+1, this looks good!
With this restriction one can make all custom views that "correct" the lack of visibility, immersion and sense of speed of cockpit view, without getting any unfair advantage.
One can make roof view or bonnet view, or move slightly forward to compensate large FOV, one can't see the wheels, one can't see the entire car, one can make custom view for special display like shutter glasses...etc.
I wonder how many among the 70% supporting this option did realize it forbids custom cockpit views...
I think most people using a larger FOV than default have to move the cockpit view forward.
I think most people using a larger FOV than default have to move the cockpit view forward.
You see it, but in the lateral field of view...lateral field of view a screen can not even render, unless you have a very nice, surrounding display or at least a very large display. In sims cockpit view, you see way less track than IRL.
The main problem is that IRL I can see the interior like in cockpit view, I can see a lot of track like in bonnet view, I can see things on the sides and feel car movements like a roof view pointing down...at the same time.
Edit:
*cockpit view is realistic because it gives the view that should be used on a large surrounding display. Unfortunately, on displays most of us have, it is not so effective as it kills sense of speed. Car interior stretches horribly when FOV is increased.
*bonnet view is realistic because it shows better the part of FOV you focus on IRL(front), and gives a better sense of speed at moderate FOV.
* roof view (not too far) is realistic because it shows front FOV, a lot of track (sense of speed) and a bit what you see on sides IRL when it is inclinate (10-12 degrees).
None of these three views give an unfair advantage, as you can't see the wheels, you are not behind driver eyes position...
Last edited by Juls, .
If I understood correctly, this "force cockpit view" forces to use the default cockpit view.
I see two problems:
- as I was searching for the most realistic view, I noticed one important thing is to get a realistic sense of speed. Default cockpit view does not give this unless you greatly increase FOV and then everything gets distorted. But there are ways to get a realistic sense of speed with a moderate FOV, rotating down the view to see more road, moving the camera a bit higher and forward to see less cockpit. It depends what you want...default cockipt view gives a realistic picture, but not a realistic sense of speed. I think sense of speed is more important than picture.
Then, for me forcing default cockpit view is not realistic
The fact that we are sitting in front of a screen requires some adjustements. Default cockpit view would be absolutely realistic with a 180 degrees spherical or at least cylindrical display.
- I use two monitors, I suppose I am not the only one. I need to rotate the view, otherwise monitor frames are exactly in the line and it is undrivable. With default cockpit view I can't rotate the view...I just can't play LFS unless I use one monitor, and it is a pity to have the best sim be the only one not allowing me to play with 2 monitors.
I see two problems:
- as I was searching for the most realistic view, I noticed one important thing is to get a realistic sense of speed. Default cockpit view does not give this unless you greatly increase FOV and then everything gets distorted. But there are ways to get a realistic sense of speed with a moderate FOV, rotating down the view to see more road, moving the camera a bit higher and forward to see less cockpit. It depends what you want...default cockipt view gives a realistic picture, but not a realistic sense of speed. I think sense of speed is more important than picture.
Then, for me forcing default cockpit view is not realistic
The fact that we are sitting in front of a screen requires some adjustements. Default cockpit view would be absolutely realistic with a 180 degrees spherical or at least cylindrical display.- I use two monitors, I suppose I am not the only one. I need to rotate the view, otherwise monitor frames are exactly in the line and it is undrivable. With default cockpit view I can't rotate the view...I just can't play LFS unless I use one monitor, and it is a pity to have the best sim be the only one not allowing me to play with 2 monitors.
Last edited by Juls, .
I play racing sims with two monitors and I am sure I am not alone in that case, as most graphic cards have 2 outputs.
This is only possible if I can slightly rotate the view, left or right, in order not to have the monitor gap exactly in my line.
With default interior view, I just can't play, unless I use only one monitor.
(hope this thread is not reserved for licensed players)
This is only possible if I can slightly rotate the view, left or right, in order not to have the monitor gap exactly in my line.
With default interior view, I just can't play, unless I use only one monitor.
(hope this thread is not reserved for licensed players)
Sorry for the flood, I just realized such distorsion may be useful to increase sense of speed on small displays and for another purpose.
Default perspective used in sims is intended to be displayed on a flat display. It causes problem when you use multiple monitors and want to turn side monitors in order to get a surrounding display. Picture looks broken.
