FOV and Input Lag/Latency

[Bobby Pennington]

I just made a video of what using the correct FOV per all the calculators and the math and how it can destroy your experience. I've been chasing my tail with my G27 settings and it turns out the biggest problem was the stupid FOV.
Visit my boobtube page MulliganF1 for a full description of my setup and explanation.
This is the only way I can give back to the Sim community since I don't make skins, tracks etc., but I'm working on it.
Please let me know if the video helps. Have a great night and as always Opposite Lock to 'ya.

P.S.: I hope I posted this in the correct section. Still learning.

 

[Brandon Wright]

Just changing your FOV makes your car handle that much differently?

 

[Kenny Paton]

Just changing your FOV makes your car handle that much differently?

Brandon, I find that as well, and worse some cars I can only drive in bonnet view. I've always assumed that I was the only one who had these issues and just learned to use whatever I'm most comfortable with. That's across all racing games, although some more than others, AC and R3E being my most problematic.

 

[Brandon Wright]

Brandon, I find that as well, and worse some cars I can only drive in bonnet view. I've always assumed that I was the only one who had these issues and just learned to use whatever I'm most comfortable with. That's across all racing games, although some more than others, AC and R3E being my most problematic.

I've had it happen too, it was very noticeable in R3E. In AC I can't change my FOV because I use triple screens, but I have noticed when I go into the triple screen app and adjust the distance between the monitor and my eyes (probably doing the same thing as FOV) it can fairly drastically change the way my car behaves. If I decrease it a lot the car feels very pointy and twitchy, if I increase it a lot the car feels very sluggish and floaty. I thought it was a fluke or something to do with my system, but apparently not.

 

[burrito]

Changing the FOV in no way affects how the cars handle. The car dynamics are exactly the same no matter what FOV or viewpoint you choose. FOV is merely a perspective, as is the viewpoint. All they affect is the visual distortion of the track. They do not however change the actual layout, camber or radius of the turns, merely how they are visualised on your single monitor setup.

The reason people think it affects their handling of the cars is the differences in track visualisation and the latency of visual handling clues. Different FOV's result in earlier or later visual cues that the car is over/understeering. They also make turns 1&2 at Imola very different from maximum to minimum (as an easy check of the extreme difference you can see).

The best option is to use the mathmatically calculated FOV. However on a typical single screen setup that results in a FOV around the 30's. This view gives no spacial awareness and makes long corners like Copse or Luffield basically impossible to judge mid corner. What people tend to do is start at the mathmatical FOV and move upwards until they can see enough of the corners. Or a quicker way is to multiply your mathmatical FOV by 1.5.

The most important thing is to keep your FOV consistent across all games. Much like aim sensitivity in FPS games you will never be fast if you keep swapping FOV's.

 

[Brandon Wright]

Changing the FOV in no way affects how the cars handle. The car dynamics are exactly the same no matter what FOV or viewpoint you choose. FOV is merely a perspective, as is the viewpoint. All they affect is the visual distortion of the track. They do not however change the actual layout, camber or radius of the turns, merely how they are visualised on your single monitor setup.

The reason people think it affects their handling of the cars is the differences in track visualisation and the latency of visual handling clues. Different FOV's result in earlier or later visual cues that the car is over/understeering. They also make turns 1&2 at Imola very different from maximum to minimum (as an easy check of the extreme difference you can see).

The best option is to use the mathmatically calculated FOV. However on a typical single screen setup that results in a FOV around the 30's. This view gives no spacial awareness and makes long corners like Copse or Luffield basically impossible to judge mid corner. What people tend to do is start at the mathmatical FOV and move upwards until they can see enough of the corners. Or a quicker way is to multiply your mathmatical FOV by 1.5.

The most important thing is to keep your FOV consistent across all games. Much like aim sensitivity in FPS games you will never be fast if you keep swapping FOV's.

Not in my experience, changing FOV can make it so I need different steering inputs to accomplish the same task. As in the example I gave above with changing the distance between eyes and screen in the triple screen app, if I put in a low value I may only need 15-20º of steering input to get around a corner, but if I put in a high value it can require well over 90º to get around the same corner, all depending on the distance value I put into the app. It's a very drastic change and not something that could be mistaken as a difference in visual cues alone, it even makes my wheel feel very different. It's not as drastic in R3E but it's the same basic result.

 

[burrito]

Not in my experience, changing FOV can make it so I need different steering inputs to accomplish the same task. As in the example I gave above with changing the distance between eyes and screen in the triple screen app, if I put in a low value I may only need 15-20º of steering input to get around a corner, but if I put in a high value it can require well over 90º to get around the same corner, all depending on the distance value I put into the app. It's a very drastic change and not something that could be mistaken as a difference in visual cues alone, it even makes my wheel feel very different. It's not as drastic in R3E but it's the same basic result.

Yes. The visual difference and the difference in speed judgement means you either underdrive or overdrive the car.

The physics do not change, your inputs do because you are seeing a different visualisation of the same thing.

 

[Brandon Wright]

Yes. The visual difference and the difference in speed judgement means you either underdrive or overdrive the car.

The physics do not change, your inputs do because you are seeing a different visualisation of the same thing.

Come drive on my setup and tell me the wheel doesn't feel drastically different with different settings. Seriously, with a high setting the car feels like a 1980's Buick and can sometimes take nearly a full rotation of the wheel just to get around a corner.

 

[Kenny Paton]

The physics do not change, your inputs do because you are seeing a different visualisation of the same thing.

