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

Celtic Pharaoh · Feb 22, 2018

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

ouvert · Feb 22, 2018

well you can either get used to it, get bigger screen (so your correct FOV will be higher), get tripple screen setup or make some compromise and go for FOV 30 or something like that ... or you can move screen closer to your eyes but I guess it is allready sitting on you wheel base ... I remember having FOV at 28 when I was on 24 inch and it was fine ..

Advatage for me is not that it is slower but that proportions and distances are correct - closer to real world ...so when I was on real track the curve had same shape, object I used as reference point has same size and I pushed from first lap ... if you go too wide corners are flat and you dont get the same sensation you get in real life

RasmusP · Feb 22, 2018

Leprekaun said:
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

Sadly there isn't

My calculated fov would be quite similar and I'm using 48 since over a year now. It gives enough view but still doesn't feel like fish-eye.

These calculations are nice when they can be used but at some point it just doesn't work.

My advice is to slowly lower it until it still feels good but gives you the benefits. Probably around 42° with your measurements

Celtic Pharaoh · Feb 22, 2018

RasmusP said:
Sadly there isn't
My calculated fov would be quite similar and I'm using 48 since over a year now. It gives enough view but still doesn't feel like fish-eye.

These calculations are nice when they can be used but at some point it just doesn't work.

My advice is to slowly lower it until it still feels good but gives you the benefits. Probably around 42° with your measurements

Thanks Rasmus

I suppose the only real solutions would be triple screens or VR I guess :/

Recently ordered a VR headset but talking about it with a couple of people and I'm beginning to regret it due to potential health hazards so might go the triple screen route instead

Giovaneveterano · Feb 22, 2018

I'm stuck to 25° right now and the benefits from the correct FOV are much more than the lateral view angle, so I'm happy with it.
You just need to adapt to it.
I'm surprised you were blazing fast even with that high fov. From now you'll be unspottable

Stephen O'Sullivan · Feb 22, 2018

It is a wrench to change from a "normal" FoV to a 1:1 view, but the long-term benefits are worth pursuing. The problem may stem from the history of the racing game/sim, which at first gave a viewpoint that wasn't even in the car but from behind the car. As graphics improved, the first cockpit views appeared. These always featured the wheel, the whole windscreen and both wing mirrors, as if to remind the player that this was indeed a driving game. (Even now, media outlets rarely show a 1:1 field of view in their reviews; if more did so, perhaps more people would try it.)

Unfortunately, the lovely interior detailing, the exciting steering wheel, the gameplay-enhancing wing mirrors often disappear when using a 1:1 view. This can be very disappointing. What's the point of all the intensive research and the gorgeous graphics if the player can't even see them? (A solution lies in huge monitors or VR, which come with their own problems.)

The pleasure of seeing objects as they appear in real life is the reason for using a realistic FoV. It's all about immersion. VR fans love the feeling of actually being seated in a car, but the sense of scale is a large part of that: everything is life-size. If the whole windscreen on my monitor is the size of an A4 sheet of paper, I'm well aware that I'm playing a computer game. If the cars in my partially visible windscreen look threateningly large, I can kid myself that I'm a racing driver.

A low FoV takes some getting used to, but after a while there's no going back. In the meantime, try Crew Chief, other spotters, Helicorsa, etc., and always use a virtual mirror in online races.

Stephen O'Sullivan · Feb 22, 2018

This new Field of View calculator is worth bookmarking.

Redvaliant · Feb 22, 2018

I have a similar setup to you, just a bit closer to my monitor, and the suggested FOV of sub 30 was laughably bad -I can't remember if it was vertical or horizontal, but I may have got it mixed up as different games use different calculations. I go for 40 degrees and adjust the seat in or out a bit depending on car. All I need in the cockpit are the gauges to be legible and the AM radio to be tuned to some classic soft rock.

dud · Feb 22, 2018

There is a different definition of realistic FoV, which is what photographers use to determine what they call a "normal lens", which is 50mm-ish, sometimes down to 35mm (focal length). "Normal lens" to a photographer means they want to have a FoV that a human would perceive when viewing the scene in the photo, aka no telephoto or wide angle effect.

