Real Head Motion Question

[John Norden]

I have installed RHM v1.0.4.2, along with RHD Starter.
Can someone please explain the difference between "Steer Look Ahead L/R" on the main page,
and "Look Left Right Angle" on the Look Options page?

Also some suggestions for fairly mild settings.
I don't drift and have just started with AC.
I have already found with my current naive RHM settings, that looking into the corner has improved my times.
However, I find I am getting slight motion sickness after only 10-20 minutes.

Any advice would be really appreciated.

 

[Kek700]

http://www.projectimmersion.com/fov/

Not sure if you have tried this

 

[Jempy]

Thanks, Ernie .... I surely already tried it long ago ...
Anyway, I've got my answer in there ... I was sure that one or 2 Sims had another FOV calculation than most other ones.

I already was sure for Project Cars ... but thought AC was also in the exceptions.... but I was wrong for AC.

 

[John Norden]

I'm searching among a full controversial or unuseful or disparate discussions to find a page in which there's a mention of which FOV ( vertical or horizontal ) is used for each Sim .... AC ( I think it's vertical ) - RRE - Automobilista - RF - RF2 - GTR2 - Pcars etc .... without finding it.

I wonder sometimes if some are not mixing them with doing mistakes in their calculations, only by not knowing this important difference.

When I first started to look at adjusting FOV in AC, I made the mistake of using the calculations for horizontal FOV, but then I noticed that several people confirmed that the FOV in AC is definitely vertical field of view - hence the 18 deg for a screen height of 30cm and an eye distance of 95cm.
@Kek700 BTW, my setting of 18 deg FOV means I see very little of the car, especially the interior. In a sedan I don't even see the edges of the windscreen.

 

[RasmusP]

I'll just throw this into the fov discussion:
What would you prefer:
1. Steering your virtual car with the perspective you would see on TV from a camera (for example F1 onboard with about 50° fov)
2. Sit down on the backseat of your real car and tape the windows apart from a 24" monitor sized view-hole in the windscreen.
(or 3. Be able to see a lot but have a completely distorted fisheye view)

3 is out of question! Some people that play first person shooter prefer it but I just puke instantly... Oh and in rocket league I've seen such setting of the fov a lot! And I got dizzy immediately! Can't even watch videos of someone using these!

Anyway, leaves us with
1. A reprojection of how it looks in reality, just smaller and therefore slightly distorted but our brains are used to such a view and therefore it's possible to cope for it via "brain internal simulation of distances". I'll call it like that for now...
2. A glimpse of the real distances (still 2d though!) but completely unnatural perspectives that won't feel like reality at all, although not being distorted!

You already read: I'm not a fan of realistic fov's with small screens! I'm using a 27" monitor at 90cm distance and a fov of 43-52 (experimenting a little, still, depending on the seating distance). It's the perfect mix of "no fisheye sickness" and "not viewing the track through a keyhole".
If I try a fov around 20 I just instantly feel uncomfortable. There's no reality in looking at the track like through a shaking zoom-lense! Realistic distances nice and great but if you completely lose the overview there's no sense in it!
It's like "tell me what car is that" and then you get the full front of one car and just a headlight of another car. Where will you be able to tell quicker?
Nobody would tell you "but the front is not the real size! I can see it quicker when looking at a real size headlight!".

You say you're getting sick from driving in assetto corsa. Please try a fov of about 35° and see if it gets better. I know some extremely fast guys and they only got a 27" monitor and are using between 40-55° fov.
So there's no "but to be fast I need to use realistic fov"! You're the fastest when you feel well!

I'm getting dizzy from anything out of this range btw. In rocket League it means about 78° since it's horizontal fov there.
Going lower and I'm getting dizzy, going above 80° and I'm getting dizzy too.
If you put that into the fov calculator you will see its around 48 to 78 degrees for 16:9 aspect ratio.