Cylindrical distorsion can be very useful for multi-monitor displays, because it creates the view required by such displays. Kegetys already implemented such a distorsion within softth (software triplehead).
Default perspective used in sims is intended to be displayed on a flat display. It causes problem when you use multiple monitors and want to turn side monitors in order to get a surrounding display. Picture looks broken.
Cylindrical distorsion can be very useful for multi-monitor displays, because it creates the view required by such displays. Kegetys already implemented such a distorsion within softth (software triplehead).
Yes, of course, distorsions in real life. But I think we may all agree to say distances are wrong on screens with narrow FOV. And this is not only in sims.
Every onboard camera IRL does not give a proper sense of distance and speed. In fact every time the camera zooms in (=narrow FOV) and points toward incoming objects, it kills speed. I remember I was filming friends skiing quite fast...it looked fast as snails.
Looks like cameramen have hard time to find tricks that give back the sense of speed....avoid filming toward incoming objects (helicopter, crane...), avoid zooming, shaking camera, using fisheye lenses to fit a larger FOV into a 4:3 screen.
As you say, the only solution to get full sense of speed without distorsion is a large surrounding display or something approaching like triplehead2go or fresnel lenses or both. With such a display life is easy. But for others (99.9%?)
Every onboard camera IRL does not give a proper sense of distance and speed. In fact every time the camera zooms in (=narrow FOV) and points toward incoming objects, it kills speed. I remember I was filming friends skiing quite fast...it looked fast as snails.
Looks like cameramen have hard time to find tricks that give back the sense of speed....avoid filming toward incoming objects (helicopter, crane...), avoid zooming, shaking camera, using fisheye lenses to fit a larger FOV into a 4:3 screen.
As you say, the only solution to get full sense of speed without distorsion is a large surrounding display or something approaching like triplehead2go or fresnel lenses or both. With such a display life is easy. But for others (99.9%?)
Did you notice that space between signs before turns looks shorter than 50 meters? This is very visible with narrow FOV like 45 degrees...distances are sooo wrong (even if other cars look big like IRL).
As I increase FOV, signs look further from each other, and I need 115 degrees FOV on a 17 inchs LCD to have the right spacing between signs. Or 145 degrees using two monitors.
Of course, as soon as distances look right, speed too.
I think if we manage to bend a picture so center is not too small and distance between signs look right, it works.
As I increase FOV, signs look further from each other, and I need 115 degrees FOV on a 17 inchs LCD to have the right spacing between signs. Or 145 degrees using two monitors.
Of course, as soon as distances look right, speed too.
I think if we manage to bend a picture so center is not too small and distance between signs look right, it works.
In fact I did some tests this way: recording with fraps, and using spherize filters in premiere. Lens distortion filter is not good, because it exactly distorts the view like FOV does...so you take a large FOV and use negative lens distortion and you get exactly the same picture than a narrower FOV.
Did not have time to do much tests, but it works.
It only allows to simulate cylindrical or spherical distortion, but it's better than nothing. It works two ways:
- with a large FOV, positive values for spherize will stretch the center and shrink sides...it allows to use a large FOV without a too small center. It reduces speed sense coming from large FOV but it still keeps more sense of speed than narrower FOV.
- with a narrow FOV, negative values for spherize will shrink the center and stretch sides...objects and textures accelerate when they reach view side. Starting from 40 degrees FOV, I get something feeling like 60 degrees FOV in center, and 90 degrees FOV on the sides (I talk about speed sense).
to avoid objects bending on the sides and view corners, I use horizontal+vertical spherize instead of spherical spherize filter.
Anyway, cylindrical distortion is a bit brutal...70% of view is unchanged, and two narrow bands are heavily distorted...
Did not have time to do much tests, but it works.
It only allows to simulate cylindrical or spherical distortion, but it's better than nothing. It works two ways:
- with a large FOV, positive values for spherize will stretch the center and shrink sides...it allows to use a large FOV without a too small center. It reduces speed sense coming from large FOV but it still keeps more sense of speed than narrower FOV.
- with a narrow FOV, negative values for spherize will shrink the center and stretch sides...objects and textures accelerate when they reach view side. Starting from 40 degrees FOV, I get something feeling like 60 degrees FOV in center, and 90 degrees FOV on the sides (I talk about speed sense).
to avoid objects bending on the sides and view corners, I use horizontal+vertical spherize instead of spherical spherize filter.