That was my reasoning, and the other day I tested my theory on Highlands Long by taking a car out and using the gears app showing MPH, adjusted FOV cockpit view and drove 5 laps at various speeds. When I drove at my real life speed I was comfortable although I felt I was going really slow and the car handled fine. I was using my speed rather than what the screen showed me as a guide. I know that might sound nuts but it seemed to mean my brain can't compute visually on a 2d screen. Maybe VR might make a difference, but that's a can of worms that can remain tightly shut.

 

[burrito]

Come drive on my setup and tell me the wheel doesn't feel drastically different with different settings. Seriously, with a high setting the car feels like a 1980's Buick and can sometimes take nearly a full rotation of the wheel just to get around a corner.

You are right. Feel is different. Physics are not. Nor is the track.

You can think and feel whatever you want but the facts are there. Happy driving.

 

[Brandon Wright]

You are right. Feel is different. Physics are not. Nor is the track.

You can think and feel whatever you want but the facts are there. Happy driving.

Well dude, nobody said anything about the physics or track being different, we just said it can make the car feel/behave different, which you just admitted is a thing, so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here.

Do you have triple screens? If so open the triple screen app and put in a value of 1,000 for the distance spanner, then drive a few laps. Then put in a value of 300 and drive a few more, tell me how it feels.

 

[ouvert]

It is just your perception ... Naturally higher Fov is, faster your vertical and horizontal movement seems to be

 

[burrito]

Well dude, nobody said anything about the physics or track being different, we just said it can make the car feel/behave different, which you just admitted is a thing, so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here.

Do you have triple screens? If so open the triple screen app and put in a value of 1,000 for the distance spanner, then drive a few laps. Then put in a value of 300 and drive a few more, tell me how it feels.

In your first post you said the car behaviour changes.

can fairly drastically change the way my car behaves. If I decrease it a lot the car feels very pointy and twitchy, if I increase it a lot the car feels very sluggish and floaty

And what I am saying is that your inputs change because your judgements change (for better or worse) due to the visual FOV change. The way the car reacts to your inputs is the same however.

And no I don't own triples. I have a DK2 because I am a believer in using as close to a mathmatically accurate FOV as possible

I just don't like the original post and it's reasoning and wanted to chime in on how best to approach it

 

[Brandon Wright]

In your first post you said the car behaviour changes.

Yes, as in the behavior feels different, as in with one setting I need a very small steering input to get around a corner but with another setting I need sometimes 180º of input to make the same turn.

And what I am saying is that your inputs change because your judgements change (for better or worse) due to the visual FOV change. The way the car reacts to your inputs is the same however.

Ok, I'll make a video so you can see what happens. I understand the point you're making but it's different to the point I'm trying to make.

 

[D1visor]

It's as it was mentioned before, just perception and nothing else.

 

[Denis E.]

I'm totally disagree with FOV experiments. Why ? Because its a sim, and i want to drive with correct calculated FOV closest to real live view, instead change it to more easy driving

Sorry for my english

 

[RacingManiacGT1]

Considering you are operating with significantly reduced input to your body when you are playing a sim, and the game is not a just an open loop thing(driver is in the loop), I'd say the it definitely has effect to how a game feels. The way the game operates doesn't change but how you react to it does and that will affect the experience. With a single screen at the distance I can place it, the calculator tells me something around 32 deg. I've been playing it set to 39, which gives me just enough peripheral view to catch the corner in most situation aside from the tightest corners(ie The Loop at the Silverstone GP circuit). I like a tighter FOV because I feel like it translate more of the sensation of yaw and makes the onset of slide or understeer more detectable. I've noticed this in even in Gran Turismo.

 

[Denis E.]

I'm on single screen to, and my calculated FOV is 47 and i use RealHeadMotion for look to the apex

Changing FOV its a similar to use zoom in photography. You can go close to object and than make a picture, or you can use zoom on your camera, but in this case distance between different objects will be incorrect (shorter than irl)

 

[RacingManiacGT1]

I think if I have my 55" screen right in front of my face I can use wider FOV. Being about 45" away I can't see most of the apex if I set it to 32 deg. I am not sure how having the camera turn towards the apex is any more rear since my head doesn't move. I'd rather move my head than the camera tells me where to look. I've tried in the past in some older games that can do that and that messes with my feel even more.

 

[UMC 22]

I'm totally disagree with FOV experiments. Why ? Because its a sim, and i want to drive with correct calculated FOV closest to real live view, instead change it to more easy driving.

Even a simulation has to make compromises. I mean, we're all instantly compromised by the fact we lack the feeling of movement and g-forces on our bodies, so we have to make do with FFB through the wheel telling us what the car is doing. FoV falls into the same boat for me. Sure, you can make it exactly 1:1 so you get real perspective, but then you're looking though a tunnel (on a single monitor) and compromising your ability to see to each side... something which is rather important when actually racing other people.

One thing I really like about AC is the ability to move the cockpit camera anywhere, and that it saves per car. I set my FoV to 45, then move the camera back so that it's a foot or so in front of the seat headrest. That and a tiny bit of look-to-apex and I have a good compromise between perspective and situational awareness.

I am not sure how having the camera turn towards the apex is any more rear since my head doesn't move. I'd rather move my head than the camera tells me where to look. I've tried in the past in some older games that can do that and that messes with my feel even more.

It definitely takes time to get used to, but once you do it can really help with nailing apexes when you're a single monitor user. I don't like racing in sims which don't have this feature now... it feels far too static.