Discussion in 'Automobilista - Links & Resources' started by GTSpeedster, Jul 17, 2018.
@GTSpeedster did you know calcul radian FOV ? for RBR
você conhecia cálculo radiano FOV? para RBR
Is this triple angle calculation and seat distance still alive since you can set the distance to screen and the display angles in the games?
I've been struggling with my triple setup for a couple of weeks now. Thanks to your post and some numbers, I've figured out why. I made a calculator/input system on google sheets to try and play with the formulas you listed, and I know you apparently DESPISE formulas and calculators, but I couldn't help myself.
Triple Screen Calculator
What I thought was particularly interesting was comparing ideal viewing distance and ideal side monitor angles and the resultant FOV's. With the rudimentary spreadsheet I came up with, I was able to compare it all to see why no matter what numbers I used, I couldnt get rid of the warp - My viewing distance is too large for my monitor angle. I had figured there was some level of wiggle room there, because it's not the easiest thing to adjust, but it looks like there isn't. I need to either move 4 inches closer to the monitor, or increase the monitor angle by 6 degrees.
This didnt really make sense, since people would say you just want your eyes to be the same distance from each monitor, but that's a tough thing to measure well. You have to find the center monitor, figure out where your eyes move when you turn your head vs when you're still and sort of optimize both, and its easy to get it where the monitor looks like it's close enough. But using the formulas I can see it's not. It's also pretty cool to see the impact that has on horizontal and vertical FOV.
Anyway, I doubt many of you will ever mess with it, but I found the original post quite useful and using it I was able to play with a bunch of variables and see why things werent working out.
If anyone notices anything off about the calculations, let me know. All of my measuring implements are in inches, so I included a converter. But this was another thing I found particularly annoying - having to convert everything I was measuring in inches to cm and/or mm for most sims. So I have a chart at the bottom showing measurements in different units.
So I've got my triples workng well in everything else, but AMS2 I've found is pretty elusive to getting it dialed in correctly, but I cant quite piece together why.
The vertical alignment from the center to the side monitors is way off, but only at the top and bottom of the frame. It's almost like it thinks the side monitors are physically shorter than the center monitor, or maybe the vertical fov isnt the same, but all monitors are set to be exactly the same size in game. Its hard to see in the screen shot, but the cockpit is too low on left at the bottom, but the lines on the wall are too high on the left at the top. Its not a huge discrepancy but it's enough to annoy me.
The bezel widths appear to be pretty close, as evidenced by the curve in the mirror of the car.
The angle is definitely close because theres otherwise little distortion due to that, but you couldnt tell that from this picture anyway, and the angle shouldnt really affect this since you can see it from any perspective, from any direction you can see the screen.
Vertical offset could be used to line up the image, but it would still only line up perfectly at one spot and diverge from there. Right now it's aligned pretty closely at the center of the screen, which is what you would want.
Any ideas about how to fix it?
Edit: Solved. See the second attachment.
This may have been mentioned somewhere. I think I recall vaguely reading something about it at some point (Maybe a project cars forum?), could have been here but I didnt see it when I skimmed. So please accept my apologies if it's already been mentioned and give credit to that contributor.
But basically someone mentioned something about the game expecting a certain aspect ratio, which ended up being the key.
1. AMS2 expects FULL PHYSICAL WIDTH of the monitors to be input in the triple screen setup page.
2. When you input vertical height, AMS2 seems to be including the bezel height. Im not entirely sure why this is the case, or how, since bezels dont have to be symmetrical. However, taking my FULL HORIZONTAL physical width, and multiplying that by .5625 to get a vertical height and then inputting that theoretical vertical height into the setup screen solved it.
.5625 = 9/16 = 1080/1920
So vertical height that is input should be:
PHYSICAL WIDTH * .5625
NOT MEASURED HEIGHT.
I find this odd, since although physical width includes bezels, most monitors are not symmetric vertically the way they are horizontally. My lower bezel is much thicker, and any "dead" space is covered by a front plate. So basically we have to force the game to assume that the monitor is PHYSICALLY 16:9, even though in reality likely it is not, even if the screen is 16:9.
Maybe that helps someone? Either way, screen shot is attached for comparison.
Folks, I've read the whole thread.
Is it right to conclude that the calculated FOV dictates the angles of the physical monitors? I've my monitors with an angle of about 80º, as I do enjoy the feeling of being 'wrapped' inside the car as I see it more immersive, and I would like to keep it this way.
Is there any config file where I can tweak the angle of the images being projected to the side screens?
You can set the side screen angles in-game at the triple-screen menu.
Where? Do you use any mods to have the triple screen menu?
Closest thing I've is Multiview in the config runnable.
No not in AMS sadly...weirdly.
Ahh Sorry, I thought you asked for AMS2
TLDR: Just uploaded some diagrams that I thought would help illustrate the relationship between viewing distance and monitor angle. FOVh is horizontal field of view.
