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.

 

[JeffL]

That's adaption, stretching the visual depth perception like a rubber band so you can fit it into your tiny porthole is not realistic. It's adapting to the limited parameters of your reality.

 

[ouvert]

Sure it is not realistic (I don`t have my pheripheral, there is strud and dashboard in my way I cant really get out of the focus, my brain is not filtering camera movements, I`m suddenly getting lens flare, etc .. )
Only way to get somehow realistic pheripheral is tripple screen or for not really realistic pheripheral it is very big screen very close to your eyes ..
For average size screen 22 - 24 inch where you get correct vFOV somewhere between 30-35 you just have to decide what you wanna sacrifice .. sense of speed and awardness or realistic proportions/scaling ...
Since in real car when my focus is out of the car it feels more like correct low FOV (33 in my case) than any just slightly higher setting and I have no issues with awardness and running 3 cars wide whole lap without incident .. so it is pretty easy for me to decide ... having little bit wider FOV would put me off , I just need 170cm tall car 5 metres away look like 170 cm tall car 5 meters away and 90 degrees curve look like 90 degrees curve (with respect to fact I`m behind computer) .. there is enough obstacles between me and simulated car (lack of Gforces, toy wheel attached to my desk, etc.) and I don`t need to add another one ... somebody has different approach, which is fine ..

But if we are talking about correct FOV in terms of reastic visualisation of the world/track, there is only one value ..

 

[JeffL]

But if we are talking about correct FOV in terms of reastic visualisation of the world/track, there is only one value ..

an undeniable,factual, mathematical truth that can proven in a laboratory.

 

[JeffL]

Sorry guys but In the current world we live in, science (escpecially in the US with our science deniers and religious zealots). has taken a beating. We have a certain obligation to truth and science and my frustration in the defense of it might be a little zealous in it's own right but I feel it is necessary in the current climate of "I have a gut feeling" conclusions people come to so it can fit their world view is a disease that can bring down empires and has. So have fun, drive what you like but don't deny there is science. See ya in another factual based thread

 

[Tomas Torasen]

No one ever in this thread what I read denied the existence of or validity of the calculation of fov. It's not anything hard to understand or complicated to most people. So when you are pointing out yourself as a defending hero of science, when what you actually mostly did in the thread is sticking your head in the sand and now calling anything but fov an analogue of religios mumbo jumbo.
It's just masking the underlying wish to be right and appearing in a certain light, you are quite easy to read.

 

[JeffL]

So when you are pointing out yourself as a defending hero of science

Just one of many, have you seen our clubhouse

 

[Brandon Wright]

No one ever in this thread what I read denied the existence of or validity of the calculation of fov. It's not anything hard to understand or complicated to most people. So when you are pointing out yourself as a defending hero of science, when what you actually mostly did in the thread is sticking your head in the sand and now calling anything but fov an analogue of religios mumbo jumbo.
It's just masking the underlying wish to be right and appearing in a certain light, you are quite easy to read.

No. Some people in this thread claimed using "correct" fov is somehow cheating, which actually made my brain hurt. Jeff stood up for the facts, and the fact is that there is a mathematically correct fov that can be determined, measured, and replicated, which is the very definition of good science. You've claimed that in certain situations this mathematically correct fov isn't "realistic" for various reasons, which may be true but has no real bearing on the conversation. Of course we wouldn't drive our real cars by looking through only a 17" frame, but that's not the point of the analogy and nobody is suggesting we should drive that way. The point of the analogy is to illustrate the proportions you would see through that frame, if what you see through that frame resembles what you see on your sim rig than you are using the mathematically correct fov. Whether one chooses to use that fov or not is entirely up to the individual and there is no right or wrong choice on that point because we all like different things. Does that mean the entire experience suddenly becomes ultra realistic? Of course not. It just means that this one area we have control of resembles reality to the best of our ability, and the math not only enables but supports this.

