43 replies to this topic

[Phaesphoros]

Viper69, on 11 April 2013 - 06:31 AM, said:

BTW just razzin you about the rift thing,, hey the more tech the better. Myself I use the TrackIR if we ever get support for it.

What happened to the Kinect, PC version? It can also track your head (same with ordinary webcams, albeit less good).

[FiveDigits]

I run a FoV of 90 and it has nothing to do with immersion. A higher FoV actually lets me see the whole cockpit and everything in front of me instead of the very limited view the standard FoV offers. It's a clear advantage in close quarter engagements.

[Tickdoff Tank]

Moromillas, on 10 April 2013 - 07:46 PM, said:

The pictures are interesting.

Why such depth into FOV?

He is shilling for the Occulus Rift.

[DaiShiHU]

Just wanted to mention that in the novels (the 30-ish i've read) the pilots do not look out of the actual cockpit window but they have a holographic display that shows the full 360 deg. view compacted to about 160 deg. with the field of fire demarked for every weapon. If anyone ever wondered how the rear pointing ML in a TT Centurion is actually aimed.

Not that I say PGI should do that, It'd never work right on a single display. Just wanted to mention because I think its really cool.

I personally use a fov of 70 on a single 27 col display, because I found that it raises the immersion for me if I can see the upper monitors in the cockpit, and the big a** weapon barrel that sticks out of the chest of my CTF.

Edited by DaiShiHU, 11 April 2013 - 06:58 AM.

[Sir Burpalot21]

Ummmm interesting topic... I could not decipher what the TC was trying to get at though.

I have a 1920x1200 screen (16:10). For most FPS games I use a 90 degree horizontal FoV.
I believe MWO uses a vertical FoV, which I have set to 78. That actually calculates out to a 104 horizontal FoV.
http://www.rjdown.co...vcalculator.php

[Viperion]

BeezleBug, on 11 April 2013 - 04:20 AM, said:

It is more then the Size. It is about the Resolution ( for example 1920:1080 or 1680:1050 ) and there is a difference between 16:9 and 16:10.

well mine is 21" 1680:1050 16:10 and whats the ideal fov?

[Phaesphoros]

Viperion, on 11 April 2013 - 08:27 AM, said:

well mine is 21" 1680:1050 16:10 and whats the ideal fov?

I wouldn't say I can tell you the ideal FoV, as the most immersive FoV "has to suite your taste". You need to find the best balance for you between peripheral vision and perspective accuracy.

The perspectively correct FoV, however, can be calculated. In your case, it's about the same as in the 22" case:

(distance to screen in cm; horizontal FoV in °)
(10; 110)
(20; 71)
(25; 60)
(30; 50)
(50; 32)
(70; 23)
(90; 18)

The most immersive FoV is greater than the perspectively correct FoV, it can even be 2-3 times as large.

[MaddMaxx]

So in a nutshell. The distance you sit back from your monitor can affect the visual perspective on the screen.

From ride alongs, I noticed how the Pretty Baby, for example, has those plates/blades protruding out from both shoulders. Moving the mechs seat up would help move them back out of the way...some.

I run mine based on the chassis to be selected. Some have nice side windows to see out of, others don't. Move seat accordingly.

Edited by MaddMaxx, 11 April 2013 - 09:07 AM.

[GODzillaGSPB]

After the second read I understand what this topic is about. It's funny because only recently I actually noticed for the first time how mechs that are at the edges of the screen get distorted. I didn't play attention to this before to be honest.

Why the wrong FOVs? Good question. I think it has to do with how we see in the real world with our own eyes. We have a rather big FOV with our eyes. But even though things get blurry (at the edges of our natural FOV) when we don't focus on them, they don't get distorted. Because our eyes are not flat...ehrm...I assume.

Anyway, a FOV of 60° simply tries to simulate a bigger field of view and I think the designers of games perfectly know that things will get distorted at the edges...but they chose to ignore it.

As with my example, one (I assume) usually does not notice it. So for most players it's more important to "see more" rather than to have a non-distorted picture. Plus...your suggestion, putting your face in front of the screen only 25 to 30 cm away...it's certainly a nice idea and based on your calculations it is probably absolutely right, but in reality it's not viable imho. I'd have to lean over my keyboard and...it's just not possible, nor practical.

Edited by GODzillaGSPB, 11 April 2013 - 09:18 AM.

[Corvus Antaka]

the game will get an fov slider and then everyone can easily pick their own preference and this wont matteR? till then use the user.cfg file?

some people like seeing the cockpit, some dont. and while a 60 fov does curb periph vision, it also improves distant vision. its a tradeoff.

[Phaesphoros]

MaddMaxx, on 11 April 2013 - 09:07 AM, said:

I run mine based on the chassis to be selected. Some have nice side windows to see out of, others don't. Move seat accordingly.

Would be nice, but adjusting the FoV does not move your seat. Moving your seat would be equal to moving the virtual camera inside your mech. It would be nice if we could do that, but move it too far and you get..... 3rd person yay!
On top of that, the mech rotates due to torso twist and legs turning. If you move your pilot's seat, you change the distance to this rotation axis. IIRC, you're currently sitting right on it, so it looks like you turn your head in the real world when you turn your mech's torso. In cars and tanks, the driver doesn't sit alongside the turning axis, so the change in what you see is different when you turn.

