@Blanes & @Fanapryde Its not what is correct for you, but what is correct in the physics law. If we all used arbitrary values to do calculations and math, we would still be throwing rocks at eachother. People are trying to stick to the defined defaults that has been argue and proven to be the most correct to suit our needs. Most people here are trying to stick to these factual numbers, so people can get the right knowledge to start from, and make their own mind how to use that knowledge.
@Stiku ~ we are arguing along different lines of reasoning and haggling over the semantics. Your statement that, the defined defaults have been argued and proven to be the most correct to suit our needs, is not true for the reasons I have already stated. You and many others cannot see or accept that so arguing is pointless. Empirical facts ie. physical laws are not in dispute but how those numbers translate to real world applications and their effect upon the personal user varies greatly. Trying to tell somebody that a certain FoV is "correct" based on a mathematical calculation sounds great but if the practical application of it is found to be "not correct" for an individual due to numerous other physical variables then it simply means there is no one correct way of defining such a thing. That is all I am trying to convey. Simple. It is all good fun until somebody gets poked in the eye with a stick !
i think in FOV case it is more complicated ... for me using higher than correct FOV (35 in my case) feels weird but .. correct means accurate in terms of perpective, distances, scaling, elevation changes, curve angles, etc .. but since it is not accurate in terms of 'faking' pheripheral vision it is not accurate in delivering sense of speed and for some awareness.. From my point of view sense of speed is partialy solved with other audio-visual effects (noise, shaking, etc ..) or with using big screens (TV) or tripple screen setup and brain can easily adapt. Also I don`t have issues with awareness and knowing what is going on around me, so I naturaly lean towards having correct FOV .. I can imagine for somebody running wide FOV for a long time it is terrible when they tried correct one (it was for me too for a while) but I would recomend to try stick with it as you either get used to it and get arguably better experience or you will revert back to whatever you were using I honestly think most of the time people just wont give correct FOV enough time for their brain to adapt ...
@Ouvert ~ You summarised the correct way of looking at this ... it is purely down to personal interpretation of what our eyes see and how we define that in terms of what is immersive and carries the belief we are really racing a motor car when we are actually just sitting in a chair looking at a video screen and holding onto a metal/plastic/rubber wheel. My objection revolves around these absolute assertions where someone keeps saying "this is the correct FOV and will give you the most real simulation of blah blah blah, physics, maths, blah blah I am right you are wrong science. etc. etc." It is a load of baloney and bumpf and I love to fight against it ! Oh and I have tried all these "correct" FoV and gave them plenty of time - the nett result was I go back always to what works and is comfortable because those "correct" settings hurt my brain, my eyes and everything in between. And just for the record, legend has it that Albert Einstein never used "correct" FoV when he sim raced as he liked the wide & wider "correct" FoV, so they say.. anyway, and I believe it !
well it is correct FOV and it is scientifically calculated one, and there is only one value for one setup ... but it is also videogame and I also have smaller diameter steering wheel so my hands are (scientifically calculated) doing shorter path, my pedals are (scientifically provable) softer than real ones and I`m wearing only boxer shorts and fingerless gloves (no science behind that)
Yeah, No I am not going to argue about "correct" FoV any longer. For me Case Closed. Happy Racing correct : free from error; in accordance with fact or truth. synonyms: right, accurate, true, veracious, exact, precise,unerring, faithful, strict, faultless, flawless,errorless, error-free, perfect, word-perfect,scrupulous, meticulous
I think there are two different discussions going on here, the FOV setting in game and the physical size of a monitor vs resolution of said monitor. I'll bow out as my point is being missed, maybe I'm not explaining well. Happy racing.
We are both looking at two different things. Let's put it this way, I have 3 gaming monitors each capable of a different resolution - 3440x1440, 2560x1440, and 1920x1080. If the 1920 resolution monitor is physically 50" wide and the 3440 is physically 34" wide, which one will be "capable" for providing the widest view of the car/track with a correct FOV - so I can see my mirrors without sitting in the back seat of my car (adjusting FOV in game to achieve)?