Anyway, cylindrical distortion is a bit brutal...70% of view is unchanged, and two narrow bands are heavily distorted...
Yes, this trick I propose is to simulate a fisheye lens...cylindrical or spherical why not.
I found this fisheye quake.
Here there are some screenshots. On the left you can see what happens when FOV is increased in the game. Center shrinks.
On the right he uses some distorsion to keep center almost unchanged, and manages to put more and more FOV in a similar way I did, but this time with spherical distorsion (I used cylindrical).
http://strlen.com/gfxengine/fisheyequake/compare.html
On the main page he says it gives nice sense of speed.
Edit: Now, I remember my TV can do the same thing....there is a display mode stretching the center and shrining the sides only along horizontal axis, like a cylindrical lens...or doing the contrary, don't remember. It gives more presence.
I found this fisheye quake.
Here there are some screenshots. On the left you can see what happens when FOV is increased in the game. Center shrinks.
On the right he uses some distorsion to keep center almost unchanged, and manages to put more and more FOV in a similar way I did, but this time with spherical distorsion (I used cylindrical).
http://strlen.com/gfxengine/fisheyequake/compare.html
On the main page he says it gives nice sense of speed.
Edit: Now, I remember my TV can do the same thing....there is a display mode stretching the center and shrining the sides only along horizontal axis, like a cylindrical lens...or doing the contrary, don't remember. It gives more presence.
Last edited by Juls, .
I think it is the contrary....no texture will help you feeling the speed you miss because of a reduced FOV. Take the richest game, put the FOV to 60 degrees so that it looks real...no more speed.
This problem impacts all racing sims, and they have to increase FOV even in the most graphically advanced games...last F1 game I saw on PS3 has at least 110 degrees FOV.
This problem impacts all racing sims, and they have to increase FOV even in the most graphically advanced games...last F1 game I saw on PS3 has at least 110 degrees FOV.
Sense of speed is given by lateral view...when objects move quickly on the sides, you feel more speed. When you increase FOV, you see more of the lateral view....objects are going faster on the sides of your screen, so you feel more speed.
With distorsion you have two solutions:
- Example I did: take a large FOV view, zoom center, shrink sides...trying to reduce sense of speed brought by large FOV as little as possible. Once again this is a compromise between nice center and sense of speed. But it can be better than standard undistorted view. Here objects slow down horizontally when they reach sides, but keep their vertical speed vertically (walls spread vertically). This should be enough to keep a lot more sense of speed than default view.
- take a small FOV view, like 50 degrees, shrink a bit the center so that it looks like 90 degrees FOV, and use additional place you have on the sides now to stretch sides along X....and objects will move faster on the side-> you get something like 90 degrees FOV in the center but with increased sense of speed.
And using different distorsions, you can imagine zooming the center, shrinking the middle, and leaving sides unchanged....many possibilities.
Of course, difficult to know if it works nice without a video.
Last edited by Juls, .
Exactly.
It can be done with some d3d8.dll d3d9.dll you put in the game folder. Creating a device larger than required by the game, and adding a distorsion step at the end. But overlays like red light and text will be distorted too.
If I had time I would give it a try, maybe people who have experience with very similar thing like Kegetys could give it a try.
But it can be done inside the game too. It is simply an additional rendering step when 3D rendering is over and before 2D overlays are added. It can be added as an option with a minimum developpement, almost without any impact on the existing code. That's why I like the idea too
It does not even require a shape....simply a flat rectangle with several divisions and every vertex has special U,V coordinates...map the rendered view as a texture on that grid, and you get your distorsion.
Racing sims could be more attractive for beginners with a better sense of speed, that's sure. When I read the thread in LFS General, with this guy saying car does not hold properly, this is certainly a FOV problem and many others say so in that thread.
It can be done with some d3d8.dll d3d9.dll you put in the game folder. Creating a device larger than required by the game, and adding a distorsion step at the end. But overlays like red light and text will be distorted too.
If I had time I would give it a try, maybe people who have experience with very similar thing like Kegetys could give it a try.
