Adjusted FoV down from default 54 to 25 using calculator and now I can't see corners right

[Celtic Pharaoh]

Hey everyone,

I've read and heard how a more realistic FoV can help you make drive better so tonight, I finally looked into it properly, measured the distance from my eyes to my single 24" monitor (26 inches) and bam, the calculator told me 25.4

So I went into my view settings and adjusted it from the default 54° to 25° and ran some laps. As you can imagine, everything is zoomed up now and while I can see the benefits of everything seemingly moving slower, making it easier to be consistent with braking points, cornering is just so much harder now with such a narrow field of view.

I'm going to try to stick it out for a little while and see how it works out but is there any way of making life easier? Thanks

 

[Kek700]

You could always use RHM app ( i think it is called that ) which attaches the screen to the steering wheel so that the view reflects the diirection of the car via the steering input angle.
Works very well untill you have an off, then it makes you go all dizzy.

 

[Case_]

While I am a strong believer in setting the FOV as close to correct as possible, I also think there's a point of diminishing returns. Personally, I don't think you should go below about 30 degrees vFOV, and if your correct FOV is lower than that, you should probably focus on fixing your screen size/distance and/or how far away you sit, not lower the FOV further.

vFOV of 25 would suggest you're sitting too far away from the screen or your screen is too small.

 

[natedogg1867]

Surprising how many FoV elitists there are

This debate is oddly reminiscent to the, "You need a wheel to enjoy sim-racing and cannot use a gamepad!" argument.

This however, is a bit different. On a normal monitor, 'realistic' FoV means you cant see **** because the view is so narrow. Couple that with all the concessions you have to make such as the camera being oddly positioned in the cockpit, not able to view your data displays, no peripheral vision... You are hamstringing yourself more than helping. As with Martin above, there is a point where 'realistic' FoV isnt needed because going to it just isnt reasonable to do.

Unless you are using a FoV of 80, a more realistic FoV aint gonna make you faster and will only make you wonder even more what is going on around you.

 

[Bobby Pennington]

@Brandon Wright you remember this from a year ago? I said never again in public.....and I meant it

 

[raptor1958]

?

 

[guidofoc]

25 is theoretically correct but your display is too small/far to realistically drive that way. That must feel like the periscope of a submarine instead of a racing sim.

I used this FOV calculator which i think is pretty well done:
http://www.projectimmersion.com/fov/
(for some reason it has issues opening in Edge, works ok in IE, haven't tried other browsers).

And it gave me a value of 23 (21:9 29" screen sitting right behind the T500RS steering wheel case). That was a little bit uncomfortable to me so increased it and settled for 30. The other thing I did was moving the seat position back (using the in-game app) so i can see the main part of the cockpit. I disabled the virtual steering wheel and arms. I use the F11 mirror and Helicorsa.
The myth of "I cannot see the corners!" went away after a few sessions. With a more realistic FOV i can actually feel much better where the car is on the road and place the wheels more accurately where I want. Even Trento-Bondone is not a problem, I'd say I am quicker than before.

I disagree with the statement above that "unless you were using an 80 FOV a low FOV won't make you faster..". The difference between the default FOV 54 and FOV 30 is like night and day. I can judge the distances much better I am both faster and more consistent, AC feels like a sim now and not like a videogame. Of course you can get used to any FOV and be fast with it, but well it's a sim, the closer to driving a real car on a real track the better, right?

My opinion: if your monitor is very small you can't use a realistic FOV because the view is too narrow. If you are on a budget I highly recommend getting a normal 21:9 screen 60Hz, my LG was very cheap and works like a charm. Otherwise, if your machine allows it, MR headsets now go for the cheap and driving in VR is pretty cool.

 

[Celtic Pharaoh]

This is the main reason why I considered switching my FoV but like I said, it gave me the value of 25 which feels far too close. I know you can adjust seat position which I did so that at least when I glance left and right, I can see my side mirrors and pitched it down a bit to see my dash info but it still didn't fix the lateral view limitations and I'm having to guess turning points for corners and guess throttle exits. Thats why I found it couldn't work well.

 

[guidofoc]

I'd say up the value to something 30+ and give it some time. At first the corners will seem different and the timing of your entry-mid-exit will be off, but you will adjust. Otherwise go back to the settings you are familiar with. You are probably already very fast with those so no need to give you any further advantage.

 

[Celtic Pharaoh]

Instead, since I have no space right now for triples, I will have to stick with a big FOV until I can afford to dip my toe into the VR world. Speaking of which...

...I hadn't seen health hazards mentioned before - what's the background to this?

I have done a little bit of reading across a few websites. Of course, I would prefer a reputable medical source like Mayo Clinic or WebMD (one of these links is sort of linked to WebMD but its affiliated with Boots so I don't know) but you can have a read of the potential dangers in these articles.

https://www.webmd.boots.com/a-to-z-guides/can-virtual-reality-damage-your-health

https://edition.cnn.com/2017/12/13/health/virtual-reality-vr-dangers-safety/index.html
https://www.cnet.com/news/the-dangers-of-virtual-reality/
https://www.cnbc.com/2016/01/08/virtual-reality-are-health-risks-being-ignored-commentary.html
http://www.sciencefocus.com/article/future/virtual-reality-recognising-risks
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-virtual-reality-headsets-safe-for-children/


Most of the health concerns I don't think are necessarily applicable to us as sim racers (violence, anxiety inducing, genuine fear). Those sort of issues are more associated with other VR games like FPSes, zombie survival games, horror games (i.e.: Alien Isolation originally had VR support but was removed close to launch but people have found a way to bring it back)

But one thing which is universal is potential sight loss and really, VR hasn't been around long enough (5+ or 10+ years) for people to have been using it long enough to notice potential negative effects of long term use.

