Is FOV only half the equation?

What is the difference between 1st and 3rd camera?
By 1st I mean the one where you can turn on/off the wheel, driver (is this one default to set FOV?).
2nd is the VR camera. What is 3rd?

 

What you mean by calling it VR camera? First one is the one you can turn on and off driver and wheel, second one is the camera placed on the dash and third one is the one that has helmet and moves around,
I thought you meant ‘VR’ when talking about the 3rd one that it ‘simulates’ looking aerobic and so on,
The one you should use with correctly calculated FOV is the first one, if you want you can turn of the wheel then or move the seat position a bit (small changes) to make wheel on the screen align with your real wheel, if I remember correctly the point of this thread was about not only FOV but also camera position so you can go to previous pages and find some vital info there

 

https://www.assettocorsa.net/forum/index.php?threads/view-position.61445/
@HeartOrHead sorry that is the thread I was talking about

 

I called it VR camera because, like wrote earlier, I launch ACC in Steam VR mode, only in 2nd camera my TrackIR works.

After reading thread mentioned by you, I still have doubts that for setting the correct FOV if correct camera is the 1st or 3rd one - as this one is from the eyes/helmet of virtual driver.

 

And it should be from the eyes of the virtual driver, camera position is where is the image showed on the screen seen from, and it’s not the place where it’s being shown, camera position is not where the screen is, it’s where the eyes are, dash camera is made a bit like this so it’s placed far forward on the dash and with larger FOV, it does the trick for people that don’t like to see the interior but have large FOV and still be inside the car, but calculated FOV and camera position is totally not like that,
Also it’s important to mention that going from sth like default settings those calculated ones may appear weird and wrong at first because you see so much less than you are used to,
It would be nice to maybe get a photo of what you see with your setup, it would be easier for me to get where are you at if you know what I mean?

 

And I don’t really know much about trackIR so I won’t help you regarding that

 

I've set my calculated FOV (30) in the 3rd cam view (helmet). Then I set FOV 30 in the 2nd cam and adjusted via height/distance to match the view from 3rd cam. Seems all right now.
Problem was I started with 30 in 2nd cam view and is was way too narrow/close up.

 

Great

 

FOV is nonsense - set it up how it feels comfortable for you. Using David Perel <drives for Ferrari in GT3> as an example, he has the weirdest FOV you have ever seen whilst playing a sim, and alludes to the fact that his FOV is ACTUALLY what he sees whilst sitting in the driver's seat.

 

I love how regarding FOV discussions there is always someone mentioning David, I totally agree that you need to go with what you find comfortable and there is no denying that for a lot of people calculated FOV is just a no-no no matter what, David is one of those people BUT there is also no denying that there is such thing as calculated FOV that makes distances more natural and less distorted with a disadvantage being lower field of vision that some find being a pain in the *** and some find perfectly usable,
I totally get where David is comming from with his “this is how much you see being in the car” but that is totally useless argument against those that use calculated FOV because those are two different types of presenting virtual world on a flat screen,
First one (David’s) is meant to present a picture of what you would see being in the car put onto small relative to real word screen where things that are on the side of the screen are things that are in the peripheral vision in the car,
Second is meant to present a picture of real size virtual word seen through the window that is your monitor,
Both have advantages and disadvantages,
and some prefer one over the other, that is just a preference thing,
But David’s statement that there is no such thing as calculated FOV is just wrong because there is such thing and comes with its advantages , it’s just a whole different way of presenting virtual world and clearly David doesn’t see those advantages and as I said it’s a preference thing and he just prefers high FOV,
I hugely support him as a driver but him being a real GT3 driver doesn’t make his FOV opinion any more valuable, handling-wise of course he is the man, but camera settings cannot be said to be correct or not correct because it’s a preference thing and both are correct in their own way

 

Guess what, I'll take his <and my own> opinion over yours .

 

Sure, do that.

I think @Maciej Malinowski 's post wasn't intended to change or to belittle anyone's opinion. It's one of the most accurrate, peaceful and diverse short texts I have read on this topic

The nature of his post is the exact opposite of this statement:

 

I don't recall asking for your opinion, or replying to any post you made. I'm sure Maciej is capable of speaking for himself.

 

Damn you're in a bad mood.

 

Well, I’m sure that FOV is the correct answer to have 1:1 scale of IRL view but this is not working fine for me:
I got 3x 27” monitors and my eyes are 75cm far from the screen in the center. Using in game settings (distance 750mm and screen width 600mm) what I get is a huge wheel and huge hands.... to correct this I must reduce distance at 600mm... ok for maths but something is not working in my case

 

FOV is not to give close to RL scale of the cockpit but of the track.
To have a closer to RL representation of the car interior is enough to change the driving view position.

When the FOV is changed is highly likely that the view position must be changed also to compensate for the car interior size change.

There are limits of how forward or backward the cockpit view position can be changed, therefore if a very low FOV is used, it might not be possible to put the view so far back as needed to have good representation of the car interior.

 

Thanks for the explanation!

 

I am capable of speaking for myself yes , as I said I don't mind people using one over the other and that constant war between which is better is just a nonsense because it all bepends on the person and his taste and what way he persives the virtual word and what advantages or disadvantages he in both ways of looking at virtual world that I described earier ,
Correct me if I am wrong but I understand you saying "FOV is a nonsense" as your statment that Mathematicaly calculated FOV is a loads of bollocks and does not come with any advantages at all, if that is the case I am here to inform you that your statment is wrong proven by many that use it and are happy uning it with it's advantages of real size and easier distance judgement given, and again I can't stress it enough -> It all depends on the person many see those advantages but many also don't see them what so ever, there is nothing wrong in saying that it doesn't work for you and you prefer the other one, wider and the one that you feel comfortable because of it's advantages being wider field of vision and easier spaceial awareness ,
I replied to your comment because(from what I understand) it says that one of those ways of looking at a virtual word competly does not exist and it toatally wrong which as I explained is not true because it does exist and work for some of us, so let those who enjoy it discuse about it rather than saying that what they are discusing is wrong in the first place just because you found it not working for you or had somebody telling you that,
Also why @LeDude83 can't have his own opinion, let him speak that what the forum is for ,
At the same time I am not saying that you can't have yours, of course you can, it's just that I found this particular one being worthy of taking a look on

 

This is a forum and anyone here is free to state their opinion, whether you ask for it or not.
If you want a private conversation there's a function for that.

 

Back on topic: on my 2nd PC I started using look with wheel yesterday and I like it a lot. Automatic look-to-apex makes me sich but this LWW is fantastic. Very intuitively, you'll be looking at the apexes of even the tightest turns.

Especially if you prefer mathematically correct FOV, this is a peach! Using 28° FOV on a 24" 16:9 monitor.

So if FOV is half the equation, my TrackHat and LWW are the other half.