- 3,177
- Lokeren
- breyzipp
- breyzipp
Please enlighten me how this sudden Forza vs GT6 comment or mentioning of car sound and handling is in any way relevant to the discussion thread.
Cockpit view and adjustable field of view. Is it a must in GT7?
- Thread starter Johnnypenso
- 65 comments
- 15,377 views
Please enlighten me how this sudden Forza vs GT6 comment or mentioning of car sound and handling is in any way relevant to the discussion thread.
NCRthree
Premium
- 1,797
- Virginia
- ncrthree/GTP_ncrthree
Yes and yes. I converted to cockpit view years back in GT5. No way I could go back to a PS2 type driving experience. I'm faster and more consistent in cockpit view now. I even use it on standard cars.
For sure I'd like to have a more adjustable FOV. Not going to get my hopes up, I know how limited PD makes their options.
For sure I'd like to have a more adjustable FOV. Not going to get my hopes up, I know how limited PD makes their options.
FastFurious77
Premium
- 1,823
- England
Hello and apologies much Mr Breyzip don't get upset or knickers in a twist oh the german sense of humour - it isn't really relevant I know I was just poking an irrelevant comment into the mix because I could for a laugh I knew you would go crazy and jump out of your seat in rage lol. Please kindly lighten up lol.
I think GT7 should have all the views. But with GT5/GT6 you can change the cockpit view to be closer or wider FOV. I think for GT6 in cockpit view narrower is the best way to go to get the best immersion for an inside view. I haven't experienced PCars so I don't know how many camera modes there are.
I sit 6 feet away from my 42" Plasma TV which is higher than my head and situated on an inside wall facing a window. I still get a great experience with both chase car camera views and cockpit view. They are the main two views I use. I never usually use bonnet view or bumper view.
I think GT7 should have all the views. But with GT5/GT6 you can change the cockpit view to be closer or wider FOV. I think for GT6 in cockpit view narrower is the best way to go to get the best immersion for an inside view. I haven't experienced PCars so I don't know how many camera modes there are.
I sit 6 feet away from my 42" Plasma TV which is higher than my head and situated on an inside wall facing a window. I still get a great experience with both chase car camera views and cockpit view. They are the main two views I use. I never usually use bonnet view or bumper view.
Last edited:
- 9,295
- Duisburg
FastFurious77
Premium
- 1,823
- England
Danke shoen Luminis! 
my mistake you sure did... I rest my case that not all germans cough cough, belgians are created equally and in fact do have a sense of humour! I didn't intend that to be read in a bad or sarcastic way though @breyzipp. Sorry 
I love you bro! :cuddles: Spread the love!
my mistake you sure did... I rest my case that not all germans cough cough, belgians are created equally and in fact do have a sense of humour! I didn't intend that to be read in a bad or sarcastic way though @breyzipp. Sorry I love you bro! :cuddles: Spread the love!
Last edited:
- 1,762
- Germany
- xXGalmOneXx
- xXGalm OneXx
The point some people mentioned regarding performance issues... well it's not affecting it. In GT5 with the secret menu you could adjust the FOV as much you want you could set it extremely wide to see everything in the cars cockpit almost down to the feet. And the game ran just as in the regular FOV.
My problem with racing games is that I always brake too late and go into the turn way too fast. I'm just not a good judge on that in games whereas I don't have that problem in a real car luckily. I don't think it's just the speed difference between a racing game and regular driving, it feels more like a problem in perceiving depth in a game. I wonder if stereoscopic 3D makes racing games easier to play.
---------------------------------
etui samsung galaxy s5 coque samsung galaxy s5
---------------------------------
etui samsung galaxy s5 coque samsung galaxy s5
Last edited:
- 5,351
- United States
- kudos00
These are musts for GT7.
Also, I was proud they met us halfway about the "wrong direction" pop-up. It's not there during Time Trials (appealing to me - Eiger Nordwand Short, i'ma take to the "track" now). Still, I would like to have the option to turn off that flashing menace.
I figured they would have realized the options (speaking on the FOV adjustability) are there for PC racers. I'm starting to think they ONLY look at the competition who are within reach, i.e., console racers.
STOMPING ON THAT fgjkfdgd BRAKE PEDAL!!!! over and over and over again. You have to recognize the car's limits, and you NEED to memorize brake markers.
Interesting. I used "-ize" twice in a sentence. hmmm this fool is cool. I am so interesting. DAMN IM BORED.
Welcome to GTP. It's not like this usually. Only half of my time here. Could be 23% of the time. Let's just say that PD needs to release that Course Maker already. I'm getting fidgety. I've become a Fidget. Is that even a thing? omgawd
all right. done
Also, I was proud they met us halfway about the "wrong direction" pop-up. It's not there during Time Trials (appealing to me - Eiger Nordwand Short, i'ma take to the "track" now). Still, I would like to have the option to turn off that flashing menace.
I figured they would have realized the options (speaking on the FOV adjustability) are there for PC racers. I'm starting to think they ONLY look at the competition who are within reach, i.e., console racers.
You be-come One with THE Car when You are
STOMPING ON THAT fgjkfdgd BRAKE PEDAL!!!! over and over and over again. You have to recognize the car's limits, and you NEED to memorize brake markers.
Interesting. I used "-ize" twice in a sentence. hmmm this fool is cool. I am so interesting. DAMN IM BORED.
Welcome to GTP. It's not like this usually. Only half of my time here. Could be 23% of the time. Let's just say that PD needs to release that Course Maker already. I'm getting fidgety. I've become a Fidget. Is that even a thing? omgawd
all right. done
Last edited:
- 2,884
- Near Reading, Uk
- JohnSchoonsBeard
When I've used it 3d does make it a little easier to judge turn in points when cornering.
The biggest improvement I found in judging distance and corners was setting a realistic field of view though. In GTAcademy I was using cockpit mode already but noticeably improved both my time and consistency when I changed to using the narrowest setting. Calculating your theoretical ideal point of view based on game, distance from screen and size of screen is a great starting point. Then adjust from there. Obviously Gran Turismo is currently more limited in that respect although has a little more control when using the miltimonitor set up option (even when only using one screen)
Having seen how the options in Project Cars work I cannot wait to get started on that. Field of view can be tailored in the following ways.
1 - By type of view. Cockpit, helmet, chase, bonnet, bumper, etc
2 - Speed sensitivity. Adjusts field of view automatically between user set limits depending on speed. e.g 40mph 60 degrees 200mph 80 degrees (or the orher way round if you prefer.
I believe the seat position can also be moved forwards and backwards (and maybe up/down?) in cockpit view according to the car used. In Stock Car Extreme this certainly helps with still getting the mirror or parts of the mirror into view on a single screen if that's important to you.
PD would be wise to include those options or even improve on them.
- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
An accurate Field of View combined with getting as close to the monitor as possible will help with this. With an accurate FOV, objects on the screen move at the same speed as they would in real life, meaning you would time your inputs the same way you would in real life. The base FOV in GT is unrealistically high if you sit even moderately close to the screen, which provides for a greater sense of speed, but in making everything appear to move unrealistically fast, it also makes it harder to be accurate with your inputs. There is a thread in the Project Cars Forum that deals with this and it's worth a read. It's well worth it to watch the video from Empty Box to gain some insight into this.
- 236
- United States
- HarlemG27
- Youngbumpy
I use a g27, rig, and 50in tv 3feet away at eye level
Like said cockpit view is a necessity to a game labeled "the driving simulator" as is support for g27 in gt7
If gt7 pulls a premium/simple cockpit veiw they can hang it up. I already waited two years to buy gt6 because I knew there wasnt much of a improvement. I got it basically for the online, which is sad. If all the cars were premium it would have been a day one purchase.
Remember nba live? Exactly!
