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

 

[Andy_J]

Like thumbs up.

 

[Raresch]

Hi, Mr. @Celtic Pharaoh,

I have read the whole thread. As I raced against you yesterday night at Monza, I saw how fast you were. I know that after one year, maybe your skills have improved also, but I would like to know what wat your conclusion about FOV in the end: did you used 30, did you used 45? Are you using any motion head app, did you tried any IR or head tracking or did you just go for the VR in the end?

I would really like to know the conclusion of this whole thread.
Thanks a lot for your answer.

 

[Kek700]

Just to poke my nose in, thought it may be worth a mention.
Triple screens are really good, not the same immersion as VR.
But most importantly not that expensive, 3 x 1080p x 21" monitors ( second hand ) (I obviously do not know your circumstances, (money , room, ambition ) so forgive the assumptions ) this gives you a field of view of
1:1, ( bargain ) , driven at 60 Hz, most modern GPU's should do that + 21" monitors have a fine pixel
density and can tolerate being just behind the wheel. I paid £30 each for my 21" monitors, making
up my own stand for now't, never had to worry about FOV again.
Just to say, I have just sold 3 x 27" curved 144Hz monitors, would I go back to 3 x 1080p 21"
monitors now, yes I would, for a whole host of reasons.

 

[Raresch]

Just to poke my nose in, thought it may be worth a mention.
Triple screens are really good, not the same immersion as VR.
But most importantly not that expensive, 3 x 1080p x 21" monitors ( second hand ) (I obviously do not know your circumstances, (money , room, ambition ) so forgive the assumptions ) this gives you a field of view of
1:1, ( bargain ) , driven at 60 Hz, most modern GPU's should do that + 21" monitors have a fine pixel
density and can tolerate being just behind the wheel. I paid £30 each for my 21" monitors, making
up my own stand for now't, never had to worry about FOV again.
Just to say, I have just sold 3 x 27" curved 144Hz monitors, would I go back to 3 x 1080p 21"
monitors now, yes I would, for a whole host of reasons.

Thanks for the info.
I have an ultrawide 29inch display from LG, 2560x1080, 60-75Hz, powered by a 1060GTX 6GB. I have mounted it with an adjustable VESA support and it's above the wheel, around 65 cm away from my eyes. I wouldn't bring it closer due to eye strain. With this setup, I get around 25-26 vFOV.

I don't have room for the triple screen, and money is an issue so I can't really go VR (yet).
I tried RHM but I just can't get it to work. It doesn't feel right and I can't put the laps down to get used to it.
I saw some options regarding eye and head tracking, but as I see from the replies, they are not for everyone. I could buy one, but which one, and even 50 pounds is a lot.

So I will have to go with the FOV to 30 or smth. I wanted to know an answer from the original poster because, after one year, he might have found the answer.

 

[Kek700]

There is only one correct answer, your FOV of 30, you could move closer, say the same as me.
I was 47cms away buy got concerned about eye strain, now I am not so sure about that, anyway I
now sit 55cms away and have a FOV of 38.
If you ask for opinion's that exactly what you will get, and hence you will be none the wiser.
Ability to drive fast and FOV are not are not in the same pot. ( if it were I would be measuring it to 0.00000000001 )
But the correct FOV is the correct answer, so 30 for you, it is, or get closer. there will many drivers much
faster than me with a FOV of 56 sitting the same distance away as I.
just noticed, assuming your screen is a 16:10, so your FOV is 30.??
my screen is a 35" at 55cms that equates to a FOV of 38.

 

[Kek700]

PS,
you can move your seat closer or further away keeping the correct FOV.

 

[Raresch]

There is only one correct answer, your FOV of 30, you could move closer, say the same as me.
I was 47cms away buy got concerned about eye strain, now I am not so sure about that, anyway I
now sit 55cms away and have a FOV of 38.
If you ask for opinion's that exactly what you will get, and hence you will be none the wiser.
Ability to drive fast and FOV are not are not in the same pot. ( if it were I would be measuring it to 0.00000000001 )
But the correct FOV is the correct answer, so 30 for you, it is, or get closer. there will many drivers much
faster than me with a FOV of 56 sitting the same distance away as I.
just noticed, assuming your screen is a 16:10, so your FOV is 30.??
my screen is a 35" at 55cms that equates to a FOV of 38.

"Ability to drive fast and FOV are not are not in the same pot. ( if it were I would be measuring it to 0.00000000001 )" So true )) And funny at the same time.

