Quote from tristancliffe :

Anyway, I play LFS with a FOV of 88° - 90°, and find the sense of speed quite good, without noticeable visual distortion, but I gather the balance between speed:distortion is a very personal thing.

Quite interesting, i always used FOV of about 60, as it was always said that it gives you the best visual feedback, ie, you sense the distance of the corner better and width of the track, etc..
I recently switched to 22" wide monitor and still use 60 FOV, should i try a bigger FOV? Is that size depandable? It strikes me that with this big monitor i don't see the side mirrors in FBM for example, and most other cars..

Quote from Boris Lozac :

I recently switched to 22" wide monitor and still use 60 FOV, should i try a bigger FOV? Is that size depandable? It strikes me that with this big monitor i don't see the side mirrors in FBM for example, and most other cars..

I'd suggest ~72 degree angle if you got the monitor right infront of your wheel. Image distortion is minimal at such an angle and it's pretty close to RL in terms of telling distance, etc - still can't see the FBM side mirrors (FOX and FO8 are ok though).

As I said, it seems to be personal. Anything below 80° looks silly to me - far too slow, and no perspective on stuff. I suppose it's not just personal preference (though I think that's the majority of it, combined with what you're used to), but also monitor distances from things.

Every racing game/sim I play now has the FOV increased to as close to 90° as I can get it.

Quote from Boris Lozac :

I recently switched to 22" wide monitor and still use 60 FOV, should i try a bigger FOV? Is that size depandable? It strikes me that with this big monitor i don't see the side mirrors in FBM for example, and most other cars..

I run 100° on a triple screen setup, which I think gives an image on the central screen equivalent to around 60°. I don't think I could live on a 60° display though, ignoring sense of speed, there just isn't enough peripheral vision to safely race in a pack.

Quote from Boris Lozac :

Quite interesting, i always used FOV of about 60, as it was always said that it gives you the best visual feedback, ie, you sense the distance of the corner better and width of the track, etc..
I recently switched to 22" wide monitor and still use 60 FOV, should i try a bigger FOV? Is that size depandable? It strikes me that with this big monitor i don't see the side mirrors in FBM for example, and most other cars..

I started out using 68 FOV on a 17" CRT monitor, now use a 22" LCD WS and use 98 FOV with wide screen effect. I find that quite good. I have the screen as close as I can get it also, similar feel to 68 on the crt to me but with more peripheral vision

I've been using "wide screen effect" too, and whilst I think it looks horrible, it does seem to improve the sense of speed a bit. Probably just a placebo effect though, rather than something measurable.

Quote from Glenn67 :

and use 98 FOV with wide screen effect

Hm, you mean a wide screen resolution, your LCD native resolution? or you use that "wide screen effect" that ads black bars at the top and bottom?

Wide screen effect just seems to give correct perspective to me and is less distracting...

@ Boris - Both extra ws

Quote from Glenn67 :

Wide screen effect just seems to give correct perspective to me and is less distracting...

Both extra ws

Well i gotta try that then
I thought that's a wannabe wide screen effect for 4:3 monitors, never thought i should use that on actual wide screen monitor..

Quote from Boris Lozac :

... never thought i should use that on actual wide screen monitor..

I'm known to think outside the square box on occasion I just find it helps with sense of perspective.

Quote from tristancliffe :

but also monitor distances from things.

Don't really understand what is meant there, but the obstinately two dimensional nature of a monitor image brings with it more than just subjective problems.

For me its not really the subjective perception of speed that's an issue (though I recognise the problem: swapping between the '65 cars and the '67s in GPL will illustrate this to anyone), but on my small monitor, running in low resolution, the advantage of looking ahead (scanning from the horizon to the near distance, as I do in real life) is significantly reduced. There's a point in the distance where coloured pixels simply stop offering any useful information. Indeed this is true of any sized monitor: its an inherent problem of the screen image being a representation.

It is not depth perception, but the illusion of depth that you are responding to. Sorry to sound pedantic, but Tristan, if someone were to come onto this forum blabbering technical inconsistencies you would be the first to jump on them. I really don't understand how you can be so cavalier in this instance, since there are quite measurable objective consequences in the difference between real and representational.

Quote from tristancliffe :

As I said, it seems to be personal. Anything below 80° looks silly to me - far too slow, and no perspective on stuff. I suppose it's not just personal preference (though I think that's the majority of it, combined with what you're used to), but also monitor distances from things.

Every racing game/sim I play now has the FOV increased to as close to 90° as I can get it.

At some point I got curious if what I was seeing on my widescreen at the FOV I had bared any resemblance to RL.