GODzillaGSPB, on 11 April 2013 - 09:11 AM, said:

As with my example, one (I assume) usually does not notice it. So for most players it's more important to "see more" rather than to have a non-distorted picture. Plus...your suggestion, putting your face in front of the screen only 25 to 30 cm away...it's certainly a nice idea and based on your calculations it is probably absolutely right, but in reality it's not viable imho. I'd have to lean over my keyboard and...it's just not possible, nor practical.

xD yes, it's not comfortable, otherwise everyone would already do it. Just try it once for a short while, you'll see that it'll be less distorted AND more immersive. Then you can consider whether or not you want to buy a larger screen, where you don't need to have such a ridiculous low distance to get a high perspectively correct FoV (but you'll get mechs that are out of scale meh).

Edited by Phaesphoros, 11 April 2013 - 09:45 AM.

[TruePoindexter]

GODzillaGSPB, on 11 April 2013 - 09:11 AM, said:

Why the wrong FOVs? Good question. I think it has to do with how we see in the real world with our own eyes. We have a rather big FOV with our eyes. But even though things get blurry (at the edges of our natural FOV) when we don't focus on them, they don't get distorted. Because our eyes are not flat...ehrm...I assume.

Correct - our eyes project an image onto the optical nerve which is curved which prevents distortion. It's why some experimentation has gone into making curved imaging sensors.

I find that FOV is a personal choice. I like having a wider FOV as it lets me see more though the cockpit may still get in the way. The image definitely distorts but it doesn't bother me.

[Kmieciu]

I use cl_fov = 75 because I often switch between Jenner and the Raven. Jenner has a narrow cocpit window, and Raven has a wider one, so 75 degrees of vision is a good compromise.

[Mister Blastman]

This kind of stuff is useful if you have a "cave" (screens all around you) to game in but with a monitor, the reason we set our FOV higher is to be able to simulate our peripheral vision allowing us to see all around us.

[GODzillaGSPB]

Phaesphoros, on 11 April 2013 - 09:44 AM, said:

xD yes, it's not comfortable, otherwise everyone would already do it. Just try it once for a short while, you'll see that it'll be less distorted AND more immersive. Then you can consider whether or not you want to buy a larger screen, where you don't need to have such a ridiculous low distance to get a high perspectively correct FoV (but you'll get mechs that are out of scale meh).

My current screen is only half a year old and was pretty expensive. In retrospective I was a bit obsessed with finding the "perfect" display I guess. -.- 120Hz for less motion blur. The display is really cool, don't get me wrong, but I wish I would've found a cheaper one lol.

So there wont be any new monitor anytime soon. And I really hope this one lives longer than the previous one, which malfunctioned after only 3 years. And it was a good one, an HP w2207h. Total surprise when it broke.

I'll think of your words in the future. The year will be 2018. We will have the technology. We can fix him...I mean it.

[Moromillas]

Tickdoff Tank, on 11 April 2013 - 06:48 AM, said:

He is shilling for the Occulus Rift.

The Rift? That new tech sounds amazing, do want.

[King Arthur IV]

Phaesphoros, on 11 April 2013 - 06:09 AM, said:

That depends on CryEngine's implementation of the camera, but I think yes. IIRC CryEngine keeps the "size of the view frustrum at focus distance", i.e. the size of your screen in the virtual world, the same for all FoVs. Therefore, if you don't move in the real-world, and don't change the size of your screen, changing the FoV should also affect how you perceive the size of virtual-world objects.

so is there away to get picture #2 on a 22inch screen? i am not concerned about how i would see it correctly through my screen. i am only concerned about the scale and that scale looks right but i also want to see all of my cockpit.

[Dirk Le Daring]

Phaesphoros, on 10 April 2013 - 05:09 PM, said:

If you measured in cm, multiple the distance to screen by 2.54 to get it in inch.

Divide the centimetre value. An interesting topic though. EDIT: unless I misunderstood your meaning, that is.

Edited by Dirk Le Daring, 11 April 2013 - 05:42 PM.

[Nonsense]

I change FoV so I can see more stuff, not for the most accurate reproduction of reality. I suspect the same is true for many people, making this topic irrelevant for many people.

[Morang]

Posting in epic thread! Saved both OP, truth and lies. Now let's add more pics.
BINOCULAR VISUAL FIELDS WITH HEAD AND EYES FIXED



Should be of note that sectors of acute vision are much smaller. I tried to run a match with horisontal FOV 120 (which is close to horisontal field of binocular vision) while making that FOV realistic by playing very close to the screen (I actually positioned my head so that the LEFT edge of the screen was at the edge of my RIGHT eye FOV, restricted by my nose, and vice versa for RIGHT edge and LEFT eye).

I noticed that our HUD it unsuited for playing in this style (as well as my screen DPI - pixels became visible). Yes, by playing with my face in the screen I filled my peripheral binocular vision with data, while simultaneously increasing angular size of objects in the game world. But as our HUD is fixed to the periphery of the screen, I now had to shift my eyes pretty far from center of the screen to read weapon groups and damage displays - they still were at my periphery, but to actually read them I had to bring them closer to central axis of the eye.

Just compare how much more centered the HUD screen is in Lock On:

And I bet it's not horisontal FOV of 120 degrees, in which case HUD will appear even smaller and closer to the center of the screen.