 

[Celtic Pharaoh]

I'd say up the value to something 30+ and give it some time. At first the corners will seem different and the timing of your entry-mid-exit will be off, but you will adjust. Otherwise go back to the settings you are familiar with. You are probably already very fast with those so no need to give you any further advantage.

I have since changed it and went for a mid value between default FoV (54) and the realistic FoV (25) which gave me a value of 39. I tried this and its much better. I still miss being able to see my driver side mirror without glancing left and right but perhaps overall, for pure laptime, this will be better than 54.

 

[Case_]

I'd say up the value to something 30+ and give it some time.

Yeah, that's another thing - if the change in FOV is too big (with the specific numbers for "too big" being highly subjective IMO), it might help going in several smaller steps spread across a few days, possibly even weeks.

It's also true that if you're reasonably close to correct FOV, you don't really need to see into the corners as much since you'll be able to place the car a lot better just "instinctively".

 

[DrRob]

I'm using a projector setup and calculated the fov, which gave me a pretty low number I felt uncomfortable with even after a prolonged period of testing. As I'm not sitting directly in front of the screen (doh!) it's not as ideal as in the video shown above, where the screen is sitting above the wheel base. Therefore I will not be able to achieve such immersion anyway and have to compromise.

I adjusted to a slightly higher POV and and am using EDtracker wireless, which is a vast improvement over the "peek-into-corners" tool available for AC (what's its name again?). Plus I can use it in RRE too!
Basically the same head tracking as VR without the troubles I had with motion sickness after just 10 minutes of play time. For me that is the next best thing to triple screens as I will not be able to setup such a rig anytime soon (if at all).

 

[Ian Cameron]

I have since changed it and went for a mid value between default FoV (54) and the realistic FoV (25) which gave me a value of 39. I tried this and its much better. I still miss being able to see my driver side mirror without glancing left and right but perhaps overall, for pure laptime, this will be better than 54.

In real life you can't see your opposite mirror, you have to glance same as rear view mirror. I use 3x 27" screens sitting 27cm away and my side monitors set at a mathematically correct angle of 51 degrees. Using the triple screen app in game works out the FOV for you. I started with a single 24" screen and would not be playing this game today if I still had to use it. Basically for each car I hit the auto position, then adjust seat position to line up a comfortable position.

 

[Andy_J]

Yeah, that's another thing - if the change in FOV is too big (with the specific numbers for "too big" being highly subjective IMO), it might help going in several smaller steps spread across a few days, possibly even weeks.

It's also true that if you're reasonably close to correct FOV, you don't really need to see into the corners as much since you'll be able to place the car a lot better just "instinctively".

This I agree with. And when combined with Track IR5 that I use, it's the perfect solution for people with single screens.

 

[Stephen O'Sullivan]

Can you imagine driving a real car with the kind of FOV you'd calculate for your PC screen? It should basically be identical to taking a picture frame of the same size as your monitor bezel out to your car and plonking it pretty much where the windscreen sits or maybe a wee bit closer.

But that's the whole point. That is how I like it!

But each to their own - we should all use the view we most enjoy.

 

[RasmusP]

One little input from me again:
When your fov gets too high, you'll see the image gets stretched on the sides. Best seen in a fps game. Objects in the middle are far away and then come closer and distorted when you turn and they move to the sides.
Try to see this effect actively.
Then lower the fov until that effect isn't visible for you anymore and you'll have the highest fov where you can judge distances well.
Of course a more realistic fov will make the underlying subconscious judgment better but not that much from my experience.
Too little fov and your judgment, as you said, will go worse again because you just can't see enough of the scene.
If you go down that subjective route of setting it up, you will be the most pleased IMHO.

BTW I'm very sensitive to the fov setting. I get seasick with a too high setting that all of my friends find totally fine and don't see the fisheye optic and I get motion sick and feel uncomfortable with a too little fov. It feels like the middle of the virtual sphere is too close to me (it's an illusion of course that would go away with triples).

I guess my post is against all scientifically correct statements but as we all know, reality can be quite different from what would be theoretically correct. It's not just maths, it's also a lot psychological!
And that comes from an engineering student

To the psychological and just the immersion aspect: anyone wants to tell me that 27" at 100cm looks and feels the same like 55" at 200cm? It's the setup I have at my place and I can tell you that the 55" feel way bigger, you see things way better just because the things are more close to the real thing.
Fov and maths can do a lot but it's still a different thing and you have to let yourself being influenced by all aspects and then find your own perfect setting

 

[Stephen O'Sullivan]

There is nothing like a guesstimate!

 

[BhZ]

Imho any fov that isn't extremely low or high gives the same result. Calculated fov is pretty much useless as we can adapt to anything. I used to race with 56 and now i'm using 48 and i can say that there is no difference what so ever. I'd go back to 56 to see more stuff, but i'm too lazy to do that. Calculated fov might have sense in a configuration with a really big screen (again, just because you can but it won't give any real benefit if you are already using a decent value), otherwise you are just compromising your view for a supposed "scientifical" configuration. I don't see fps players calculating their fov, so why should we?
The day someone actually brings real proofs of how effective a calculated fov is, only then i will believe that it's actually usefull. Until then, it's just a placebo effect given by the fact that math is involved and that if it's on the internet, it must be true.

 

[Stephen O'Sullivan]

The Internet Truth Council would never let anything false go online.

 

[NoThrottleControl]

For single screen setup you can completely ignore the fov calculators. There is no point having virtual horse blinders on your left and right . You should see the whole driver side mirror. Don't be afraid to increase the fov until you do.
Horizontal visual information >> realistic fov