Anyway, this post got longer than I wanted it to but I hope my input makes things better

One last thing: the steering-look-ahead camera moving can cause motion sickness too since it separates your visual senses from the car's visible physics. For example when you turn in but lose the rear at the same time you won't be able to spot that beginning of a drift visually like you would do normally! You can't distinguish if the camera is moving because of your steering input of if the rear is breaking lose because your vision starts to rotate compared to the general moving direction of the car (trajectory of center of gravity).

I did that all. Low fov, high fov, seat adjustments, real head motion yes/no/maybe but to reduce my motion sickness to a minimum:
- vertical fov of 42-50° at 27", 90cm distance
- filtering bumps (read head motion!)
- no g-force visuals or anything! Lock the head movements completely but filter the bumps via real head motion.
That way you will maintain overview, get a calm perspective and will be able to tell what the car is doing by receiving direct visual feedback about its physics!

 

[John Norden]

@RasmusP Wow! Remind me not to ask you anything political.
I got lost a bit in some of your explanations, but it all makes sense (sort of).
I definitely realise now that there is a relationship between FOV and camera motion (RHM).

I'd love to be up close to the screen (or have 3 screens or a large curved screen) to create that more immersive effect. However due to the design of my desk, the closest I can get my eyes to my 24" diag. 16:9 screen is 95cm.

Taking everything that Ernie and Jempy have said, and adding your experience and experimentation with both FOV and RHM, I've got to find the time to sit down and play with some settings.

You sound like you have had the same problems as me, so I guess the first thing to do is open up my FOV to say 35 deg. (based on your 42-50 deg for a 27"screen), then with 90 min. filters, start at 0.00 "Steer Look Ahead LR" and slowly increase the Steer Look Ahead to find the setting that I like - and can stomach!!!

 

[RasmusP]

@RasmusP Wow! Remind me not to ask you anything political.

My whole post is basically "realistic fov" vs "that's what you would see in reality".
Distorted distances are not necessarily worse than not seeing enough at all with non-distorted distances.

Going further with this motivation, on a 24" you wouldn't need a lower fov than on a 27". You would need the exact same one, since as long as the monitor is too small to run realistic fov, you would always aim for a projection of how the reality looks, not for no distortions.
However I've said 35° so you don't jump too much and get motion sick either way due to the massive change

Or you could argue like that:
I've found my "non motion sick distortion of reality", I'm talking about how big things are on the monitor at a given distance and fov.
So when you cut off some monitor area (27 to 24), you would cut off some angle of view too. To make it look exactly the same, just with seeing less to the sides on the smaller screen.
That would be 38-44° compared to 42-50°.

For me motion sickness is caused for several reasons:
- non logical movements of the perspective (like look to apex/ahead setting in general)

- unsteady perspective (bumps without filtering or a too low fov)

- the fov is a simulated curved plane. When you look through a fisheye lense you see what I mean, the middle of the screen appears to be too far away from you compared to the sides of the screen. Like someone would have grabbed the center of the image and ran away from you)
The fun thing is: if the fov is too low, although in theory realistic, for me it feels like someone would have grabbed the center of the screen and would shove it into my face. The simulated 3d curvature is too flat.

So I always try to use a fov where the 3d curvature, the "depth" of the image looks natural to me. It's difficult to explain and difficult to spot too!
The funny thing about this is that when the monitor gets smaller, I can run a higher fov without getting motion sick. Not great for racing games but nice for things where you need overview!
I call this "the shove the image into my face" factor which becomes less important the smaller or further away the monitor is!

Anyway, my best anti-motion-sickness fov is a few degrees before I start to spot the fisheye effect to begin. That's the point where it feels good! (where looking at the monitor and looking through the window "feels the same")
When I tried a fov of about 20° and raced for an hour with it and then stood up from my chair, my real eyes felt like fisheye view for a minute. That's when I knew:
Realistic fov nice and fine but it's one of these theoretically great things that are just utter garbage for standard users!

