Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Turtle Power, Jan 22, 2019.
Could it be, that you both are meaning the same?
It's true that two screens of different sizes (24" vs say 60") at the same distance from the eye allow for different fov's, the larger one allowing a higher fov and more visible elements on screen, but ultimately there is only one true fov value that is mathematically correct for a particular setup, taking into account screen size and distance from the eye. A lot of people set a higher fov on smaller screens to try and get a sense of speed (which is derived from peripheral vision) but in turn, everything is then at the incorrect scale, the track is stretched compared with reality etc. Whilst that makes it appear faster, it goes against what we are used to. 100m is no longer 100m, its appears to be say 200m visually but you travel it in the same time so it appears faster.
The correct fov is one where things are scaled appropriately, so 100m looks like 100m, which allows you to gauge distances and relative speeds as we do in our everyday life (crossing a busy road or pulling out of a junction in busy traffic / changing lanes on a motorway/highway etc).
Without the peripheral vision (of say, triples) this can have the effect of making everything seem slow, but that is what it is. Driving down a motorway at 70mph with wide open spaces either side may seem slow, but doing the same speed through a dense built up area will feel rapid. Take away that peripheral (close objects flying past you) and high speed feels like low speed. This is where triples shine, even compared to VR (at the moment) because triples give you the peripheral vision that a single (average size) screen and even VR doesn't.
Fun fact for real life usage:
A trial in Norfolk found that creating avenue of trees and hedges had a dramatic impact on motorists’ behaviour.
The experiment at four villages – Overstrand, Martham, Coltishall and Mundesley – showed that drivers dropped their speed because of the cut in their peripheral vision. In all there was a 20 per cent drop in the number of motorists driving at 40 to 60mph and overall average speeds fell by 1.5 per cent.
Obviously, in-game there is no "fear factor" so it doesn't quite have the same effect but that study basically showed the tree-lines made the motorists feel like they where driving faster than they where.
Anyway, its confusing talking about it lol, but there is only 1 correct fov per setup, anything other than that is compensating for missing sensations and could have adverse effects (in terms of driving ability) until your brain gets used to compensating for it too.
What I am saying is aspect ratio is fixed, yes you can bring things closer but it's relative, if you bring a smaller screen closer and a larger one further away then the FOV stays the same, you bring a larger one closer and alter the FOV to allow for having a big ass screen in your face does not alter the aspect ratio and raising the FOV just makes a track look longer from one point to another, narrower and increases the sense of speed, it is not 1:1 world scale any more.
The only way you can have a 1:1 world ratio and maintain the correct sense of speed and perceived distance is to increase the width of the ratio,
Of course it's the same FOV if you move the screen away. What's the point of that? The FOV adjustment is there to change the Field of view to your physical setup. Field of view means just that, it's what you can see through your screen.
But having a 60" screen 600mm from your chops is not really natural so you are fudging the FOV calculation to utilise the bigger area albeit at the same aspect ratio to allow more width which in turn decreases height vision as well, this is where is starts to 'fisheye'.
Am i too late with the popcorn?
Lol, it's a good discussion, what I would do with a bigger screen closer to my eyeballs is to keep the correct FOV for the aspect ratio and move the actual seat further back which will not alter the FOV base but utilise the size of the screen better.
It's no different to having a triple setup other than you get to see more of the top and bottom of the cockpit with the 60". The downside is big screens have a lower ppi than a smaller monitor. You obviously dont understand how FOV works at all so I'm not sure what the point of continuing to discuss it is....
FOV has nothing, NADA, sod all to do with aspect ratio. How many times???
Oh hold on a sec, there are 2 FOV settings in RRE, one for single screens and there is a separate one for triples that you adjust with buttons, I don't touch that one that is set at 1 natively maybe this is the confusion.
When you adjust the one for triples it pops up on screen what you are setting it to.
There you go, proper FOV on a 42" screen at around 600mm. You can argue the toss all you want but you're still wrong
I'm not arguing with you, no need to get pissy, there are a different set of FOV settings for triples, I don't know what that one does on a single screen that you use, I have never touched it.
I apologise. Difficult to debate over a forum. The point is you can get proper FOV on a big screen, yes you don't have the width of triples and yes the ppi of the screen can make it slightly pixelated but it is 1:1 and is a good compromise for those without space or GPU power to run triples.
It's one of those headf....k topics that's hard to explain in writing on the fly, but yeah you can get the right 1:1 fov on any screen of any size, it just means you may have less to look at (a smaller window to the world) on a smaller screen and it also has a drastic effect on feeling of speed, which is why people tend to use the wrong fov... although I would personally always aim for as close to 1:1 as possible.
I wasn't disagreeing with the fact you couldn't get a proper FOV on a single screen just that you can have the same FOV on triples but still have the extra sides and keep 1:1, that video does look good and I wish I could get mine that close, that set up with triples would be awesome as well.
I think the in game single screen FOV is VFOV where the triple maybe HFOV as when I hit the button to adjust it it pops up on screen in yellow and tells you what it is, think mine is set between 45-50 not fully sure how the difference is.
I know when I played PC2 that on a single it was difficult to get it right with having to increase the FOV in an unatural way but seemed to work ok on triples, RRE must do it differently.
Totally, regarding sense of speed, I find that those that come from a console/gaming background expect the world to fly by but those who have sim'd for a while realise that correct FOV is of utmost importance. So many bad setups on YouTube etc....
That's probably as a lot of console players kick back and chill on a couch while playing on a 60" screen 6 feet away so they increase the FOV for the sense of speed.
A lot of them don't use cockpit either.
I can't actually get mine quite right at the minute, my screens are a bit low on my desk so I bought a new racing chair that will go lower so I could lower the incline of my Accurforce and be a bit more in line with the centre of the screen but then got a buttkicker which stops the seat going down again lol, time to butcher the seat I think.
If it's in the 45 Deg region it's still using vertical, the game knows the resolution of your 3 screens combined and works out what to display on that basis. Hence when you switch off the two side screens the fov is still correct, but you have less peripheral visiom
Then dial in the Tri Scr options in Steam launch and it gets confusing but I have to say I still prefer the way RRE do it as there is a lot more adjustment.
As a rule when setting up any screen of any size. Your eyes should be horizontal to the exact centre of the screen (or centre screen if on trips)
Separate names with a comma.