*update*
I make a little InSim program to do just this:
http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?t=37537

In "real life," when the car leans and pitches from turns and acceleration/braking your vision is focused on the track and world outside the car, and thus the body of the car is what appears to be moving, not the rest of the universe.

However, in LFS the camera pitch, roll, and yaw are tied to the vehicles own axes so that the camera stays fixed relative to the body of the vehicle making the cars movement seem unnatural.

If the camera was tied to the direction of movement (with an adjustable amount of smoothing and/or multipliers) I think it'd look much more realistic and give a better sense of motion.

I noticed this also when I was playing around with some in-car views with the XRG, the movement isn't realistic, it's too fixed, and too smooth. It doesn't seem like something that would be too big of a pain in the ass...
~Bryan~

Quote from dropin_biking :

I noticed this also when I was playing around with some in-car views with the XRG, the movement isn't realistic, it's too fixed, and too smooth. It doesn't seem like something that would be too big of a pain in the ass...
~Bryan~

demo users shouldn't be able to post in the improvement section seeing as its mostly used to complain, and people who don't pay shouldn't get to complain.

I would hate to have the game looking into the corners for me. In fact that's the reason why I have "look with steering" turned off. That's something I do naturally, why anyone would need the game to do it for them is beyond me.

Or are you talking about a view other than cockpit view?

It wouldn't look into the corner like with the look with steering option.

If you then hit the brakes while moving the car will pitch nose-down. On the current camera system the view will stay fixed with the body of the car and show the horizon rising. With my idea, the horizon would stay level and the car body (dash and interior) would rotate downwards, which more approximates what it looks like in reality.

When making a right turn, the car will lean to the left. Again, in LFS as it is now the horizon will appear to rotate to the right while with my idea the horizon would remain level and the interior of the car would roll to the left.

You could also add a yaw function which would make the view move towards the actual direction of travel which, if in a skid, would actually be in the opposite direction of the "look with steering" function, but I don't know if that'd be annoying or helpful (it could provide better feedback as to when the car is oversteering.)

If implemented you'd probably want to include some kind of scaling adjustment so you get a mix of rotating horizon and visible body roll.

i dont think its supposed to be "realistic" (which is a bit of a strech considering everybodys perception of this will be different) but rather its designed to be a driver help to be able to feel the gforces acting on the car

Great idea IMO. Truth is, your eyes will almost always stay level with the horizon (at least perceptually) so the current head movement is quite counter intuitive (hence why the majority turns it off)
I too believe it would be usefull in "feeling" a bit more realistic and putting the driver on the track a bit better.
I hope this gets considered by devs (or just added as a function as inverted head view thingy whatchamacallit)

People would still retain the option to turn it off, as they are now.
Needless to say +1

great idea! i hope the developers take a note of this

Quote from spanks :

demo users shouldn't be able to post in the improvement section seeing as its mostly used to complain, and people who don't pay shouldn't get to complain.

what the HELL does him having S2 or not say whether he can complain or not? If he wants to, he can complain!! and tbh, it was'nt complaining. I suggest READING before you type next time spanks, because imo, you have made yourself look like another one of those "you dont have S2, you cant complain/log improvements etc."

Quote from Rotareneg :

In "real life," when the car leans and pitches from turns and acceleration/braking your vision is focused on the track and world outside the car, and thus the body of the car is what appears to be moving, not the rest of the universe.

However, in LFS the camera pitch, roll, and yaw are tied to the vehicles own axes so that the camera stays fixed relative to the body of the vehicle making the cars movement seem unnatural.

Are you referring to the "accelleration shifts viewpoint" settings? My only peeve about that is that if you set the vertical displacement "too high" it looks like you're not wearing a harness (in singe-seaters you get the feeling you're about to get launched into the air if you hit a bump). Not to mention all the clipping issues that arise.

Great idea. If it could include a slider to mix between (camera/eye movement fixed to car) and (car movement only without camera movement) so one could get the perfect balance for ones own perception it would be just perfect.

I agree.. The current "movement" system is nowhere near real-life-like. Recently, I've been killing myself simply trying to get the most realism out of the view movement system, but it seems no matter what settings you have the sliders at, it's just not realistic enough..