But it can be done inside the game too. It is simply an additional rendering step when 3D rendering is over and before 2D overlays are added. It can be added as an option with a minimum developpement, almost without any impact on the existing code. That's why I like the idea too
It does not even require a shape....simply a flat rectangle with several divisions and every vertex has special U,V coordinates...map the rendered view as a texture on that grid, and you get your distorsion.
Racing sims could be more attractive for beginners with a better sense of speed, that's sure. When I read the thread in LFS General, with this guy saying car does not hold properly, this is certainly a FOV problem and many others say so in that thread.
Last edited by Juls, .
Here is a simple demo. I simulate it using photoshop.
First I take a 135 degrees FOV screenshot two times larger than my screen (2*1280 x 1024) Two times larger just because it was easier for me...it can be done with less.
http://cracovia.free.fr/lfs_large_135.jpg
Then I map it on a kind of cylinder to obtain something which has the size of my screen (1280x1024)...other shapes should give a better, more progressive effect, things like red light and messages should be added after the distorsion:
You get all the 135 degrees FOV without the inconvenient: the road is not shrinked in center. 80% of the picture looks exactly like the normal 90 degrees FOV view...the sense of speed is given by the cylindrical distorsion on the sides.
Compare with the view you get in LFS on a 1280x1024 when you want 135 degrees FOV:
I think the difference is big. Such a projection can be done in a few 1/1000ths of second by any low-end graphic card. I think it could be something new never applied in any sim...
First I take a 135 degrees FOV screenshot two times larger than my screen (2*1280 x 1024) Two times larger just because it was easier for me...it can be done with less.
http://cracovia.free.fr/lfs_large_135.jpg
Then I map it on a kind of cylinder to obtain something which has the size of my screen (1280x1024)...other shapes should give a better, more progressive effect, things like red light and messages should be added after the distorsion:
You get all the 135 degrees FOV without the inconvenient: the road is not shrinked in center. 80% of the picture looks exactly like the normal 90 degrees FOV view...the sense of speed is given by the cylindrical distorsion on the sides.
Compare with the view you get in LFS on a 1280x1024 when you want 135 degrees FOV:
I think the difference is big. Such a projection can be done in a few 1/1000ths of second by any low-end graphic card. I think it could be something new never applied in any sim...
Last edited by Bob Smith, .
Reason : large IMG tag changed to URL tag - was breaking forum layout
Yes, the LFS sense of speed is very good compared to other sims, I don't want to criticise LFS. I talk about sense of speed in sims in a general way.
All sim developpers are aware about the problem...there is a compromise between increasing the FOV to get a nicer sense of speed, and decreasing the FOV to avoid distorsion. There are even studies about the effect of perceived speed in simulators with screens covering less than 180 degrees.
Don't worry, I have been developping with pixel shaders, especially in this domain: 3D display and virtual reality.
As you know, when the frame is ready after multiple passes, you can copy it to the screen buffer, or you can add some effects using pixel shaders, like motion blur...etc. You can perfectly use a simple pixel shader to distort the view.
For 3D displays, I have been using pixel shaders for a while to interlace and distort images. Even low-end cards are able to distort view at 500 fps using pixel shaders assuming it is not too complicated.
In fact, I just realized that what I propose can be done without pixel shader, with a simple mapping on an object.
The idea is to render a view larger than the screen, with a large FOV (120-135 degrees for example), and "bend" it to fit it on your screen.
How to bend it?
Imagine your screen is not anymore flat, but becomes half a vertical cylinder, with the convex side toward you. If you map a picture on that cylinder, it is larger than your screen was. If you look at the screen, it looks as large as before, but the large FOV picture is distorted...it's center is stretched and it's side are shrinked. Center looks almost like normal 90 degrees FOV, but you can see all 135 degrees.
So the idea is to render a view larger than screen using a large FOV, and fit it to the screen using cylindrical, or better ellipsoidal mapping. This can be done with a pixel shader, or even faster, by mapping the rendered view on half a cylinder. For example Kegetys Software Triple Head is already doing this...cylindrical correction for the side displays. It just simulates a large surrounding screen using a normal screen. That's why it is simple, only a matter of projection...
All sim developpers are aware about the problem...there is a compromise between increasing the FOV to get a nicer sense of speed, and decreasing the FOV to avoid distorsion. There are even studies about the effect of perceived speed in simulators with screens covering less than 180 degrees.
