one correct answer here, no matter which side you'll take you will introduce unrealistic factors because the medium itself can never be realistic.
If you want realism you better go outside and drive your car and be sure not to put a frame of your monitor size on the inside of your windscreen, because the police will stop you and take your license away, even if you tell them that you are realistic in your way of seeing narrowly.. =)

Apples and oranges. Lets try it a different way. Walk over to a wall in your house, grab a chainsaw and cut a hole in the wall the size of your computer monitor. Now look through that hole I don't care how close or far away you are from that hole. The objects in the other room don't change in proportion to the .stuff in the room your in. A Coca-cola won't be 10ft tall in the other room. That's what fov calc is about. To make it so no matter how big the hole or how far away you sit, that coke can is the right size.

 

[Tomas Torasen]

Apples and oranges. Lets try it a different way. Walk over to a wall in your house, grab a chainsaw and cut a hole in the wall the size of your computer monitor. Now look through that hole I don't care how close or far away you are from that hole. The objects in the other room don't change in proportion to the .stuff in the room your in. A Coca-cola won't be 10ft tall in the other room. That's what fov calc is about. To make it so no matter how big the hole or how far away you sit, that coke can is the right size.

Yes I'm totally with you. Now lets try taking that hole outside to your car and pitting the hole in your windshield, then painting everying around it black and try to drive on the road with your car and see how far you come. Or take a race car and see the reactions from other people on the track. You will be banned.

 

[JeffL]

No, this thread is not about immersion, it is about FOV not what makes you feel better.. Gees Thomas, That is why the OP of this thread got so frustrated.
Runaway with hair on fire.
It's about FOV,FOV,FOV,FOV.fov, fov. fov.fov, fov,...............

 

[Andy_J]

@JeffL is right in what he is saying. It is not rocket science. What some people are getting confused with is how different it looks at the correct FOV. Take the pics posted with the correct FOV on a single monitor and you see the top of the dash, a side window strut etc. You back out a bit with seating adjustablity so you see a bit more of the dash etc.

But some of you are not happy with that because you don't get to see a bit more of the side view. In real life you do. It's called peripheral vision and we take it for granted. It's always there. Racing a sim with single screen and correct FOV loses it for them and they find this uncomfortable. Just get used to it. Use left and right buttons to view left and right and use mirrors to see behind. Use an app like the helicorsa app for AC or crew chief plugins for others gain an alround perspective. But try and use the correct FOV if you can.
I use the correct FOV in RRE and it feels so much better than standard. Obviously I don't have the virtual wheel or race drivers hands showing because I use a wheel and that would look silly.
Here is my correct FOV in RRE using 0.5 in the settings as calculated by this:

http://www.projectimmersion.com/fov/index.php?m=1

At this correct FOV the cars, the corners, everything is the correct proportion.