There is a mathematically correct fov that resembles reality, there's no question. Using it has benefits, but it can also have negatives or require compromises depending on your setup. Thankfully we're all free to adjust it in whatever way best fits our situation.

 

[Blkout]

No. Some people in this thread claimed using "correct" fov is somehow cheating, which actually made my brain hurt. Jeff stood up for the facts, and the fact is that there is a mathematically correct fov that can be determined, measured, and replicated, which is the very definition of good science. You've claimed that in certain situations this mathematically correct fov isn't "realistic" for various reasons, which may be true but has no real bearing on the conversation. Of course we wouldn't drive our real cars by looking through only a 17" frame, but that's not the point of the analogy and nobody is suggesting we should drive that way. The point of the analogy is to illustrate the proportions you would see through that frame, if what you see through that frame resembles what you see on your sim rig than you are using the mathematically correct fov. Whether one chooses to use that fov or not is entirely up to the individual and there is no right or wrong choice on that point because we all like different things. Does that mean the entire experience suddenly becomes ultra realistic? Of course not. It just means that this one area we have control of resembles reality to the best of our ability, and the math not only enables but supports this.

There is a mathematically correct fov that resembles reality, there's no question. Using it has benefits, but it can also have negatives or require compromises depending on your setup. Thankfully we're all free to adjust it in whatever way best fits our situation.

Any FOV that allows you to see more of the track without any visual obstructions can be called an advantage over someone else that doesn't use the same view. If the word "cheating" hurts your brain, we can use the word "advantage." I'm not going to get hung up semantics. To each their own though, if the game allows it, its technically legal. Like I said, some people are willing to trade immersion for an "advantage." I fully expect VR users to be slower than monitor users but again, VR users are more interested in immersion than an "advantage."

I'll let you believe whatever you want about a "correct" FOV, maybe my peripheral vision is better than most here but I don't driving a real car looking through a small picture frame so I could care less about the analogy and only care about what my eyes see in real life and I setup my sims for the same view.

 

[JeffL]

 

[ouvert]

Any FOV that allows you to see more of the track without any visual obstructions can be called an advantage over someone else that doesn't use the same view.

So higher fow is cheating? As I can see more of a track and the same window pillar I see appears to be thiner than when I use correct FOV

 

[xnorb]

Just as everywhere there's a golden mathematical rule to everything which will be the optimum for the majority of people. That's also true for simracing FoV.
Rule of reality applies: If the vast majority of good people use certain settings or certain methods, then those are usually the ones that are the fastest / best.
Your feeling towards those settings/methods may not be just positive, but this doesn't change the fact that none of those guys being way faster/better than you use your settings/methods.

But, it's a hobby, it's your enjoyment.
If you like driving with low / high / medium / whatever FoV, then it's your choice, enjoy.

Any FOV that allows you to see more of the track without any visual obstructions can be called an advantage over someone else that doesn't use the same view.

Are you referring to higher FoV or to using the bumper cam???

Because with higher FoV you have the same A pillars in your face, the windshield turns into a small slit for you to have to look at the world and as everything gets smaller it's harder to hit your points and on top of that our brain gets the impression that everything is moving faster.

 

[Brandon Wright]

Any FOV that allows you to see more of the track without any visual obstructions can be called an advantage over someone else that doesn't use the same view. If the word "cheating" hurts your brain, we can use the word "advantage." I'm not going to get hung up semantics. To each their own though, if the game allows it, its technically legal. Like I said, some people are willing to trade immersion for an "advantage." I fully expect VR users to be slower than monitor users but again, VR users are more interested in immersion than an "advantage."

I'll let you believe whatever you want about a "correct" FOV, maybe my peripheral vision is better than most here but I don't driving a real car looking through a small picture frame so I could care less about the analogy and only care about what my eyes see in real life and I setup my sims for the same view.

