Setting the FOV - Field of View

[Olham 164]

In Workshops we find two important settings for the "field of view" of our sim on the monitor.

The first is at the left side - there you can and should tick the correct box for either 4:3 or 16:10 monitor size.

 

Then there is also the Set FOV (Field of view) menue.

As I understand it, the Field of View can be increased or decreased here.

You will find, that a bigger field of view will also result in your pilot being more remote from the windscreen and guns.

The whole surrounding aircraft is getting smaller, and you can see more environement in width as in height.

But also, like everything else, enemy aircraft will appear smaller.

 

You can set up your desired field of view for all aircraft in that menue.

Higher numbers give you a more wide angle view - you see more environement, but it will also appear more remote.

The recommended setting is said to be 23 x 16. Now I think, this was written, when we had 4:3 monitors;

and for 16:10 it should be different. If we regard the 23 x 16 as degrees, you understand what I mean.

 

Here is what I have calculated for my own screen.

 

My screen is 16:10 with a resolution of 1680 x 1050.

Now I have firstly chosen the vertical "degrees" should be "17".

So I divided the vertical screen resolution of 1050 through 17, which is 61,76

Now I have divided 1680 through 61,76 which is 27,20

 

I've rounded the result; so I now use a FOV of 27 x 17

 

You must press "Set FOV" after changing anything there, and the sim calculates it for all aircraft then.

 

Another example - if I want to see everything "closer" (resulting in a narrower overall view, but a larger

surrounding aircraft, and also larger "specs"/distant aircraft) I can choose 15 degrees for the vertical setting.

So I divide:

 

1050 : 15 = 70

1680 : 70 = 24

 

My "closer" FOV would now be 24 x 15

 

I hope this makes sense to you; please feel free to ask. I was quite good in English at school, but not in mathematics.

Edited January 29, 2011 by Olham

[gaw 5]

Olham....what an astonishing find. That FOV thingies's been sitting in front of my face forever and I've never fooled around with it. I tried your settings and the results are OUTSTANDING. It feels much more "real"....encompassing more of the peripheral view that one normally sees....more like what I'd expect to see. The default settings always felt a bit constricted and I rarely had a sense of the landscape whizzing past when flying low.....just thought that was the deal and that's that....plenty of great stuff to do in any event. Just did a solo around the field and the tents fly past and the ground swoops up in a much more convincing visual. Thanks you....totally groundbreaking immersion factor for me at least......be interested to see what others think. Off....so to speak....to try combat. Thanks again!!!!!!

[Olham 164]

Well, now you almost made me blush - what a nice "thank you" - that made it worth it!

[RAF_Louvert 101]

.

 

Absolutely Olham, I have made those same adjustments myself and it is more realistic, (at least based on my personal observations when flying in open cockpit ultralights). Good on you Sir for pointing it out here for everyone. I assumed most folks knew of these settings, proving once again that one should never assume.

 

.

[gaw 5]

combat....................waaaaaay more interesting.......close up is wheels on the other guys tail....and the view from inside the cockpit seems balanced and right....more closely matching what you'd expect to see peering across the wing. 2 pilots already toast for floating in too close for a kill shot.....but the view was worth it. Noticed that the sim now starts me off with 2 clicks of magnification instead of 1 in the cockpit unless I'm not recalling correctly........and backing off 1 click looks just right......2 clicks to full wide looks a bit wonky....NIIIIICE!! thanks again!

[gaw 5]

better and better Olham.......unless I'm delusional..........the change affects the F4 other views as well.......all of which seem infinitely better. Graphics has to work a little harder close to the ground but drop dead beautiful!!!!

[Olham 164]

Glad you like it, gaw!

And if you prefer it one notch zoomed in, you would just need to make a new calculation

according to my above, with one degree less in the height (as 16 instead of 17), and the

resultung width from that. This FOV offers us a lot - like the whole sim actually does.

 

Just in case you missed this post - it's about better graphic settings:

 

http://combatace.com/topic/60374-an-easy-pictorial-guide-graphics-setup/page__view__findpost__p__452080

Edited January 10, 2011 by Olham

[gaw 5]

thought those setting tweaks were yours....... they also worked a treat........definite improvement all around.....nice work!!!

[TaillyHo 2]

Herr Olham, This is very timely advice as I have recently replaced my ye olde 19" CRT monitor with a 24" LCD. Now I've simply put OFF on the max setting for my new monitor (1920 x 1080) and all is wonderful - but reading your OP I wonder whether I shouldn't go with 1680 x 1050 as it more closely matches the 16:10 default widescreen ratio. Is this why you use this config?

Edited January 10, 2011 by TaillyHo

[Olham 164]

No, my monitor really is 1680 x 1050.

 

I have calculated for you the FOV for vertical 16, 17 and 18 degrees.

 

1080 : 16 = 67,5

1920 : 67,5 = 28,44

Result: FOV = 28 x 16

 

1080 : 17 = 63,53

1920 : 63,53 = 30,22

Result: FOV = 30 x 17

 

1080 : 18 = 60

1920 : 60 = 32

Resulting FOV = 32 x 18

 

I hope you get the idea - you can use any of these three variants.

The first example would be the most zoomed in (enemy specs are largest),

the last one would be more remote from everything, showing more environement.

The last one is also the one, where I had not to round up or down any numbers.

It would therefor be without any slight distortion, as you might get from the others

(but it won't be noticable).

[Olham 164]

One can also calculate the relationship of width to height of the resolution.

 

1920 : 1080 = 1,77

 

So whatever number you choose for the vertical, must be multiplied by 1,77 for the horizontal number.

 

In my case that's

 

1680 : 1050 = 1,6

 

So if I want 17 degrees vertically, I'll have 17 x 1,6 = 27,2; that an FOV of 27 x 17 in my case.

Everybody dizzy now?

Edited January 10, 2011 by Olham

[TaillyHo 2]

Thank you for the calculations, Olham. I follow that aspect fine, but I still wonder whether sticking to a resolution setting that more closely reflects default screen ratios shouldn't be a first priority. I know when I used to spend all my time running motor racing sims, that I would chose a resolution setting that not only optimised frame-rates, but that also represented the cars in perspective - based on what I knew they should look like on a race track from real life. For a long time I used 1024 x 768 because that gives a 4:3 ratio (and it 'looked right' in terms of perspective)

 

With OFF is, I have no real life experience to draw from in terms of what a WW1 plane should look like relative to its environment, so I can't see one on my screen and say, oh no that looks a bit too wide, or that looks too squashed. On the numbers alone, I'm wondering whether 1920 x 1080 isn't 'flattening' everything a bit - whereas 1680 x 1050 would give a truer perspective.

 

Of course, running with TrackIR for a few minutes starts messing with your sense of perspective anyway!

Edited January 10, 2011 by TaillyHo

[Olham 164]

As far as I can see, your first setting the screen width at the left in "Workshop" makes it fit 16 : 10 widescreen.

So now the relationship of width to height should be adjusted.

 

The FOV now allows you to adjust, how close or remote you are from your environment.

You can choose various views, between "wide angle" (more degrees) and "zoom" (less degrees).

But I think one should keep the ratio of screen width to height?

That's what I tried with my calculations.

 

Of course, you have every right to "compress" either width or height, by using other numbers.

Edited January 10, 2011 by Olham

[NS13Jarhead 6]

Great tip. Has anyone figured out if it has an effect on the framerate? Just asking, because it would be a great benefit with the ability to have a better FOV if it doesn't cost me any frames per second.

[Creaghorn 10]

Great tip. Has anyone figured out if it has an effect on the framerate? Just asking, because it would be a great benefit with the ability to have a better FOV if it doesn't cost me any frames per second.

 

the bigger the POV and surrounding, the better the FPS, because the less enviroment you can see in the screen, the less calculations the rig has to make.

 

btw. i have 20 horizontal and 16 vertical on my 26" screen. looks perfectly believable when looking around. same like it looks like in real driving a car past buildings and other cars.

[Olham 164]

You must have a 4:3 screen then, and that should be fine. What is your screen's resolution, Creaghorn?

 

For a true 4:3 screen the perfect FOV would be: 20 x 15 (= 4:3)

But it also depends on the resolution.

I had a 4:3 screen with this resolution before: 1480 x 1024

That is in fact wider than 4:3 - it is rather 4,33 : 3

 

If I wanted 16 degrees vertically, I calculated:

 

1024 : 16 = 64

1480 : 64 = 23,125

 

So, one possible FOV would be 23 x 16 for that res.

Edited January 11, 2011 by Olham

[Creaghorn 10]

You must have a 4:3 screen then, and that should be fine. What is your screen's resolution, Creaghorn?

 

For a true 4:3 screen the perfect FOV would be: 20 x 15 (= 4:3)

But it also depends on the resolution.

I had a 4:3 screen with this resolution before: 1480 x 1024

That is in fact wider than 4:3 - it is rather 4,33 : 3

 

If I wanted 16 degrees vertically, I calculated:

 

1024 : 16 = 64

1480 : 64 = 23,125

 

So, one possible FOV would be 23 x 16 for that res.

 

good idea olham. i didn't calculate at all. to be honest, i'm so bad at maths, that if somebody would tell me, 5 x 2 is 10, i would laugh at him, thinking he is wrong, cause 5 x 2 is 12 of course . i just played with the settings and stayed with that what IMO looked the best. so what would you suggest?

res. is 1920 x 1200

[Olham 164]

Okay, you wanted a vertical of 16 degrees for your FOV.

 

Then we must divide the vertical resolution by 16

 

1200 : 16 = 75

 

Now we must divide the horizontal resolution by these 75.

 

1920 : 75 = 25,6

 

Now you can only round that to either 25 or 26, and your FOV would then be 26 x 16

 

If you used 20 x 16 so far, you had a loss in width. You should now get a good bit more view left and right.

You can also use 24 x 15, which is a bit "closer" to everything.

[Creaghorn 10]

Okay, you wanted a vertical of 16 degrees for your FOV.

 

Then we must divide the vertical resolution by 16

 

1200 : 16 = 75

 

Now we must divide the horizontal resolution by these 75.

 

1920 : 75 = 25,6

 

Now you can only round that to either 25 or 26, and your FOV would then be 26 x 16

 

If you used 20 x 16 so far, you had a loss in width. You should now get a good bit more view left and right.

You can also use 24 x 15, which is a bit "closer" to everything.

 

thank you. will try both settings.

how do you know i have 4:3 and not 16:10? just wondering because i don't know. in workshop i have 16:10 but has nothing to do with ingame settings i think.

[Olham 164]

Sorry, I had come to the conclusion from your own FOV setting of 20 x 15, which would be a ratio of 4:3

 

But that was wrong - you have a 16 x 9 screen ratio ; and so the setting 16:10 should be used.

 

(1920 : 16 = 120; and 1080 : 120 = 9; so you have 16 : 9)

Edited January 11, 2011 by Olham

[Wodin 0]

I'm terrible at maths. Could you please tell me what FOV would be good for 1440 x 900. Thanks.

[Olham 164]

Okay, here are some possible FOV settings for your resolution.

Set the ratio on 16:10 on the left.

 

24 x 15 (closer to environment/less total overview/larger enemy aircraft specs)

26 x 16

27 x 17 (more remote from environment/more overview/smaller enemy aircraft specs)

[Wodin 0]

Thanks mate, looks superb.

[Guest British_eh]

Hi there,

 

Thanks for the Post Olham. I have not spent time yet on evaluating the FOV for the RSS-SIA Settings but it seems clear that these should be "Recommended" settings for the Workshops and will be incorporated into the revamped Settings to follow shortly.

 

Great work.

 

Cheers,

 

British_eh

[Olham 164]

If you understood the calculation, which I hope was explained well enough, you should perhaps

try for yourself some "closer" FOV as well as more remote ones. Both have their Pros and cons,

and you may write some lines regarding both possible settings.