At same distance from your eyes it will be the 50" .. despite it's lower res. Just because it's bigger. Even a 21:9 34" is smaller than a 16:9 50" .. it's pure physical datas. The 50" is 110cm wide, when the 21:9 34" will be around 85cm.. so if both are at the same distance of your eyes, you'll be able to set a wider FoV in the 50". Nothing related to the 1080p resolution of the 50".. it only will look ugliest because of the lower res. Again : it's mathematical Screen resolution as nothing to do in the FoV calculation
You are just looking at the width of the display, which is wrong when it is all about the ratio. You have exactly similar "window" or viewport to simulation world no matter if you are using 50" or 19" 16:9 monitor and using same FOV. Only difference is, that if they are at the same distance, 50" monitor fills your "real" view better, but the window is still exactly the same. You are correct that resolution has nothing to do with this. But screen ratio definitely has. If you are using correct or identical FOV with 16:9 and 21:9 ratio monitors, you'll have wider window to your virtual world from the 21:9 monitor naturally, because it also has a wider ratio horizontally. You on the otherhand lose some view vertically at the same time. You can test this with the FOV calculator and look at the preview picture by changing between different monitor ratios or single/triple displays. It is also a handy tool for setting the correct FOV: http://www.projectimmersion.com/fov/
Nop If monitor are at the same distance, calculated Fov will be different. Yes screen ratio is part of the equation. But Size and distance are more important. Wider screen ratio only allow you a wider view compared to the same screen diagonal with non wide ratio. Let's try with 50" 16:9 and 34" 21:9 on the calculator, at fixed distance, (let say 60cm) 50" => 54° vFov 34" => 31° vFov If you look at the pictures on projectimmersion from the Fov calculator it's pretty obvious that the resultant field of view is wider on the 50". You can see the left side mirror, not in the 34" At the end the 21:9 34" give you the same horizontal field of view than a 37" or 38" 16:9 monitor. But, at same Fov : what you'll get on the non-wide screen will be more realstate on the verticals, you'll more on the upper and lower side.
You are still missing my point. I'm not saying you are wrong regarding FOV per-se, my whole discussion is regarding physical monitor size - size alone does not determine what you "see" in your FOV. Screenshots using my 3440 and 1920 resolution monitors. 3440 horizontal resolution - R3E 1x FOV 1920 horizontal resolution - R3E 1x FOV 1920 horizontal resolution - R3E 1.3x FOV - same horizontal view but incorrect but bad FOV Take these two monitors, SAME physical size (27") but I would much rather have the Dell. Resolution does matter, maybe in your mind resolution is not the right term. DELL UltraSharp UP2715K 27" IPS LED 5K UHD Monitor 5120 x 2880 resolution HP - 27" IPS LED HD Monitor 1920 x 1080 resolution If you don't see my point, that's fine. I may not be explaining in a way that makes sense to you. Happy racing.
Man, you don't compare same screen ratio here. What's wrong with you ? 3 factor: Size, distance and Screen ratio. Get these 3 factors fixed and only change the resolution you'll see NO DIFFERENCE in the FOV.. not at all. Once again: you're picture prove it .. I have a 3440x1440 34" display. I can play @ native resolution (3440x1440p) or at a lower resolution 2560x1080p => the FoV is exactly the same, and in game point of view will be exactly the same. Resolution as nothing to do with all of that. End of the discussion
Oops, I stand corrected. I left the distance out of my thought, which of course plays big part in this.
You are 100% correct regarding FOV in your example but at the same FOV you will see less in you view at the 2560 resolution - that's my point. I will go with higher resolution displays so I can "see more" in my FOV.
Nop... Same view on the screen .. only worst picture quality, because screen need to interpolate. I did a lot of testing when I bought ma 34", because my GPU wasn't powerfull enougth to push that many pixels, I tried the both resolution back and forth, native and reduced .. absolutely no difference in the game point of view, not at all. Changing the physical resolution on a fixed screen size will only change the DPI, it will not add any screen realstate.
Not if the monitors are of same size and distance. If both monitors are 16:9 and let's say 27" with 100cm distance, you'd have exactly the same FOV even if one of the monitors would have 16x9 resolution. Latter would be just extremely blocky Resolution has effect only on IQ.
In terms of how much you can see of distant objects, the resolution does make a difference. So I suppose you could argue that higher res means you can use a wider FOV and still see the same detail in distant objects. But this does miss the point - fuzzy or not, there's only one 'correct' (albeit optional) FOV for a given screen size / distance combo and this is independent of resolution
you are describing aspect ratio not resolution ... (sure screen with different aspect rations have different resolution) but resulution is just number of pixels per distance, nothing to do with it ...
You're correct. I left out the aspect ratio in my discussion. When I look for a monitor, size doesn't matter as much as capabilities - resolution and "aspect". My large television is crap for gaming compared to my UltraWide monitor.