That's backwards though, people using a high fov that does have visual obstructions are putting themselves at an unnecessary disadvantage. That's like playing basketball with one arm tied behind your back and claiming people using both arms are putting themselves at an advantage or "cheating". And I'm certainly not trading immersion for an advantage, in fact I find that the more immersive my setup is the better advantage it gives me because it allows me to judge distances more accurately and place my car more precisely. But I don't use "correct" fov to give me an advantage, I use it because it makes me feel like I'm in a real car, as can be seen in this video...

And nobody is saying you should drive your car looking through a small picture frame. That analogy only describes the proportions you would see through that frame and how they relate to the real world proportions and there is a correct mathematical ratio there that can be measured. Does that mean everyone should play with that ratio? Of course not. If you feel you need more peripheral vision by using a higher fov then by all means do it, but that doesn't mean the mathematically correct fov is wrong.

 

[Tomas Torasen]

No. Some people in this thread claimed using "correct" fov is somehow cheating, which actually made my brain hurt. Jeff stood up for the facts, and the fact is that there is a mathematically correct fov that can be determined, measured, and replicated, which is the very definition of good science. You've claimed that in certain situations this mathematically correct fov isn't "realistic" for various reasons, which may be true but has no real bearing on the conversation. Of course we wouldn't drive our real cars by looking through only a 17" frame, but that's not the point of the analogy and nobody is suggesting we should drive that way. The point of the analogy is to illustrate the proportions you would see through that frame, if what you see through that frame resembles what you see on your sim rig than you are using the mathematically correct fov. Whether one chooses to use that fov or not is entirely up to the individual and there is no right or wrong choice on that point because we all like different things. Does that mean the entire experience suddenly becomes ultra realistic? Of course not. It just means that this one area we have control of resembles reality to the best of our ability, and the math not only enables but supports this.

There is a mathematically correct fov that resembles reality, there's no question. Using it has benefits, but it can also have negatives or require compromises depending on your setup. Thankfully we're all free to adjust it in whatever way best fits our situation.

Yes someone claimed it was cheating. But thats completely irrelevant. Jeff was saying only his way of using the correct fov is the only realistic way, when I was claiming that fov is indeed correct in it's own way. No one ever said that fov is false which makes his defense of science pure bull talk, no one ever said that fov is false or anything. I said that there is many aspects which builds up our perception of reality, fov and perspective is one of them but certainly not everything. And it's certainly not realistic to drive with a hole in the windshield the size of a monitor blocking the rest of the view. It's grown up kids not capable of discussing maturily, but needing to defend and lie to be right, pick out certain lines and quote out of context. It's very low level rethoric. And you are partly doing the same now quoting me insinuating that I was the one making the claim it was cheating, when everything I said still is true and nothing of that. It's grown men behaving like children needing to be right at any cost than painting themself as super heroes when they have no more arguments to go to.
And to add, this is also happening in a site about gaming, which makes is quite hilarious to see such level of argumentation from grown men.

 

[Tomas Torasen]

And nobody is saying you should drive your car looking through a small picture frame. That analogy only describes the proportions you would see through that frame and how they relate to the real world proportions and there is a correct mathematical ratio there that can be measured. Does that mean everyone should play with that ratio? Of course not. If you feel you need more peripheral vision by using a higher fov then by all means do it, but that doesn't mean the mathematically correct fov is wrong.

Yes that is what one is saying exactly if you at the same time state that the only right and realistic way of doing it is using that fov, which in this reality represents a tiny hole in the windshield, much smaller than what we see in reality. No one ever said that fov is mathematically incorrect, but you and Jeff keep repeating it over and over as you dont seem to understand that there are more vaiables to build up a reality. Youre defending something that no one is disagreeing with and youre sounding as you are in high horses knowing better than everyone else doing it.