To appreciate the fov theory and calculators you would have to go the other way around:
1. See what distance to your new monitor you would end up with (rig, no rig etc)
2. Think about how much overview you want to have, like an fov of 60 would be nice imo, seeing the left and inside mirror.
3. Calculate what monitor size you would need to make the 60 degrees to be realistic

When you do this you will find out that ultra wide monitors are the perfect single screen solution. But they are expensive

 

[Jempy]

Finally, just with some words ... with one single screen ... even a 21/9 so called "Ultrawide" 29" ( as this is not really that wide ) .... be fully realistic is impossible visually and worse ... to be really at ease for a good driving.... maybe not with a Ultra-Ultra wide and expensive one.

I just tried yesterday to go backwards in my FOV settings ( 26 in place of 35 ) but I needed therefore to change the seat positions ... the look of the track and other cars seems more realistic ... but your view in the cockpit... isn't.
..... with getting the seat nearer the dashboard .... the cockpit seems now realistic ( needing to look a bit down with the TrackIR to really see the instruments ) .... but then, the track and other cars are not realistic any longer.

The problem you mentioned, @RasmusP , with RHM ...

For example when you turn in but lose the rear at the same time you won't be able to spot that beginning of a drift visually like you would do normally! You can't distinguish if the camera is moving because of your steering input of if the rear is breaking lose because your vision starts to rotate compared to the general moving direction of the car (trajectory of center of gravity).

is finally the reason why I left the RHM solution ... and the other one the fact I found a good second-hand TrackIR 5 so you can decide, yourself ( and not the wheel ) of your moves ....
although those moves may also be responsible for an exagerated sense of understeer.

Maybe funny ... but with TrackIR ... I prefer bending the head ( and even upper body ) than turning the head. Funny ... but I find it more natural ... seeing more left or right for the apex without having the view really turning much if I turn the head. Doing this way reduces a lot this impression of understeer when in fact ..... there is no understeer.

EDIT: one thing I forgot .... I wonder sometimes if a motion sickness might not be exagerated if you're looking at the track not far enough .... but rather too near the nose of the car.
... or maybe the contrary with RHM ?

 

[RasmusP]

Finally, just with some words ... with one single screen ... even a 21/9 so called "Ultrawide" 29" ( as this is not really that wide ) .... be fully realistic is impossible visually and worse ... to be really at ease for a good driving.... maybe not with a Ultra-Ultra wide and expensive one.

I just tried yesterday to go backwards in my FOV settings ( 26 in place of 35 ) but I needed therefore to change the seat positions ... the look of the track and other cars seems more realistic ... but your view in the cockpit... isn't.
..... with getting the seat nearer the dashboard .... the cockpit seems now realistic ( needing to look a bit down with the TrackIR to really see the instruments ) .... but then, the track and other cars are not realistic any longer.

The problem you mentioned, @RasmusP , with RHM ...


is finally the reason why I left the RHM solution ... and the other one the fact I found a good second-hand TrackIR 5 so you can decide, yourself ( and not the wheel ) of your moves ....
although those moves may also be responsible for an exagerated sense of understeer.

Maybe funny ... but with TrackIR ... I prefer bending the head ( and even upper body ) than turning the head. Funny ... but I find it more natural ... seeing more left or right for the apex without having the view really turning much if I turn the head. Doing this way reduces a lot this impression of understeer when in fact ..... there is no understeer.

EDIT: one thing I forgot .... I wonder sometimes if a motion sickness might not be exagerated if you're looking at the track not far enough .... but rather too near the nose of the car.
... or maybe the contrary with RHM ?

