FOV calculation same as AC?

And I have to say - I am really TRYING to enjoy ACC - I love driving Monza... but to do it in AC1 with a V8, GT3 or whatever is just better - more immersive and more FUN. I get low 1:50 in a growling V8 doing hot laps and I CANNOT reproduce the feeling or fun factor in ACC - I really hope that changes... to be able to change the view settings in AC1 so intricately is completely UNMATCHED in ACC and sadly I cannot see that changing. VR? I like to be able to see my gearbox, wheel, hubs, Hbrake etc etc

 

Yep, turn the wheel OFF, look at the MIDDLE of the screen and ENJOY - I took a picture of my eye setting in my real 350z and replicated that in AC1 - haha it is FUN...

 

haha nice! 350z sweet! love the sound of those.

 

both AC and ACC use vertical FOV.

It's obvious on a 32:9 screen

 

Yes, they sound great haha

 

So the formula to calculate is the same.

 

When Lift + Thrust = Load + Drag Anything will fly

 

After reading this thread I have played around a bit with my camera settings and have a couple of questions that I'd like others' views on. Full disclosure: I am a lowly single-screen user.

So, after using the formula vFOV=2*(DEGREES(ATAN(((Image Height/2)/Viewing Distance)))) I come out with a value of around 32 degrees, which seems about right given what I've read above. It feels pretty narrow, but I expected that. My questions are as follows:

1. While a can buy that the view is more 'real' at this FOV, the speed is just not right. I know what it feels like to travel at 20, 50, 100+ km/h and it does not feel like this. The cars feel unrealistically slow. Am I alone here?
2. Why is the default FOV in-game set to 54 degree by Kunos? Based on the above formula this would require either a gigantic screen or to have your nose pressed against a reasonable sized one. I must say that at this FOV the speed does feel closer to reality, so I suspect this has something to do with it?

After all this, I have settled for something closer to Kunos' 'recommended'(?) FOV, rather that the more 'scientific' one described above as the game feels much more authentic this way. Am I wrong to do so?

Thanks.

 

bringing this post back to life... . I recently did a rig upgrade. Now have 34" LG ultrawide. It is about 22-23" from my face. Previously, I used 27" 16:9 much farther away.

Anyway, playing around I discovered the Helmet Cam and set an FOV I think around 39 or so. But then, I used seat adjustment and moved BACK... a lot, something like -15 iirc.

I know the view is subjective and personal, but anything discretely WRONG about setting FOV then moving seat forward or back? When I'm in the car and not moving, they basically look like they are doing the same thing?

 

I find that running a more 'correct' FOV results in me moving the view back as well.

 

i play with 19 deg FOV using dash camera, but i also use my second 5:4 monitor along with my 16:9 as main so i have wider view, 3200x1080 resolution.

 

Moving the view back just simulates having unrealistically long arms.

 

switching to free cam shows moving the view back when using realistic FOV is the right thing to do.

 

Please elaborate on how moving the point of view to an unrealistic position is 'right'.

 

Maybe the "zero" position is a compromise made for most people which are using small monitors and high fov ?

 

That does make sense, yeah. Although to be honest I've not had any issues with the default position in VR, feels perfectly natural.

I'd been thinking of more extreme examples when people set a 'correct' FoV and then move the PoV way back because they can no longer see the dashboard instruments.