Like said cockpit view is a necessity to a game labeled "the driving simulator" as is support for g27 in gt7
If gt7 pulls a premium/simple cockpit veiw they can hang it up. I already waited two years to buy gt6 because I knew there wasnt much of a improvement. I got it basically for the online, which is sad. If all the cars were premium it would have been a day one purchase.
Remember nba live? Exactly!
- 8,723
Adjustable FoV is a must, but there is a performance caveat that I'll come to. Adjustable seating position may help, too.
The problem with a single screen is that the FoV you choose will be a compromise between peripheral vision, timing cues etc. (high FoV) and the high-res feedback of the car's attitude and distant cars and other cues down the track (low FoV). That compromise is different for different people, probably in different cars on different tracks.
Many people can't afford three screens, in terms of cash or space, but they really do make a difference. I used to have three screens for PC sims a few years back, but don't have the space now, and couldn't justify the expense of three PS4s anyway... I miss the comparative lack of compromise between conflicting ends of the FoV scale, but I'm hoping Head Mounted Displays can help there (although it's potentially a different kind of compromise). Cockpit views are laregly useless to me until I can surmount said FoV compromise.
On to the performance issue:
In the best case, the number of polygons added to the render list will be quadratic in the FoV angle, possibly cubic for areas with a lot of "verticality". The resolution decrease is only linear. So increasing the FoV generally requires more polygons to be drawn, unless you want a noticeable reduction in visual detail. Luckily, usable FoV settings only cover a small range.
The game keeps a list of the "currently visible" polygons and only renders those, regardless of how many are in memory. In the most basic sense, anything outside the view frustum is culled from that list every frame; maintaining that list is a cost that is just dealt with and the performance we have is in spite of it (or, rather, because its benefits outweigh its direct cost).
You'd only see an impact if the game is polygon count limited, incidentally. Which PC games typically aren't (usually pixel limited), but any GT on PS3 definitely is. Some games also account for FoV via a global LoD bias: higher FoV, set LoD swapping to lower detail items sooner. In GT, a lot of the screen effects are dependent on the FoV, and presumably making these dynamically take that into account requires too much extra per-pixel processing.
With a continuous LoD system, such as the new adaptive meshes and "tessellation" allow, especially should they be applied to scenery as well, the poly count can be more accurately controlled and scenes can be more versatile and dynamic as a result: including, potentially, FoV changes.
The problem with a single screen is that the FoV you choose will be a compromise between peripheral vision, timing cues etc. (high FoV) and the high-res feedback of the car's attitude and distant cars and other cues down the track (low FoV). That compromise is different for different people, probably in different cars on different tracks.
Many people can't afford three screens, in terms of cash or space, but they really do make a difference. I used to have three screens for PC sims a few years back, but don't have the space now, and couldn't justify the expense of three PS4s anyway... I miss the comparative lack of compromise between conflicting ends of the FoV scale, but I'm hoping Head Mounted Displays can help there (although it's potentially a different kind of compromise). Cockpit views are laregly useless to me until I can surmount said FoV compromise.
On to the performance issue:
In the best case, the number of polygons added to the render list will be quadratic in the FoV angle, possibly cubic for areas with a lot of "verticality". The resolution decrease is only linear. So increasing the FoV generally requires more polygons to be drawn, unless you want a noticeable reduction in visual detail. Luckily, usable FoV settings only cover a small range.
The game keeps a list of the "currently visible" polygons and only renders those, regardless of how many are in memory. In the most basic sense, anything outside the view frustum is culled from that list every frame; maintaining that list is a cost that is just dealt with and the performance we have is in spite of it (or, rather, because its benefits outweigh its direct cost).
You'd only see an impact if the game is polygon count limited, incidentally. Which PC games typically aren't (usually pixel limited), but any GT on PS3 definitely is. Some games also account for FoV via a global LoD bias: higher FoV, set LoD swapping to lower detail items sooner. In GT, a lot of the screen effects are dependent on the FoV, and presumably making these dynamically take that into account requires too much extra per-pixel processing.