I agree with everything!
The last sentence is one of the reasons why I'll get 27" 1440p (or 34" 1440p ultra wide) during black Friday or after Christmas time. My eyes hurt if I really look at the very distance. The pixels are not fine enough to make it comfortable!
Reshade sharpening helps but it won't change the fact that my eyes are still good enough to see the blurriness of the pixels.
All my other devices have a way higher Pixel density! Surface pro 3: 220, iPad: 260, smartphone: 320.
Monitor: 81

 

[Jempy]

At the "Agree" I'll add a and a .... missing " beer"
News after black Friday or Christmas time ?

 

[Kek700]

I've gone from one 32” tv to three 1080p 60hz 21” monitors to one 21:9 35” 144hz 2560 x 1080p
monitor to three 27” 144hz 1080p monitors.
I have always been somewhat paranoid about FOV and as Rasmus stated, pixel density,
probably is an obsession too.
I should be in a great position to speak with some wisdom on this topic , but I cannot.
What you think about all these alternative screens is based around situation, and there
are many.
In reality a single monitor is all you need, because for the vast amount of time
you are continually staring at apexes and distant cars, but because of tight corners, triples win.
And the rest is just eye candy , but i must admit triples have an advantage in busy traffic to.
A 34” widescreen does it almost as well , especially setting RHM for just the tightest of corners.
With crewchief set , that really should takes care of traffic, reducing the advantage of triples.
But 144hz with a 5760 x 1080p screens is difficult to drive, even with a good PC.
So that must create a winner, in my humble opinion it has to be triple 60hz 21” monitors.
These give excellent pixel density, excellent all around view, cheap to buy , easy at 60hz
to drive, it makes for an reasonable easy life for the PC. The only negative is the loss of
monitor height, but as you only look at the horizon this is soon forgotten. And as for
the 144hz vs 60hz. if all your used to is 60hz then 144hz you will not miss.

This is not meant to include VR , just monitors.
None of the above has made me drive any quicker.
I have tried to cover a lot in the most simplistic way, so there are probably some
gaping holes in the above.

 

[John Norden]

Gees, Ernie - do you have a wife???
How come you are allowed to spend all that money on monitors???
You don't know how much blood I had to spill just to get my crappy 2nd hand 24" 16:9 monitor.
Oh the joys of being retired.

 

[Kek700]

Simracing is like a long narrow corridor with many doors that are all one way, once you
go through a door, it locks behind you, so that you find it almost impossible to go back.
Wlth the irony that you got most of your pleasure at the start.
I started with a home made chassis, made from scrap bits of metal, old second hand racing
seat, a fanatec secondhand cheap wheel and three second hand 21” monitors i paid £120
for 3 of them. In all it probably cost £200 but a £1000000000 of enjoyment.

Oh happy days

I get most of my pleasure now from improving all aspects of the AC, driving, setup and
computer. Oh almost forgot, i also enjoy writing a load of on racedepartment forum

They must know i am a senile old git and make allowances for me.

 

[Jempy]

Same for me, John ... and I also have a wife and am also retired ( but not tired ! ).
- G27 second hand ( in fact I'm nearly sure it was a new one ... there was a promotion once: buy one - get the second free ).
- Fanatec CSP V2 pedals ... second hand ( G27 pedals, despite some mod, are rather crappy )
- I was at a desk .... with not much place: bought a second hand Playseat Challenge
- after some work at my place ... now this Playseat can stay for good at its place
- new 21/9 LG 29" .... rather cheap ( but never buy PC material second hand )
- recently bought a Thrustmaster TH8 shifter .... second hand

But all that comes slowly .... one at a time ( same for PC parts .... my PC box is 9 year old ... but every part in it were replaced one by one )

 

[John Norden]

My pc is old but the CPU is an AMD Phenom II X4 965 which helped minimise upgrades over the last few years.
However, when I wanted to play The Witcher 3, I realised I needed something a bit better than my onboard graphics. So I bought a 2nd hand GeForce GTX 970.
Then I remembered that I had an old Logitech Momo Racing wheel (with pedals) in the cupboard, and with my graphics upgrade, I realised most modern games were now available to me.
Always wanting a good driving sim, I researched a bit and AC seemed to be the preferred sim.
So here I am.