So, being the geek I am, I did this simplistic (and likely erroneous as an approach) measurement: found a sedan parked somewhere, walked 50m away and measured it's perceived size with a calliper and then did the same with an FXO parked at the 50m and the camera at the 100m distance markers on a track from my position infront of the screen. Surprisingly it was pretty much the same (with AA enabled - without AA it might have larger discrepancies).

LOL! I like that xaotik.

Reading all this I run a real low FOV. It is hard to tell whats going on around you, but I am a casual player...so I usually just go for some laps around the race track rather then a full on race. My ping usually keeps me from being on a server with too many others also.

I have it at about 60 something and I think Bobs calculator program said I should go even lower! I usually try and keep it so I can at least see my mirrors, but 80-90 just looks weird.

I've been running at 100 degrees. I don't have a widescreen monitor, so i need a wider FOV to make up for it. I USED to use 100 degrees on two screens too though. I just prefer to see as much as I'd see in real life than worry about how distorted it looks.

Quote from nihil :

Don't really understand what is meant there, but the obstinately two dimensional nature of a monitor image brings with it more than just subjective problems.

For me its not really the subjective perception of speed that's an issue (though I recognise the problem: swapping between the '65 cars and the '67s in GPL will illustrate this to anyone), but on my small monitor, running in low resolution, the advantage of looking ahead (scanning from the horizon to the near distance, as I do in real life) is significantly reduced. There's a point in the distance where coloured pixels simply stop offering any useful information. Indeed this is true of any sized monitor: its an inherent problem of the screen image being a representation.

It is not depth perception, but the illusion of depth that you are responding to. Sorry to sound pedantic, but Tristan, if someone were to come onto this forum blabbering technical inconsistencies you would be the first to jump on them. I really don't understand how you can be so cavalier in this instance, since there are quite measurable objective consequences in the difference between real and representational.

Call it what you will. My simplistic view is that illusion of depth and the perception of depth are pretty much the same thing by the time the brain receives the messages.

But I just make LFS look like it does from the cockpit of a real car, considering the restrictions of one monitor (me can't afford a nuvver) and requiring it to be a couple of feet away from my eyes.

90° feels and looks real enough to me.

Quote from tristancliffe :

90° feels and looks real enough to me.

I think this varies from person to person.

When I started LFS I had come from years of Q3 at 110fov. I started with this in LFS but have slowly reduced that and now run with 65fov.

This is enough that you can see the dials and mirror but need look L/R for the side mirrors. I find it easier to work out speed without the slight warp effects that higher fov bring to the display.

I use a 21" 4:3 CRT, less motion blur an LCD, can use any resolution without blur and I have the space so depth of monitor not an issue.

I find the monitor size lets me get a good feeling of speed but the 4:3 aspect does mean I am left slightly wanting in the view beside me but its something I like with

That maybe so. But I don't like turning my head to look at the mirrors. You don't in real life (except to look in the passenger mirror in closed wheel cars, or if you have a very modern F1 car ). If I'm racing with someone I want to be able to move my eyes to the mirror, so 90° works for that.

But like you say (and like I said in my previous posts) it is a personal thing, judging by the differences. Some people work out the geometrically correct FOV and use that (about 30° I think for most monitor positions), others calculate and ignore it, others just use what they like or are used to. I'm one of the latter.

F1 car has a big power

What's your point? I think we all knew that.

new for me.

Noob!

Quote from zeugnimod :

Noob!

Agreed

Töki (HUN) I like you avatar

I've been reading this interesting post because i have the same initial question. Is LFS real, or we're driving 1 and 0 from our PC.

Probably I will be this summer one of the drivers of a Formula SAE. We're building one of this cars in my university so I know i'll drive in the competition or simply to set up it for the race.

I know LFS have a FSAE , so i asked myself if training with this car will teach me on the car behaviour. I haven't tryed this car because I don't have the license but i'll buy in few time if it helps me to undestand what is going to do my real car when i take a corner.

It is clear that our university car will not have the same geometry and the behaviour will be different but the car "soul" will be the same because is the same kind of car.

Has somebody tried this car, it is quite real? It will help me or will be a easy way to waste time?

(sorry , i'm learning english at the moment... :banghead

Quote from akhenaph :

Has somebody tried this car, it is quite real? It will help me or will be a easy way to waste time?

Well if your refering to the formula bmw ingame then I'd say it would be pretty accurate (Scawen did a hole day of testing in a real one)

Driving a real car is always going to be different to a sim (controls are different and g-forces) but a sim will give you a head start if your new to racing I believe.