Don't worry, I have been developping with pixel shaders, especially in this domain: 3D display and virtual reality.
As you know, when the frame is ready after multiple passes, you can copy it to the screen buffer, or you can add some effects using pixel shaders, like motion blur...etc. You can perfectly use a simple pixel shader to distort the view.
For 3D displays, I have been using pixel shaders for a while to interlace and distort images. Even low-end cards are able to distort view at 500 fps using pixel shaders assuming it is not too complicated.
In fact, I just realized that what I propose can be done without pixel shader, with a simple mapping on an object.
The idea is to render a view larger than the screen, with a large FOV (120-135 degrees for example), and "bend" it to fit it on your screen.
How to bend it?
Imagine your screen is not anymore flat, but becomes half a vertical cylinder, with the convex side toward you. If you map a picture on that cylinder, it is larger than your screen was. If you look at the screen, it looks as large as before, but the large FOV picture is distorted...it's center is stretched and it's side are shrinked. Center looks almost like normal 90 degrees FOV, but you can see all 135 degrees.
So the idea is to render a view larger than screen using a large FOV, and fit it to the screen using cylindrical, or better ellipsoidal mapping. This can be done with a pixel shader, or even faster, by mapping the rendered view on half a cylinder. For example Kegetys Software Triple Head is already doing this...cylindrical correction for the side displays. It just simulates a large surrounding screen using a normal screen. That's why it is simple, only a matter of projection...
Last edited by Juls, .
FOV - Sense of Speed
First post for me, be nice 
I have been playing all possible racing/rally sims since a while, and I always noticed that sense of speed was a problem.
We all develop a "sense of physics": thanks to our experience in real world, we are able to say quite accurately if an object will slide, or stop, or roll, just watching it's shape, what it seems made of, it's speed.
We use this "sense of physics" when we drive a car too. Usually, you drive slower on wet road, because you know from your "sense of physics" when you are driving too fast. Even if you never slided!
In sim driving, this "sense of physics" does not apply.
When I watch friends using a sim for the first time, they just go way too fast, and crash at the first turn. Even very careful people. They can't use their experience because the most important clue we use to drive, the speed, is not properly rendered. (acceleration too is not rendered of course, but almost nothing can be done for it)
Using default FOV, if I hide the speed meter and ask people what is current speed, they always answer half of the right answer. That's why they crash, that's why they say the sim is not realistic, that's why some of them give up quickly....etc.
If I increase the FOV until the perceived speed matches the simulated speed, then people are a lot more satisfied with the sim physics, and they enjoy it (even if display is distorted). The problem is that large FOV shrinks the road in the center and quickly gives headache, and it makes more difficult to appreciate distances.
I think there is a way to improve things. To get the advantage of a large FOV without the inconvenient, using a simple pixel shader. Post is too long and boring. If you are interested tell me I will try to explain.
I have been playing all possible racing/rally sims since a while, and I always noticed that sense of speed was a problem.
We all develop a "sense of physics": thanks to our experience in real world, we are able to say quite accurately if an object will slide, or stop, or roll, just watching it's shape, what it seems made of, it's speed.
We use this "sense of physics" when we drive a car too. Usually, you drive slower on wet road, because you know from your "sense of physics" when you are driving too fast. Even if you never slided!
In sim driving, this "sense of physics" does not apply.
When I watch friends using a sim for the first time, they just go way too fast, and crash at the first turn. Even very careful people. They can't use their experience because the most important clue we use to drive, the speed, is not properly rendered. (acceleration too is not rendered of course, but almost nothing can be done for it)
Using default FOV, if I hide the speed meter and ask people what is current speed, they always answer half of the right answer. That's why they crash, that's why they say the sim is not realistic, that's why some of them give up quickly....etc.
If I increase the FOV until the perceived speed matches the simulated speed, then people are a lot more satisfied with the sim physics, and they enjoy it (even if display is distorted). The problem is that large FOV shrinks the road in the center and quickly gives headache, and it makes more difficult to appreciate distances.
I think there is a way to improve things. To get the advantage of a large FOV without the inconvenient, using a simple pixel shader. Post is too long and boring. If you are interested tell me I will try to explain.
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG