Generic Optimal FOV Discussion

Fist off, let me say that this makes a huge difference. Yesterday, I changed the FOV, just to test it, and I was driving completely different. The feel, the immersion, it was like I was playing a different game. I've never tampered with the FOV before, but after last night, I'm convinced it makes a HUGE difference.

Having said that, it seems really complicated to get the optimal setting for me. I've seen other threads open about this, but it's too many posts to skim through with a lot of different opinions, so I was hoping to get some clarity.

I use a 24" monitor, 16:9 @ 1080p. There's this calculator....

http://www.projectimmersion.com/fov/

First thing, it only let's you go up to 50" from the screen, and I'm sitting about 55" away from the screen. Second, when I put in my settings (or the closest to it), it tells me my FOV should be 13.42. But that's a little confusing because in the game, the lowest setting is 29 and even at that, it seems way too close. So am I missing something? What can I do to get the optimal setting? Or is it just about preference?

Also on a side note, am I the only one that the FOV is not saving for? My FOV keeps going back to default everytime I start a new session.

 

I play on a 27" monitor with my eyes about 67cm (don't know inch) from the screen wich gives me a 29° fov in assetto. Pfieuw it just fits haha

so yeah if possible go sit as close as you can without seeing individual pixels and then set your fov to max 5° more than what the calculator says and it's all good.

If you have a rig and wheel it's really nice and I would say essential to have a 1;1 scale.

 

Good video that explains the importance of a correct field of view.

 

For everyone's interest, remember that AC uses vertical FOV.

 

http://themetalmuncher.github.io/fov-calc/
This can be handy if you already have your horizontal fov number.

 

Excellent!!!!!
Thanks

 

Im on 65 inch Sony Bravia ZD9 and on Project cars i used between 80 to 90 but there is differend i think is "horizontal" FOV and on Assetto is "vertical" or was at reverse , so for me is good at 65-75 and later zoom a bit with the zoom in arrow, just to match my personal feel in the differend cars, and ajust to see a big part of the front "window"! But in any case the FOV is totally personal, have people who likes it lower, others like me a bit more higher but not too extream because starts to "deform" the cars in your vision and the road itself... So make sure to set a FOV in a good spot in the track with a parked car front of you to see the best how you prefere it! (ask a friend in online session to help you position it front of you at 10 meters...then do your FOV set up)

 

Thank you so much for this information!!
Playing AC since February i never touched the "FOV-Thing" until this thread was opened. Yesterday i took a closer look at it - had 50 and 90cm from Monitor. Now 35 and 75cm - the immersion is so different.
Needed some laps to learn how to drive now and then improved so that i could do short fuse at spa (only bronce....love the achivements atm).
Love this forum. Helps a lot!

 

FOV is both subjective (preference) and objective (factual).

The size of objects, their location within your view, and the translation (movement) of objects across your screen are all dictated by simple geometry. That is to say, for a given screen size and viewing distance, the correct field of view will render objects at the same size as if you were sitting in an actual car. Likewise, objects will translate (move) through your view in the same proportions as real life. This is fact, not preference.

Unfortunately, many console gamers are playing on a couch (more than 1 meter away) with a reasonably sized television 36"-55". If the geometry of your viewing setup doesn't work well for optimal FOV, you have to compromise. That's where preference comes in: how much are you willing to compromise?

To get a sense of how poor the geometry of a typical couch setup is, just imagine someone built a black box around a car. The wall in front of you is the same distance as your TV. Now imagine that someone cut a hole in the wall that is the size of your TV. It's like viewing the world through a keyhole.

In order to see more, you have two options: make the window larger (bigger TV), or move closer to the window (sit closer to the TV). When you look at the geometry, something interesting is revealed. Moving closer yields much greater improvement than making the window larger. This is why it is so important to sit as close as possible to your TV.

 

I was not aware of this. In reality though, adjusting the FOV, whether it be vertical or horizontal, impacts on what is seen in both axes, doesn't it? Is there a difference, in intention for having an adjustment which impacts vertical over horizontal?

 

I wanted to change TV (37") for bigger one in order to be able to set a bigger FOV, that let you see the cockpit (let's say 54° as by default). So, instead of calculate several configuration online I created a spreadsheet with a range of screens and distance to see the best match or the acheivable one. As you see below it' not comforting:

Considering the minimum value is 29° and cannot make a hole in the wall to sit closer to TV (min distance is 130cm in my case), with my actual TV the recommended one is ridicolus narrow and not acheivable; even going for a 55" I could just set it to the minimum.
In such condition for "speed" and realism is better to use the bonnet view then, but loosing a lot of "immersion".

I'm thinking so of mounting (new) TV on extendible arms in order to move it closer and get other 40cm. It would lead to FOV 42°. But TV must also be 4K then, because already at 130cm I can see pixels, getting closer would deteriorate more.

If someone need the spreadsheet I'm ready to provide. There is also the hFOV in another tab.

 

Do you have a Google Account? You could publish this as a Google Spreadsheet, which would be tremendously helpful. I'm happy to assist as well. If you send me a private message, I'll reply with my email. You could send me the spreadsheet file and I could upload to Google Sheets, and give you credit, of course.

 

Regarding optimal distance and FOV, keep in mind that these calculations give you the "optimal" FOV. Your brain is able to adjust to a non-optimal FOV pretty easily. The key is using a consistent view (dash, for example), FOV setting, and viewing distance, so that your perception can map to the size of the TV and the way objects translate across the screen.

In this context, translate is a term used to describe the movement of objects across the screen. When you move around in the real world, all objects translate across your field of view relative to the location of your eyes. With a non-optimal FOV setting, objects on screen will translate around a point that is not centered on you, the viewer. However, objects will still translate around a single point (the "camera"), which is why our brains can pretty easily adjust to perceive movement correctly.

There are limits, however, so the closer to optimal you get, the less you're asking of your brain. At some point, the distortion becomes so severe, that your immersion breaks. This point is different for everyone, and finding yours is key. In other words, I wouldn't obsess over achieving "perfect" FOV so much as I would focus on balancing your FOV setting with your ability to see what's around you and your sense of immersion.

 

Here is a link to the spreadsheed
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/15R_SMtefHtSDQ5rK_1Qj3xeiaRqLmU-fMw0QrMFF1qM/edit?usp=sharing
You can set the screen aspect ratio and change/add columns to fit your distance, or rows to fit your screen.

 

I had short test, and definitively with a Fov set to 31° (instead of the previous 54°) the feeling of speed, apex and breaking points are magically much easy to catch. Cons, in sharp turns you really have no idea where you are going.

 

Doesn't look like anyone answered this directly.

Short answer: No, there is no difference in intention.

Long answer: The difference between horizontal FOV and vertical FOV is simply the axis being measured. It's no different than specifying the height of a proportional rectangle by height, versus specifying it by width. For example, if I defined our rectangle as always having an aspect ratio of 16:9, you specify the size using height or width, and there is only one practical impact.

Specifying by height means that small changes in specified distance will have a proportionally larger impact on overall size; because you multiply by 1.7777 to get the width. When you specify the width, you multiply by 0.5625 to get the height. Numerically, small changes in vertical height have a greater impact on overall size (area) when using a 16:9 aspect ratio.

 

Thanks mate. Brilliant answer! Clears it up for me nicely. Cheers.