As many people have suggested, I am trying to keep myself to one track and one car until I learn how to drive. Now, armed with all the advice I have received from you guys, I should start to enjoy my learning experience.
Problem is that I am finding myself very "time poor", which lots of retirees surprisingly seem to suffer from.

If I go so far as to building a setup around an old racing seat, I might have to move out of the living room.

@Jempy I'm curious about the TrackIR.
I understand that it follows your head movements and adjusts the view in the monitor.
But why would you move your head if the screen stays in the one spot?
Or am I missing something?

 

[RasmusP]

@Jempy I'm curious about the TrackIR.
I understand that it follows your head movements and adjusts the view in the monitor.
But why would you move your head if the screen stays in the one spot?
Or am I missing something?

I once used a plugin+app where you tape your smartphone to your headphones to do something pretty similar, but less accurate.
You turn your head just a little bit and your eyes will look into the opposite direction. It's really weird at the beginning but to look for example 20° to the right you do the first 10° just on your screen, moving your focus from the center to the right side. Then you turn your head 10°, which isn't that much! to then move your eyes a few mm back to the side of the monitor.
It's weird for about 30 minutes, then it becomes quite natural
And I agree, you don't have this "disconnection" between your vision and the visual-physics-feedback!
The phone on the head wasn't comfortable at all though and I didn't like it that much. Guess with a good tracker it's a lot better!

 

[Case_]

It sounds kinda weird to turn your head while looking at a stationary screen, but if you tweak the response curves of the camera to be comfortable and useful at the same time, it actually feels very natural. Your eyes are kinda fixated to the screen anyway. And, as mentioned, the important thing is that you don't want the rotation to be 1:1, that would obviously be of little use.

It can also be somewhat disorienting at times, though, because you obviously kinda lose a reference point when it comes to small car movements. But this again depends a lot on how you tweak your settings and response curves.

BTW, the smartphone stuff can be pretty accurate, it all depends on the phone and what sensors does it have. But true IR tracking is certainly the best, and can be done for very cheap in a DIY way as well.

 

[RasmusP]

It sounds kinda weird to turn your head while looking at a stationary screen, but if you tweak the response curves of the camera to be comfortable and useful at the same time, it actually feels very natural. Your eyes are kinda fixated to the screen anyway. And, as mentioned, the important thing is that you don't want the rotation to be 1:1, that would obviously be of little use.

It can also be somewhat disorienting at times, though, because you obviously kinda lose a reference point when it comes to small car movements. But this again depends a lot on how you tweak your settings and response curves.

BTW, the smartphone stuff can be pretty accurate, it all depends on the phone and what sensors does it have. But true IR tracking is certainly the best, and can be done for very cheap in a DIY way as well.

It wasn't that bad, true! I think I needed to "reset" it by tapping on my head though. Which was a bit unpleasant to do while trying to sit like I race. Always a bit off due to raising my shoulder (on top of the headphones, center of the head).

I remember my main issue now: I got neck problems because I had to sit still for each run and wasn't able to move my head every now and then. That was awful for me as I get kinda "fixated" anyway when I do something as intense as racing

 

[Jempy]

For TrackIR, just in a few words: .... you have to turn head because the "let's call it camera" is not able to follow your eyes only.

The natural slight eye move to left or right for curves and side mirrors view or a bit downwards to the instruments in a real car ( as your eyes are nearly centered on the windshield ) .... has to be replaced by the movement of the head ... just for a technical and physical reason:........

.... you cannot implant Led markers in your eyes.

 

[RasmusP]

.... you cannot implant Led markers in your eyes.

 

[Jempy]

Ok, Rasmus ... it is possible.... should you use them ?

I shouldn't ... I prefer my vision ( even with glasses and ocular tension ) than still unknown problems due to those lenses.