 

[Brandon Wright]

Yes someone claimed it was cheating. But thats completely irrelevant. Jeff was saying only his way of using the correct fov is the only realistic way, when I was claiming that fov is indeed correct in it's own way. No one ever said that fov is false which makes his defense of science pure bull talk, no one ever said that fov is false or anything. I said that there is many aspects which builds up our perception of reality, fov and perspective is one of them but certainly not everything. And it's certainly not realistic to drive with a hole in the windshield the size of a monitor blocking the rest of the view. It's grown up kids not capable of discussing maturily, but needing to defend and lie to be right, pick out certain lines and quote out of context. It's very low level rethoric. And you are partly doing the same now quoting me insinuating that I was the one making the claim it was cheating, when everything I said still is true and nothing of that. It's grown men behaving like children needing to be right at any cost than painting themself as super heroes when they have no more arguments to go to.
And to add, this is also happening in a site about gaming, which makes is quite hilarious to see such level of argumentation from grown men.

Yes that is what one is saying exactly if you at the same time state that the only right and realistic way of doing it is using that fov, which in this reality represents a tiny hole in the windshield, much smaller than what we see in reality. No one ever said that fov is mathematically incorrect, but you and Jeff keep repeating it over and over as you dont seem to understand that there are more vaiables to build up a reality. Youre defending something that no one is disagreeing with and youre sounding as you are in high horses knowing better than everyone else doing it.

Well, none of that is even close to what I was trying to say and you managed to even cram some extra words into my mouth (I never insinuated you made the claim of cheating as it's pretty clear who made that claim, which IS relevant because it's what sparked most of this debate). And as far as I could tell you're most certainly disagreeing with everything Jeff said. In my first comment I even said that what you were saying may be true, it's just missing the point of the discussion.

Of course there's more variables to build up a reality, but we only have control of a few of them on our toy racing setups and making your field of view closely represent the proportions you would see in a real car is one of them, should we desire to do so or have the equipment to do so. We can't replicate the entire field of vision with one (or even three) monitors, but we can try to make what's in those monitors closely match what would be in that same field of view in a real car, should we desire to do so. That's what the window frame analogy is, it's not saying you should drive your real car with only a 23" square of vision, it's only comparing a 23" slice of that real-world view to what you see on your gaming screens because that's all we're capable of recreating, should we desire to do so.

As I stated multiple times, that doesn't mean everyone should set their rig up that way because we all have different setups and different desires, and nowhere did I claim that people racing with a different fov were wrong. Just because we claim it's more "realistic" doesn't mean it's 1:1 to reality or that it's the "right" way to play, it just means it resembles reality closer than other options do (there's always going to be an option that's closest to reality, that doesn't mean it's all that close to reality). Only the individual can decide what's "right" for them and all of us will come up with slightly different solutions to that. You can choose to replicate your entire field of vision into that 23" space (not very "realistic" but perfectly reasonable), or you can choose to replicate what you would see in your real car in that 23" space (more "realistic" but still not 1:1 to reality), or you can choose something in between, there's no right or wrong answer to this.

But since you've resorted to name calling and mud slinging (and using strawmen) I can see there's no value in continuing this discussion, so, good-day.

 

[JeffL]

NIce try @Brandon Wright, but @Tomas Torasen and @Blkout are bound and deteremined to derail any sensible conversation. So another one bites the dust. #sufferthefool

 

[Tomas Torasen]

Well, none of that is even close to what I was trying to say and you managed to even cram some extra words into my mouth (I never insinuated you made the claim of cheating as it's pretty clear who made that claim, which IS relevant because it's what sparked most of this debate). And as far as I could tell you're most certainly disagreeing with everything Jeff said. In my first comment I even said that what you were saying may be true, it's just missing the point of the discussion.

Of course there's more variables to build up a reality, but we only have control of a few of them on our toy racing setups and making your field of view closely represent the proportions you would see in a real car is one of them, should we desire to do so or have the equipment to do so. We can't replicate the entire field of vision with one (or even three) monitors, but we can try to make what's in those monitors closely match what would be in that same field of view in a real car, should we desire to do so. That's what the window frame analogy is, it's not saying you should drive your real car with only a 23" square of vision, it's only comparing a 23" slice of that real-world view to what you see on your gaming screens because that's all we're capable of recreating, should we desire to do so.

As I stated multiple times, that doesn't mean everyone should set their rig up that way because we all have different setups and different desires, and nowhere did I claim that people racing with a different fov were wrong. Just because we claim it's more "realistic" doesn't mean it's 1:1 to reality or that it's the "right" way to play, it just means it resembles reality closer than other options do (there's always going to be an option that's closest to reality, that doesn't mean it's all that close to reality). Only the individual can decide what's "right" for them and all of us will come up with slightly different solutions to that. You can choose to replicate your entire field of vision into that 23" space (not very "realistic" but perfectly reasonable), or you can choose to replicate what you would see in your real car in that 23" space (more "realistic" but still not 1:1 to reality), or you can choose something in between, there's no right or wrong answer to this.

But since you've resorted to name calling and mud slinging (and using strawmen) I can see there's no value in continuing this discussion, so, good-day.

Wow you really manage to squeeze in alot of words without saying much there. So what I said many times now, that Jeff and now you cant handle and dont know how to argument against, is that reality is built up by many factors which you just had to agree on. And people are allowed to use and setup their game however they want. By using a very unrealistic small window into the world, although it uses the right fov, there are many trade offs which each individual has to choose what is most important to them. There isnt just one correct way of doing things. This is the main point where Jeff starts name calling and avoiding answering stuff and grabbing other stuff out of context to keep insistint he's defending one single point which no one ever in this thread disagreed on.

Amazingly pointless and really funny from grown men to see this level of behaviour.

 

[Brandon Wright]

Wow you really manage to squeeze in alot of words without saying much there. So what I said many times now, that Jeff and now you cant handle and dont know how to argument against, is that reality is built up by many factors which you just had to agree on. And people are allowed to use and setup their game however they want. By using a very unrealistic small window into the world, although it uses the right fov, there are many trade offs which each individual has to choose what is most important to them. There isnt just one correct way of doing things. This is the main point where Jeff starts name calling and avoiding answering stuff and grabbing other stuff out of context to keep insistint he's defending one single point which no one ever in this thread disagreed on.

Amazingly pointless and really funny from grown men to see this level of behaviour.

No, you've completely misunderstood everything I've said. The intention of this thread was to discuss a benefit of using a calculated fov and we were trying to make some points about fov, how to calculate it, and the benefits of using it. Someone chimed in saying that because we weren't intentionally putting ourselves at a disadvantage by using an obstructed view we were somehow cheating, which lead to debate. Then you came in with the argument that since we can't 100% perfectly represent reality with our sim racing toys we shouldn't even try, which is neither her nor there. Then you twisted the window frame analogy around to make it sound like we were saying you should drive your real car by only looking through a small window frame with the rest of the world blacked out, which clearly is unrealistic and is not at all the point of the analogy. I tried to explain how you were getting the analogy wrong, but rather than discuss it in a civilized manner you came back with insults, accusations, and strawmen. Clearly we're both wasting our time.

Amazingly pointless and not at all funny to see yet another attempt at civilized sim racing discussion devolve into useless arguing and insults.

 

[Paul Bennett]

There goes another 5 pages

 

[Tomas Torasen]

No, you've completely misunderstood everything I've said. Then you came in with the argument that since we can't 100% perfectly represent reality with our sim racing toys we shouldn't even try, which is neither her nor there. I tried to explain how you were getting the analogy wrong, but rather than discuss it in a civilized manner you came back with insults, accusations, and strawmen. Clearly we're both wasting our time.

I really do not believe I misunderstood everything you said.
Where did I ever say "since you cant simulate reality 100% you shouldnt even try"? You are making things up that I never said. And then you are the one calling me out for lowering the level of discussion here.. Congrats!