Thanks Nathan, but if thats the vibe in this area of the forum I'll screw off back to the Hardware area, never knew demo users giving improvement opinions was such a big deal *shrugs*
~Bryan~

I'm really confused here, are you all talking about a different sim? From what I am understanding of the original post, he is suggesting that with the head movements, the view external to the car interior stay stationary and the view of the surrounding car interior move about? That is exactly what happens in LFS. Your point of view, looking at the external track environment from the perspective of the cockpit view is stationary. It's the car interior that moves around from g-forces. Thus, LFS acts exactly the way the original poster suggests it acts like....

If a picture is worth 1000 words, a YouTube video must be worth at least 100000...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijNAc5R4p0g

I used VirtualDub and Deshaker to roughly simulate the intended effect.

Here's the "before" video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRflKn-9OSk

I like it

After playing Race 07 and seeing that video, I see what you mean. And I hate it.

Who's going to have their head tilted at 45 degrees (relative to the car) when the car's up on 2 wheels? Likewise, when I'm going down a hill, I'm probably going to continue looking straight ahead (i.e. at the bottom of a hill), not at whatever is above the hill.

Quote from Forbin :

Who's going to have their head tilted at 45 degrees (relative to the car) when the car's up on 2 wheels?

You sound like someone who isn't used to being on two wheels, which I know is not the case...

http://images.acclaimimages.co ... 024-0408-0321-3249_SM.jpg

You can see the driver (RH drive) is perpendicular to the road.

And some head angles you're more familiar with:
http://www.rhapsodydesignsolut ... ging-101/lesson1-rear.jpg

I think it would be a good option. Maybe not that extreme, but yes... currently it's like looking out of a camera that's on a wobbly mount but attached to the car. Makes it look like a video or TV feed in general, which isn't that bad per se, but...

The view wouldn't stay locked on the horizon if you're on a hill. It'd point towards the direction the vehicle was moving, which would be downhill if you're driving downhill. And yes, the "demo" video I made was rather extreme, I'd suggest it be adjustable in a range between the current "fixed to the car" view and completely unlocked. Something half-way between would probably look much better than all the way.

Quote from Rotareneg :

If a picture is worth 1000 words, a YouTube video must be worth at least 100000...

In the "before" video you don't have "acceleration shifts viewpoint" enabled. In my LFS, I get what you have on the "after" video using this only not as much as the filter you applied actually overcorrects it. My only annoyance, as I mentioned before is that it's too extreme at times and results in some clipping or excessive motion.

I had "acceleration shifts viewpoint" set to 0.005 m on both videos. I don't like having it any higher 'cause it makes it look like the seat's broken or something when driving the open-wheel cars.

OT but:

Quote from dropin_biking :

Thanks Nathan, but if thats the vibe in this area of the forum I'll screw off back to the Hardware area, never knew demo users giving improvement opinions was such a big deal *shrugs*
~Bryan~

I don't see any problem with demo users posting improvement suggestions, they have the same program as the rest of us, and save a few features which are restricted to the licensed vehicles, are subject to the same experince as the rest of us.

What I DO see a problem with is demo users asking for more cars/tracks (and I don't mean for the demo, but for LFS in general). Particularly when they say the are bored with Blackwood.

/OT

Quote from Not Sure :

great idea! i hope the developers take a note of this

Likewise.

Great suggestion IMO.

+1

great idea

+1

Quote from Rotareneg :

I had "acceleration shifts viewpoint" set to 0.005 m on both videos. I don't like having it any higher 'cause it makes it look like the seat's broken or something when driving the open-wheel cars.

Yeah likewise, only I have it set to 0.015,0.030 and 0.010 for that precise reason - however I can't drive without it because I can't connect with what's happening.

So I guess I'm all for enhancing the current option of "acceleration shifts viewpoint":

Instead of having the amount of maximum displacement to have "sensitivity". Since it would be constrained to how much ever a harness and bucket seat allows a driver to shift position (or how much ever a human head can actually bob and roll around). That way we could control just how pronounced this effect is instead of ending up with something that clips like crazy and is unrealistic in the end.