The horizontal component of a 50mm focal length lens is 39 degrees. 40mm FL is 47 deg, 35mm FL is 53 deg.

You can then use the calculator to computer the correct viewing distance to the monitor, which corrects perspective in the way the calculator does.

RasmusP · Feb 22, 2018

dud said:
There is a different definition of realistic FoV, which is what photographers use to determine what they call a "normal lens", which is 50mm-ish, sometimes down to 35mm (focal length). "Normal lens" to a photographer means they want to have a FoV that a human would perceive when viewing the scene in the photo, aka no telephoto or wide angle effect.

The horizontal component of a 50mm focal length lens is 39 degrees. 40mm FL is 47 deg, 35mm FL is 53 deg.

You can then use the calculator to computer the correct viewing distance to the monitor, which corrects perspective in the way the calculator does.

I can follow this but I have no clue how to calculate it really...
Could you give an example with 27" and 100cm or something so we see the difference in the results?

Paul Bennett · Feb 22, 2018

dud · Feb 22, 2018

Just vary the distance in the calculator til you get the desired angle.

So if you want 39 degrees FoV (50mm focal length) and you have a 27" screen then you need a distance-to-screen of 33 inches.

Paul Bennett · Feb 22, 2018

Stephen O'Sullivan said:
This new Field of View calculator is worth bookmarking.

Found this last week an watcted Empty Box video, at 22 fov, 24 screen about 30 back from screen I move seat cam to correct.

ZethGAF · Feb 22, 2018

You get used to it.

Peter Kerényi · Feb 22, 2018

Use what feels comfortable and immersive. I tried correct FOV with single screen, hated it, went back. You have to find a compromise where you see what you want to see with the lowest possible FOV. This is about fun, so make sure you have fun first and foremost. If you take it seriously enough (and have the money, space and hardware) you can upgrade to triples or VR where lower FOV is not a problem. I certainly don't have neither the money nor the space, so I am happy with slightly higher FOV with a single screen.

Andy-R · Feb 22, 2018

Before I switched to VR I used around 40 FoV. I was playing on a 42" TV and sitting about 180cm from the screen. FoV calculator suggested something much lower. For me 40 was just fine, corners and brake markers were plenty easy enough to judge and I could still see the rear view mirror. I haven't noticed any real advantage in this respect since switching to VR.

If you can't get comfortable with 25 just increase it to something you can tolerate.

Ken Bell · Feb 22, 2018

There are so many different views on what is right and wrong, what is the best, really its best, I find, to read a shed load of info and take notes that YOU think are valid and go that way!!
I set mine to default, drove round and was awful. I set mine to first What looked right and tried that then set it according to a mathematical setting which was 48. Its awesome.
so 48? what does that relate to?
42" tv. sitting in a GTOmega rig with the pedals under the desk a reasonable distance away.
This number, 48. was the same in rFactor using a 28" monitor and worked well.
Some more stuff to think about, Tariq!

Neilski · Feb 22, 2018

Interesting mix of views above... (yeah OK, pun intended

but I do find it somewhat surprising that it's such a controversial thing).

I have tried narrowing the FOV in various sims and basically hated it on each occasion. I confess I didn't really give it much time to try and try and try to improve with it, but I felt that it was common sense that it was not going to work for me. People do say "you'll get used to it", to which my reply is "use a big FOV, you'll get used to it" - by which I mean that when you are immersed in it, your brain is perfectly capable of working out that the FOV isn't quite like the naked eye would perceive, and coping with that, and giving you the right feeling for driving. The extra information you get from the wider FOV (provided you don't get stupidly wide) e.g. at corners, seeing other cars, absolutely wins the day for me. If you go too wide, braking distances become very tricky, so... don't go too wide!

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. Not for me, ever. It'd be just like driving with blinkers on.

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...

Leprekaun said:
Recently ordered a VR headset but talking about it with a couple of people and I'm beginning to regret it due to potential health hazards so might go the triple screen route instead

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