My screen is 29inch, 21:9 aspect ratio, 2560*1080pixels, 75Hz (as written above) and I stay about 65cm away. Using those I end up with 25-26 vFOV.

The 30 FOV was the number I reached by reading the thread. I tried it last night and it seems I see better the track and the feel is much better, but somehow I make lap times around 0.3 slower than the personal best with that car on that circuit. Going to 26 made me match the personal best, around 0.1, and even corrected it with 0.15, I think. Now ... maybe that was just habit ... I should try to put more laps with 30 FOV to see if there are any real benefits.

Do you have any opinions regarding the eye tracking systems?>

P.S. I tried the Alternative Head Motion from CM but it didn't work. Don't know why. It did some months ago. I didn't have time to test again Real Head Motion.

 

[RasmusP]

Do you have any opinions regarding the eye tracking systems?>

Nah you did the right thing. The continuos change of perspective actually makes you slower and after a while you get used to not see some apexes and you simply memorize the turn in point.

BhZ is the fastest guy I know and when I was loving the real head motion app for ac and tried headtracking via my phone.
What shall I say? I got rid of it and went quicker pretty much instantly.
The main advantage was that I spun a lot less often! With a fixed camera you can see what the car is doing. With head movement you can not.
Only with VR you can, since due to the game being your "room", you'll be able to differentiate between head movement and car movement.

 

[Asterix]

Good thread - I recently upgraded stuff so I now have a 27" curved monitor sitting right on top of the wheel at 55cm. This gives a FOV calculation of 34. Initially this sets you really close but moving the seat back helps this.

It seems to diminish the sense of speed a wee bit and the view is (obviously) less wide, but once you re-learn your corner approach and positioning, the greater sense of being 'in' the car and having it rotate about you is fabulous.

Also seems to make the position of the other cars more 'real' too allowing you to really cosy up to them.

Was weird to start with but far more natural now - I'm probably no faster but more immersed.

 

[Kek700]

I sit in my car, and imagine a screen put in front of me.
When I return to my sim ( I have photographed and
tried to sit in a Nissan GT3, buggers would not let me )
So I have a race seat , I have a Gt3 steering wheel in front of me, I have the body of my sim wheel.
So I now put the screen just about where the dash
board would be in real life matching the monitor position in my sim rig , now I can see the top of the dash board and if I pitch down the instrumentation.
Alining the steering column in AC to match my steering wheel body.
I use the centre added rear view mirror to cover who
is behind me plus the radar app for close encounters.
I accept it is not perfect, but if I applied the exact same situation in my road car, I could quite easily drive my road car. ( you are normally staring at a small area in the screen centre )
I mainly do this for realism, accepting the fact that it is
not ideal. I could just use the bumper cam, but somehow it would turn what I believe is a simulator into
just a game.
So from the above, you can quite easily see that correct FOV is very important to me.
And yes you will need to adjust to each change, but that is probably applies to any change to your setup
( pedals, monitor, etc, etc )
Basically with some degree of latitude my rig imitates the physical interior of a GT3 car.
All this is probably a load of old cobblers, but at the moment, that’s how I see it. Any new information will
change it though.

Sorry about the waffle, cannot help myself.

 

[Dan Costa]

In most cars, looking straight:
- when I close my left eye I can see the middle mirror and the left pilar.
- when I close my right eye I can see the border of the middle mirror and the entire left mirror (left handed car).
- If the cars mirrors/pilars are in odd positions or non existent, I compensate this by enabling "show wheels+hands" and I match the size on screen to my actual hands on the wheel.

This is how I adjust my seat position.

With my 27" I cannot do the above with the correct FOV (~27º) because you cant even see the mirrors or the pilars. But with my 55" 70cm from my face with the correct FOV I can see everything.

27" 27º vFOV

55" 52º vFOV

 

[RasmusP]

I would just puke instantly with a low fov. Maybe with 3D vision enabled it would be okay but for me there are two things that just aren't bearable for me:
1. In reality your focus point is 20-250m away from you. Putting the Monitor 60cm away from you messes with the "real focus point" and the focus point your eyes are actually sitting at while looking at the monitor.
When the things are as big as in reality (realistic fov), it's like you would shove the 20m away kerb stones into my face.
Just doesn't work for my brain or eyes

2. without the peripheral vision of the eyes and only the view area being as big as if you'd put horse-blinders on in your real car, the movement inside of what you see is changing/moving way too quick.
I simply can't follow objects at all.
Ever tried to see asphalt/road/tarmac textures or flying by trees sharply while driving?
You can, but only if you start to focus on the object when it's a bit further away and then look at it a little moment while it's moving.
If you try to see a tree sharply when it's only 2m away, it will just swoosh by as a blurred mess.