With a continuous LoD system, such as the new adaptive meshes and "tessellation" allow, especially should they be applied to scenery as well, the poly count can be more accurately controlled and scenes can be more versatile and dynamic as a result: including, potentially, FoV changes.
Last edited:
- 1,079
- Norway
Well, in the case of gran turismo, the FoV is usually too wide, so a FoV slider would for the most part be used to narrow it down to realistic values, so that would reduce the number of polygons.
In order for the standard FoV in cockpit mode to be accurate for me, I would have to sit less than a meter away from my 42" tv, and that's not something most people do. Further away than that, and narrower FoVs would be what you want.
A slightly wider FoV than that would probably be acceptable for those who just wants that "sense of speed", in exchange for tesselation reducing polygon counts to a greater degree.
In order for the standard FoV in cockpit mode to be accurate for me, I would have to sit less than a meter away from my 42" tv, and that's not something most people do. Further away than that, and narrower FoVs would be what you want.
A slightly wider FoV than that would probably be acceptable for those who just wants that "sense of speed", in exchange for tesselation reducing polygon counts to a greater degree.
- 8,723
I find that, in practice, they're too narrow. It's a compromise between what is "realistic" (the unrealistically tiny virtual aperture of a typical single screen setup notwithstanding) and what gives the best control and feedback (which itself is a compromise of high and low FoV advantages).
I can't see the point of trying to play the game looking through a virtual postage stamp, just because you choose to sit on your sofa and not press your nose to the screen. In terms of total control and immersion, high FoV wins, just as it does in real life: i.e. multi-screen or wide-angle HMD. Everyone else should be free to choose their own personal compromise, higher or lower than default.
- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
I agree with EmptyBox for the most part, a realistically calculated FOV or slightly higher, combined with a close seating position and decent size screen, is the best combination for car control and precision/accuracy on the track IMO. Things move at a natural pace and look "real" as opposed to looking backwards through binoculars as it does with an unrealistically high FOV. I've found in AC that in terms of both total control and immersion, an accurate FOV wins hands down. I'm faster and more consistent as a result and hit more of my marks on every lap.
High FOV provides more information but looks horrible IMO. Accurate FOV makes everything on the screen look proportionally accurate, but the caveat is it works best when you are close to the screen and on a larger tv screen, which I think many of us are these days. If one's tv/monitor is small, or they sit far from the screen, a wider FOV might be better for you. But if you can sit relatively close and your screen is 42" or bigger, I highly suggest that if you get the chance, calculate the FOV for your seating position and give it a spin.
Just having the abilty to easily alter FOV and seating position would be a boon for this franchise of course. Then we can all adjust it to our own liking.
Last edited:
- 8,723
Having experimented with FoV in sims for nigh on 20 years, the conclusion I came to was that you can't use the same compromise for all situations, so I went with the three screens. I'm hoping HMDs offer similar benefits, I'm past faffing with settings per race, per car etc.
I also agree with Empty Bax in that I set my FoV slightly higher than the geometric optimal for "comfort" and go higher again if I need to know what's going on around me. I sit quite close to my PC monitor, including for console games.
Note that stating the realistic FoV settings work better if you sit closer implies that higher FoVs are better. We can tolerate quite a lot of distortion.
It also underlines the point that there is a difference between the geometric optimum, and the perceptual optimum (three screens / HMD). Using the geometric optimum should not come at the expense of perception, as it might when sat on the couch.
So yes, fully adjustable FoV in both directions.
I also agree with Empty Bax in that I set my FoV slightly higher than the geometric optimal for "comfort" and go higher again if I need to know what's going on around me. I sit quite close to my PC monitor, including for console games.
Note that stating the realistic FoV settings work better if you sit closer implies that higher FoVs are better. We can tolerate quite a lot of distortion.