The first post here made it very clear that the side angles of your screens are not something you pick out of convenience or preference. They must be precisely placed in order to eliminate image warp from your perspective. They must be placed correctly for your setup, and THEN you must input those values into your game. Essentially, the centers of each screen should be perfectly perpendicular to your eyes when you look at them. Whatever angle that requires, that's what the screen should be adjusted to. No matter what angle you set the side screens, some part of that screen will likely be perpendicular to your eyes, so you may think it's "close enough", but in fact, it's vitally important that the dead center of that screen (both horizontally AND vertically) is the point on that screen which is directly pointed at your eyes.
That's why the original poster went through the trouble to provide all of those calculations. I was getting driven crazy by image warp and was ready to give up and assume that's just the nature of triples until I found that post and it massively improved my experience.
But Im making this post since I was able to devise a relatively good method to actually illustrate in a diagram what I am trying to explain. The angles are not preference, they are dictated by how far away from the center screen you are and how large that screen is.
The pictures I've attached are made using an online application called GeoGebra, many times teachers use these to create visual geometry proofs, and this particular demonstration has locked in the center of those screens being perpendicular to a single point, with that point representing the spot between your eyes.
I have been amazed at how much of a difference one or two degrees makes in terms of visual perception. The angles must be as close as you can get them physically to correct, and then you must be able to accurately measure them to within at least 1 degree (based on my experience) to input into your game's monitor settings. But on the bright side, once you get these parameters established, it will truly look like windows into a fully consistent world. It's fantastic!
There are different approaches to how to set this up, but my personal way to think of it is to set up your rig with your center monitor as close as possible. Then determine the viewing distance to that single monitor - that along with the physical width of the single monitor will determine the angles of your side monitors.
Well I’ve tried a correct FOV several times on my triple setup. Best for me is just my perception of a correct FOV. I should have a FOV of 48 but that does not work for me after all. I now have it set the way I like it the most and that is a FOV of 60. Despite all the calculators tell me otherwise.
I think you must not try focus to much on a Correct FOV but use a FOV which suits you the most.
Are the screen angles correct? What are your numbers again?
Screen Width 61
Screen Height 34.20
Eye distance 67cm.
So I should use a FOV of 49,3
There's something off here, then, but I have to admit, I put your numbers into my own calculator and everything looks correct.
That said, your virtual monitor angle (you set in game/windows) should always match your physical monitor angles. This number is determined by your viewing distance. From what I can see your viewing distance of 26.4 inches and physical screen angle of 49 degrees is almost spot on. So your FOV would, theoretically, need to be 49, not 48. But that doesnt explain why you prefer 60. Are you just wanting more visibility, or is this the settings the provides the least perceptible warp to you?
Are you using nvidia surround by any chance? I find it does some really strange things, and you end up having more than one system trying to input different viewing angles. I never use it if I can help it and I have all my games set up now where I dont need nVidia surround anymore.
Would you mind measuring the distance between the top left of your left monitor and the top right of your center monitor? I can use this to derive the monitor angle. As long as the 61cm width you listed includes bezels, I can get pretty close to the actual real world monitor angle. I ask because I find in my experience that mismatched monitor angles that reduce warp are generally the result of a disagreement between viewing distance and physical monitor angle. The fact that yours seems spot on is perplexing. With that said, small deviations can have a big impact here. 1 cm of viewing distance discrepancy can throw off the ideal angle by around 2 degrees in your case.
Thanks for the lengthy answer. I prefer a larger FOV because it gives me more feeling of speed and I just prefer it somehow. I use a FOV of 56 atm which feels spot on for me. I do not use a higer FOV because of certain perspective distortions. Pcars2, AMS2 are really good in displaying a good triple setup. So there is no need to change the FOV to iron that out.
The screens are diagonal 70cm.
That said, lately I also race with a single screen because I’m a GFX lover and when I do set everything to ultra and 26 cars on the grid I keep 70fps (the max my screen can display). Rain, night etc no problemo, And it all plays so smooth.
Yes It is a bit of getting used to one screen again, I did play on triples for a couple of years, but the fun part is, I enjoy it even more than with a triple setup. Just because it all looks so damn good. I don’t want to spend €1000 or more on a new GFX card, and besides that, I would need a new CPU and Powerunit as well. Perhaps I buy a new larger single screen. 34inch ultra wide or something like that.
Or I just stick what I have and enjoy it.
dear all , I am looking to migrate from my current triple 32" aoc screens.
I have narrowed down two screens : LG OLED C1 and the Gigabytes FO48U .
Anyone here would have some experience in a triple screen setup using those screens ?
If anyone has thought about DIY some bezel free kits, I'd say do it. I was sceptical and certainly didn't want to pay the $200 odd dollars for the Asus kit so grabbed a free non working 39"TV from marketplace and had a go.
This is the first attempt and I'm going to neaten it up and keep it.
That looks great to me. Nice job..
Separate names with a comma.