Listen, I can only go off of what you've said, and you tagged me in a reply to a comment I made many months ago. So if you're going to say something that is false, like "you are completely blind to what's behind you" or "you can't detect a divebomber until it's too late," I'm going to contest it. You are not completely blind. You said to me, that chase cam was great for side visuals but not good for seeing what's in front of you or behind you. I've argued against that, because I use chase cam and I don't have any issue knowing what's behind me and I definitely don't have any issue seeing what's in front of me....not sure why you'd say that.
Then you didn't read everything I said. Nothing I said was false. Outside of the few feet you can see in chase cam and radar you are blind to what is going on behind you UNLESS you click the lookback button.
Nothing about that statement was false, it's 100% FACT and is demonstratable as well.
You may THINK you don't have less information in front/behind, but reality says differently. We can literally look at each view and show how you are wrong. Sure you can see, but you have less visual information, and with the rear you have far less information. This isn't really debatable. You even stated "It also allows you to see better on the sides of your car" yet you acknowledge the fact that it has less front/rear visibility. You can't have it both ways.
When I'm heading into a corner, I already know what's behind me and where they are because I've used the lookback several times before reaching the braking zone. If anyone is close enough to me to warrant modifying my lines, they are within the radar and I don't have to use the lookback mid-corner. If they send it from way back, they will enter my radar quickly and I still have time to avoid. Do I have as much time to avoid as you would with a mirror? No, but I never claimed I did, just that I too have the ability to avoid divebombs using chase cam. You also said before the radar only covers a few feet, but I can see between 2-3 cars length behind me with the radar. How many feet is that? 20? 25? More than a few for sure. Again, I can only respond to the language you actually use, and what you said was incorrect.
You continue to miss the point. The fact that you have to use the lookback at all proves my point. And having to glance over to the corner of the screen for radar is also less efficient than a rear mirror. How can what I said be incorrect when you literally just agreed with me that you have less time to avoid than I do with a mirror. Ok maybe radar is more than a few feet, but now youre just getting into nitpicking over the actual measurable distance which is a red herring and completely avoids the point that was being made in that the mirror has far more information and from further back.
I really don't see why you are trying to argue it further when you admit that I'm right. Bumper/cockpit have superior front/rear spatial awareness vs chase. That was the point, and you've agreed with that point. Trying to say "it's more than a few feet" is a silly argument when the end result is the same, you have less visibility.
In theory, some of what you're saying about removing your focus is true. But I'm here telling you that in practice it's not. Maybe if you were to try using chase cam you'd lose your focus by hitting the lookback button, because you're not used to it. But me and many others who are used to it, don't seem to have any issue. No focus lost. A split second is enough to see where cars are and we make it through the corners just fine. I could say the same thing about you looking at the mirror, causing you to lose your focus, but I didn't say that because I know better than that. You are used to using the mirror, and I am not. I would probably lose focus when I first tried to use the mirror, but later I would get good at it, the same way you'd get good at chase cam if you tried. But if I were to use that angle, I easily could....if someone is close enough to me that I need to worry about them going for a move, they will likely be in my radar. If they aren't, why would I be looking back at them? Which begs the question, why are you looking in your mirror at cars who aren't close enough to you? Doesn't it cause you to lose focus? Shouldn't racing drivers be looking ahead and not at the cars behind them? Again, this goes both ways. I lose no more focus using the lookback button than you do actually looking in your mirror.
I'm here to tell you that in practice, it is. It's not theory. You would fair better by removing as many distractions as possible and in turn improve reaction time. This is really basic fundamentals of any race school/program.
You missed the point again though, yes you've adapted and "made" it work for you, but this is not optimal. Will you not just admit that a virtual rear mirror in chase cam would benefit you. Because that's the bottomline. You can't with a straight face say you prefer not to have a rear mirror.
For one the radar is poorly placed and requires shifting focus away from what's in front of you. Mirrors are placed right in your primary FOV and can be seen while maintaining eyes on whats ahead. And nice straw man regarding mirrors and being close enough. Fact is a divebomber can be anticipated via the mirror before they even register on the radar. And racing drivers have mirrors for a reason, so your comment regarding looking ahead was ignorant.
Fact is you do lose more focus with the lookback button vs me using a mirror. My mirror is placed within my peripheral vision, I don't have to look away from the car in front of me to use the mirror. YOU have to physically click a lookback button which removes all visual information from in front of you. Now this may only be for a fraction of a second, but the fact that you lost all forward visuals at all proves my point. Wether or not you think this is "significant" is irrelevant, the fact is you have less visual information. How much focus is lost is irrelevant to the discussion.
I never once claimed that the track map or radar or anything was as good as the mirror. If you read my comments back you'll see that. I claimed that each view has it's benefits and drawbacks. For example, in cockpit view, you can't see what's on the sides of you, which I would argue is more important for clean, no-contact racing than what's in front of or behind you, which can be seen from all views.
You brought up track map/radar in your defense. You opened that can of worms yourself. And if you had read my comment you would have seen that i went over the benefits/drawbacks of each view and have covered everything you stated already. But for some reason you want to defend Chase view to the death rather than acknowledge it's drawbacks.
Actually in cockpit view you can see to the sides of you. Is it as much as chase cam? No. And I would completely disagree regarding side information having greater importance. Spatial awareness is a culmination of all information, not a singular aspect.
You find watching it to be very disruptive? Is that supposed to somehow influence whether or not the user actually finds it disruptive? When I say it seems seamless, I don't mean it's seamless to watch, I mean that these guys take the corners side-by-side seamlessly while using lookback and looking side to side. Their races are seamless. Their racecraft is seamless. Their overtaking is seamless. It really doesn't matter how it looks to you, especially since you aren't the one using it. I wouldn't expect it to be seamless to you, somebody who has not practiced using these methods. Not to mention that the lookback and look to the side features are used by drivers in all views, not only chase cam. Would chase cam users prefer the option of a mirror? Probably so. But why don't they just change to bumper cam if it's such a disadvantage not having one? Why are there world tour drivers using chase cam despite not having a mirror? Why do some use hood cam without a mirror? It must not be as big of a handicap as you make it out to be.
You posted that example regarding the lookback and stated that you don't find it disruptive. Is that supposed to somehow influence whether or not the user actually finds it disruptive? See that, I used your own argument against you to demonstrate the hypocrisy of your statement. You can't criticize me for weighing in on your own discussion regarding the lookback function being/not being disruptive.
Why do we have constant complaints of people crashing? "Use your radar!!" etc. Lack of information. Your argument is invalid. The notion that "well because these guys run it, it must not be a issue". When in reality it is a issue they have learned to live with . And per your own admittance "Would chase cam users prefer the option of a mirror? Probably so" your argument falls apart. Why do some still use chase cam? Old habits die hard. But the vast majority, and usually the victors, use bumper with a rear mirror. That's all in the personal preference aspect which is completely separate from a analytical discussion of which view has more visual information. You're conflating two different things.
You're argument is entirely reliant on anecdotes, which is why it fails.
I didn't miss any point. I disagreed with what you said. You literally said that you avoid divebombs BECAUSE you use the mirror and that you can see them coming from car's lengths back, "something that I cannot do with chase cam." I'm once again telling you that I can see them coming from multiple car lengths back. 2-3 cars can fit in my radar, and track map accounts for more distance if you need it. In this recent comment, you amended that claim by saying the mirror makes it easier, but that's not what you originally said. Once again, I can only respond to the language you use. I haven't used a straw man, I've just responded to the words you've used. You are the one who has now brought up superior/inferior and that's an avenue I have not taken. That's on you. Yes, I'll agree AGAIN, that the mirror is the better way to see behind you, but in practice, it's possible to race just as clean and be just as aware using chase cam, radar and the lookback button. But since you feel the need to say bumper and cockpit are superior in regards to rear visibility....I'll go ahead and say chase cam is superior in regards to side-by-side awareness.
You missed the context of what was said. Go read it again, I was clearly discussing how a mirror can see further back than radar/map. So yes, you did miss the point.
And you can't see 2-3 cars lengthwise on radar. 2 at best. And even that's delayed and reacting more than anticipating. And regarding the mirror making it easier, that is what I said. Go read the entire comment that was made. You missed it not me.
You need a refresher on what a straw man is then. " You claim that you only avoid dive bombs because you use the mirror" because that was a straw man, you didn't respond with the words I used, you took words out of context and spun them. That's a straw man.
And were not discussing what's possible. We all know that people can learn to work with less information and making things work. That's not the discussion. The discussion was the limitations of the view, not if one can live without it. Again, conflating two different things.
And I would agree that chase came is superior in regards to side by side visibility, but that cockpit/bumper are superior in regards to both front/rear visibility, not just rear.
This is all just semantics. You are allowing yourself comparisons that you aren't allowing me. You can see the hood in chase cam in some cases. There are also 2 different chase cam views, closer and further. You can also change the way the camera pivots as you corner, allowing yourself to see the front of the car while turning. I don't expect you to know that since you don't use it, but it's a feature that exists. Some cockpit views don't allow you to see the front or hood of the car, some do, which you've admitted. So by admission, your claims are only partly true. Other views, such as bumper, show no parts of the car, so it's 100% guessing. At least in chase cam you can actually see the car, so the guesswork is still there, but minimized. I never said all reference points were equal, but a reference point is a reference point. If it's on the car, or on the HUD, or whatever, it makes no difference as long as it's constant. That's what a reference point is, a constant. And I think maybe you're misunderstanding what a reference point is. If you are using hood cam, you can see the actual front of the car. So that is not a reference point, that is the actual point. A reference point would be some OTHER point relative to the point you are attempting to measure distance from. So If I can see the roof of the car, or the hood of the car but I can't see the actual front bumper....that's a reference point. If you can see the bumper, that's not a reference point. So unless we are talking about hood cam, they are all reference points. Even the rear bumper of a car is a reference point.
You're the one with the semantics. And where did I allow myself comparisons but not yours?? I acknowledged your point and expanded. The topic was about visibility, you brought up workarounds, I didn’t deny there utility, I simply pointed out the fact that they workarounds and not on topic.
99% of the time you can't see the hood. So youre really grasping at straws with that claim. And I've tried chase cam and know how mid corner you can see for a fraction of a second the corner of the front of the car........but why are you staring at a off angle to the corner of the car instead of up ahead. Do you not realize how ridiculous that sounds? It also contradicts the need for a reference point to be fixed, the camera angle changing in the turn means it's not a fixed point per the camera movement
And again, you need to work on your reading comprehension. Your comment that my claims are only partly true ignores the rest of the comment. I mentioned that while some cockpits cant see the very front of the hood, they still have a direct line of sight to the back of the car behind them and have a reference point that is further forward than chase cam. This applies to all cockpits, all of them offer greater frontal view. If you had read my comment you would have seen that very clearly.
I never claimed that you said all reference points were equal, I clearly stated that you missed MY point that not all reference points are equal. You keep getting yourself mixed up on context. Further that by your odd rambling about them all being reference points.....did you not read anything I wrote??? I said they are all reference points, but not equal......missed the point again.
You need to go work on your definition of reference point as well. The front bumper IS a reference point. Just as the roof/hood are also reference points. The bumper is a reference point relative to anything ahead of you that you are trying to gauge the distance of. The only difference is that with views that can't see the bumper you are using a different reference point to guess the distance remaining based on a rough idea of distance from roof to bumper and in turn to the object ahead. On one hand you are gauging the roof to the object ahead, on the other you are using the roof to guess the distance to the bumper and in turn the car ahead, depends on how you want to look at it. All are reference points to gauge distance though. But I already covered this.
"The exact position of an object is the separation between the object and the reference point" the object being the back of the car ahead or anything at all, and the reference point being any fixed point on the car that I can use to assess the distance. No, it's you who has misunderstood what a reference point is, and contradicted yourself on top of it. Because you can't claim the roof is a reference point but the bumper is not. They both are.
And seriously, did you completely skim everything I said? You are literally just repeating my arguments as if they are your own. 90% of what you just said was what I said...... so what is your point?
It matters not if it's unrealistic. That's not what this discussion is about. And here, when you say "I have no issue going side by side in cockpit" you're allowing yourself a way around discussing the weaknesses of your own view, while attacking the very weaknesses of mine, disallowing my claim that I have no problem with front/rear awareness using chase cam. You've simply written off the single most glaring weakness of the view you claim to be superior because you don't have an issue functioning that way. Interesting. You pointed to the logical fallacy of straw man earlier, but are you aware which fallacy you're using here? Several. I'll say it again...in theory, much of what you're saying is true, but in practice it's not. Many people use chase cam, many of whom are very fast, many are very clean and have no issues racing side by side. So by your own logic, your claims about front/rear awareness are rendered moot the same way you claim you do just fine with side-by-side awareness when using cockpit....because I have no issue detecting what's in front of or behind me. See how that goes both ways?
It doesn't matter if it's realistic, that was simply stated as a opinion. We are free to add opinions are we not?
The discussion was about visibility, you derailed it with opinions regarding ways to work around the problem of your view. That's not what the discussion was about, so it was you who went off topic. And your claim that I disallowed your claims is disingenuous. I acknowledged your points and how they werent the point of the discussion, I added the side by side as an example, that sure I can make it work but it is a disadvantage. You keep missing the point.
I don't think you understand fallacies very well then, as none of them were present. But I invite you to showcase them. I could see the attempt to claim the mention of realism as a red herring but a red herring would be if I avoided the actual discussion, that was merely a sidebar moment. But the claim of several, nah. And you even committed another straw man.
"So by your own logic, your claims about front/rear awareness are rendered moot the same way you claim you do just fine with side-by-side awareness when using cockpit....because I have no issue detecting what's in front of or behind me."
This was yet another straw man. The topic wasn't about workarounds/adapting to limitations. The discussion was about ACTUAL visibility. You've completely gone off topic in your defense.
And I didn't write off the weakness of side visibility. Go back and reread everything as I clearly discussed it as an disadvantage, and that I chose front/rear visibility over side as a trade off. And yes I see how it goes both ways, I literally discussed how it goes both ways multiple times...... how on earth did you miss that? I mean youve missed a lot, so it's not surprising.
Heres the key, the discussion was in regards to visibility of each view. I pointed out that relative to bumper/cockpit with a rear mirror, chase came is "blind" by comparison, to which you began the semantics despite decrying them later. Whether or not youve learned to work around this limitation is irrelevant.
Here's an example for you. To show how your logic is flawed.
1994 Spanish GP. Schuey finished 2nd despite being stuck in 5th gear the whole race. By your logic he doesn't need the other gears because he made it work. Overcoming adversity doesn't remove the adversity from being a problem. Learning to drive without mirrors is the same thing, though not as extreme, sure guys can overcome the problem via workarounds, but the problem/limitation still exists.
I never said guys with chase cam can’t race close/clean etc. Not sure why you keep bringing that up. Your focus is completely off topic.
In terms of side view bumper has lowest visibility. Bumper offers the virtual mirror though which is a big advantage.
Bumper and cockpit are pretty similar in some ways but cockpits like the Megane offer more side vision than bumper-if seat is back also more than roof. But the key is the interior AND side mirrors.
View attachment 1004001
Bumper sees ahead and nothing to sides but has that virtual mirror.
View attachment 1004005 View attachment 1004004 View attachment 1004003
These photos are from the stationary Megane at Seaside, changing views, cockpit is set all the way back and height 0.
In cockpit you are always aware forward and back, even if it’s not your main focus because the mirrors are in your peripheral. They are also closer to your focused attention during racing.
Further, in cockpit the car is large so you can really notice immediately the effects of micro inputs on rotation. Racing closer to the car in front is easy in this view.
Again though I don’t think cockpit is viable on a small tv. I don’t think it will work right on gts unless you set up close to a large screen.
For racing games imo the larger the screen the better. Regardless of chosen view. It’s just going to be more difficult to hit the nice lines if you’re using a screen the size of most phones vs a big screen tv.
I’m good with cockpit view, but I literally had to get a big tv and build a table with shelf and custom rig to use it in gts.
Just went and did a test run as well, but with another car to see how close I could get to the other car while retaining positional visibility. In chase cam you enter a guessing zone which is a good 5-6ft. With bumper/cockpit that drops to maybe 1ft before you have to guess if you're too close. That extra visibility IMO is invaluable. Sure chase cam can get as close, but they are guessing the distance vs actually seeing the distance. You can see in the pics how you lose almost all visibility due to the angle, the roof is blocking the view.