It also underlines the point that there is a difference between the geometric optimum, and the perceptual optimum (three screens / HMD). Using the geometric optimum should not come at the expense of perception, as it might when sat on the couch.
So yes, fully adjustable FoV in both directions.
- 9,945
- Denmark
I think it's a must. I appreciate the immersion factor of the the cockpit view but some cars have very poor interior camera positions. For example, the '05 Subaru Impreza gives a very good view of the ceiling while instruments are cut in half at the bottom. It's not completely useless but it's seems like PD might be guided by a strict design choice that ultimately sacrifices much of the hard work that went into modeling dashboards and steering wheels.
- 93
- Netherlands
- ARP_273
I'd say cockpit view with adjustable FoV is a must. Adjustable camera position would be very nice.
I've just started using the Narrowest setting yesterday, because N24h onboards. It's a shame so much of the detailed cockpit is lost. However, better view of the road, better sense of breaking and turn in points, better sense of distance to other cars (and somtimes a better visible dash) more than make up for that. Also I think the other cars look better now, they look closer and therefore bigger and more detailed.
Another obvious problem with a narrower FoV is no more mirrors. The blind spot indicators work great, but only for cars that are close.
Strange thing is it seems the look right/left buttons now look further right and left. It used to be about 45 degrees now it's about 90. I get lost trying to look into my mirrors
Would be nice to be able to adjust this. Also.. virtual mirrors.. PD are you listening?
I've just started using the Narrowest setting yesterday, because N24h onboards. It's a shame so much of the detailed cockpit is lost. However, better view of the road, better sense of breaking and turn in points, better sense of distance to other cars (and somtimes a better visible dash) more than make up for that. Also I think the other cars look better now, they look closer and therefore bigger and more detailed.
Another obvious problem with a narrower FoV is no more mirrors. The blind spot indicators work great, but only for cars that are close.
Strange thing is it seems the look right/left buttons now look further right and left. It used to be about 45 degrees now it's about 90. I get lost trying to look into my mirrors
Would be nice to be able to adjust this. Also.. virtual mirrors.. PD are you listening?
- 4,616
- SoCal
- GTP_MooCow
This is a very nice video.
The Test 2 seems to be most logical to me, because at higher speed. We tend to have that Tunnel vision, hyper focused to the road ahead...
GT Sport better have the Field Of Vision for each Point Of View customizable, as well as the customizable screen information displays...
Formula1269
(Banned)
- 426
Adjustable FOV and cockpit position are a must have feature these days, as far as I'm concerned. The lack of such options is a deal breaker for me.
- 8,723
Adjustable FoV has performance implications, though.
- 2,884
- Near Reading, Uk
- JohnSchoonsBeard
It doesn't seem to make a difference in Project Cars on PS4.
- 328
- Canada
- HeyZeus666
Fov adjustability is a required feature as far as I'm concerned. I have a friend who bought a T300 and raced a lot of dirt rally but ultimately gave up on it - I think it was because his fov was terrible. He was sitting on a couch 12ft away from a 60" tv mounted above a fireplace, the top of the tv was almost 8ft off the floor!
I use narrow cockpit view and I sit 3ft away and my head is centred vertically with the 52" tv. I have all the same complaints about cockpit view that have already been discussed so here's a thread where you can cast your vote about a customizable interface for gtsport! https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/threads/the-interface.346567/
I use narrow cockpit view and I sit 3ft away and my head is centred vertically with the 52" tv. I have all the same complaints about cockpit view that have already been discussed so here's a thread where you can cast your vote about a customizable interface for gtsport! https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/threads/the-interface.346567/
- 8,723
As well it shouldn't. That doesn't mean it was easy.
- 1,492
- Germany
- KiroKai
- KiroKai
It barely does in GT6, plus tesselation already takes wider FoV into account when running it. Not that GT6 runs great in cockpit view using any field of view... but overall the performance hit is minimal vs the improved experience and better sense of speed.