The same happens for me with realistic fov settings. Apexes, corners, kerbs they all just swoosh by way too quickly with my eyes not being able to process it.

And as Matteo said: our brains are very complex and great. I mean, we look at a 2D monitor and are doing pretty fine judging distances etc. a little FOV distortion doesn't matter on top of this process.
Our brains are totally fine with adjusting everything into a smaller viewing area. As long as you don't go full fisheye lense style, lol.



Another point to show this:
If you ever were a bit into photography and focal lengths you will notice that wide angle lenses, like most smartphones have, are mostly fine but sometimes really really weird. (20-27mm lense)
While when changing lenses or having a zoom lense, "50mm+", will show things way more natural.
However going further and further doesn't really change anything anymore until you hit the real "zoom area" where the background will move insanely fast compared to the focused object, if you move the camera.

Example shots:
I measured the fov in degree. Only roughly but should be enough.
The camera used is a 1" sensor, I have a translation sheet to make it full-frame-equivalent. Model is a "foldable warmy"

24mm shot (heavily distorted, fov of about 90°)

60mm shot (not really distorted anymore, 50° fov)

100mm shot (is it really such a difference? I think not..., 30° fov)

The shots are only meant to show the differences in distortion. Of course I moved back between the shots to compensate the lower fov.
The moving back and forth thing is important by the way. With a very low fov you will always want to move the seat backwards to not feel crushed by the cockpit view. With a higher fov you will want to move the seat forwards to not feel like sitting in the back of the car.

For me, the "perfect" fov is where you feel comfortable while using the stock seating position. It's the real thing in most official cars.
My fov is slightly too high for this at 49° as I always move the seat a bit to the front.
However going lower hurts my eyes.. So I would need to move the monitor further away, which isn't possible for me.

My 2 cents. Let's wait for Tariq @Celtic Pharaoh reply when you're back about what you're using nowadays

 

[Kek700]

Interesting perspective on it, i will implement what you have said, as we basically have the same monitor it will be easy for me to do this.
Also many things you have stated, do have a ring of truth to them.

 

[Dan Costa]

I would just puke instantly with a low fov. Maybe with 3D vision enabled it would be okay but for me there are two things that just aren't bearable for me:
1. In reality your focus point is 20-250m away from you. Putting the Monitor 60cm away from you messes with the "real focus point" and the focus point your eyes are actually sitting at while looking at the monitor.
When the things are as big as in reality (realistic fov), it's like you would shove the 20m away kerb stones into my face.
Just doesn't work for my brain or eyes

2. without the peripheral vision of the eyes and only the view area being as big as if you'd put horse-blinders on in your real car, the movement inside of what you see is changing/moving way too quick.
I simply can't follow objects at all.
Ever tried to see asphalt/road/tarmac textures or flying by trees sharply while driving?
You can, but only if you start to focus on the object when it's a bit further away and then look at it a little moment while it's moving.
If you try to see a tree sharply when it's only 2m away, it will just swoosh by as a blurred mess.

The same happens for me with realistic fov settings. Apexes, corners, kerbs they all just swoosh by way too quickly with my eyes not being able to process it.

And as Matteo said: our brains are very complex and great. I mean, we look at a 2D monitor and are doing pretty fine judging distances etc. a little FOV distortion doesn't matter on top of this process.
Our brains are totally fine with adjusting everything into a smaller viewing area. As long as you don't go full fisheye lense style, lol.



Another point to show this:
If you ever were a bit into photography and focal lengths you will notice that wide angle lenses, like most smartphones have, are mostly fine but sometimes really really weird. (20-27mm lense)
While when changing lenses or having a zoom lense, "50mm+", will show things way more natural.
However going further and further doesn't really change anything anymore until you hit the real "zoom area" where the background will move insanely fast compared to the focused object, if you move the camera.

Example shots:
I measured the fov in degree. Only roughly but should be enough.
The camera used is a 1" sensor, I have a translation sheet to make it full-frame-equivalent. Model is a "foldable warmy"

24mm shot (heavily distorted, fov of about 90°)
View attachment 308402

60mm shot (not really distorted anymore, 50° fov)
View attachment 308404

100mm shot (is it really such a difference? I think not..., 30° fov)
View attachment 308405

The shots are only meant to show the differences in distortion. Of course I moved back between the shots to compensate the lower fov.
The moving back and forth thing is important by the way. With a very low fov you will always want to move the seat backwards to not feel crushed by the cockpit view. With a higher fov you will want to move the seat forwards to not feel like sitting in the back of the car.

For me, the "perfect" fov is where you feel comfortable while using the stock seating position. It's the real thing in most official cars.
My fov is slightly too high for this at 49° as I always move the seat a bit to the front.
However going lower hurts my eyes.. So I would need to move the monitor further away, which isn't possible for me.

My 2 cents. Let's wait for Tariq @Celtic Pharaoh reply when you're back about what you're using nowadays

Its all from missing peripheral world movement cues that your 27" with correct FOV cannot give. Believe me when I say that if you use the correct FOV on much much bigger/wider monitors, you feel instantly comfortable and fast. Nothing looks like its coming to fast or to slow, just right.
To emulate the same comfort on my 27" I need to use ~50º of vFOV, double the recommended!

But people can get used to anything and be incredibly fast given enough time. Low fov, high fov, cockpit view, chase view, playing with a guitar hero instead of a wheel. So I'll just recommend people to stick to your choices and speed will come.

 

[RasmusP]

Its all from missing peripheral world movement cues that your 27" with correct FOV cannot give. Believe me when I say that if you use the correct FOV on much much bigger/wider monitors, you feel instantly comfortable and fast. Nothing looks like its coming to fast or to slow, just right.
To emulate the same comfort on my 27" I need to use ~50º of vFOV, double the recommended!

Yep for sure. Putting my wheelstand in front of my TV works very well. 2m distance, 55". Can do a lower fov there. But can also count the pixels due to 1080p
There are some crazy examples of doing it right with triple projectors in 5m distance etc.

playing with a guitar hero instead of a wheel

I doubt that someone with a guitar hero guitar would be able to keep it clean while going 3 wide through a turn while rubbing a little.

Different topic altogether but: you can do a quick hotlap with basically every input method. But once you need to battle against real drivers a wheel becomes really important.
But I don't wanna to draw the discussion to that, hehe

 

[Kek700]

just gave it a go, i must, from a psychological point of view, be wired a bit differently to you.
Put FOV to 45 from 38, now obviously i can see more, to be honest i think i actually prefer it too.
But for me, made no difference to my perception, it would be pointless from my perspective
to comment on lap times, mine vary quite a lot, unless i am having a good patch.
I think i will keep it at 45 for now and see if the long term view remains the same.

 

[RasmusP]

just gave it a go, i must, from a psychological point of view, be wired a bit differently to you.
Put FOV to 45 from 38, now obviously i can see more, to be honest i think i actually prefer it too.
But for me, made no difference to my perception, it would be pointless from my perspective
to comment on lap times, mine vary quite a lot, unless i am having a good patch.
I think i will keep it at 45 for now and see if the long term view remains the same.

I'm wired way too sensitively
Means that I'm pretty well at stuff like Motec analysis but I only have a range of about 5° in setting the fov, otherwise I'm getting dizzy and get strained eyes.
Constant overflow of information. It's cool for having good grades in school but mostly it's a pain honestly, and regarding fov and my eyes, quite literally

For me the fov discussion isn't about "what's fastest, what's correct, what's blah blah".
The question I followed simply was "why do it hurts my eyes and screws my brain when I set it to something higher or lower".

 

[manu68]

I am personally using 38 degree of fov with my alienware 21:9 on my very humble little rig.

 

[Kek700]

i wonder if it has to do with your brain focusing in on single items, these being in motion but you are static.
I have never come to terms with 2D motion on a monitor.
i generally just look at it as a whole, which means i quite often do not get my apexes correct. Now i am not saying that this is 100% true all the time.
Or maybe I have a vacant wondering mind.
Just done a few laps, and tried to self observe, not easy, I do tend to view the screen in a general way.
But it is hardly a meaningful experiment.

 

[Kek700]

I am personally using 38 degree of fov with my alienware 21:9 on my very humble little rig.

Pretty much my setup, just tried Rasmus, I say suggested, more indicated, FOV 45 and I am quite liking
the better vision it gives me.