Success! I Finally Got Gpl To Work On My Triple Screens!
Posted Mar 18 2013 - 01:23 PM
However, if you do have them at an angle, it doesn't look that bad, so it doesn't matter.
For simulations that support angled screens, look at assetto corsa, rfactor 2 and (so i hear) iracing.
Ginetto, are you using a tiny laptop screen? Only, your aspect ratio seems very wide / strange. If not, you definitely need to put your screen closer - try and put it directly behind your wheel, that should enable you to use a higher FOV.
If you can get it 50 - 60 cm away from you then you should end up with a pretty reasonable fov for racing.
I do appreciate that it can be a difficult compromise - 3 screens are ideal really. But you can learn to do it with one. Even reducing it a bit from normal will help.
The most crucial thing that a realistic FOV does is to make it so that distance and elevations are seen realistically.
With a too high FOV, elevations are flattened out and distance is distorted so that things look really far away but they are not, which can make braking points frustrating as it appears you have a lot more room than you actually have.
Also it makes close racing better in that you are less likely to run into the back of someone as you could with a high FOV because it looks like there is more room than in reality.
Posted Mar 18 2013 - 02:16 PM
Setting up 97 degrees FOV I was to far back in the car.
Therefore I used "GPLSA" tool to adjust the POF.
Doing that I felt that the setup of my Lotus was changed and terrible to drive.
Being more of a racer than a tester I switched back to the comfort zone.
Nevertheless a very interesting lesson has been learned, Thanks!!
Posted Mar 18 2013 - 03:08 PM
Can try 33°, but seeing what has got Ginetto with 30°, I get the idea
What is different than Ginetto screen is that I have a 19" CRT screen, and in 1920X1080 the display surface isn 't big. I can get the screen at 25 cm from the wheel, but I use a single seater position racing seat, and my eyes are still far in the back.
What do you think ?
Edited by M Needforspeed, Mar 18 2013 - 03:10 PM.
Posted Mar 21 2013 - 04:53 PM
If not, why are you setting it to 1920*1080? What it it's native aspect ratio (or resolution, although since it's been so long i'm not sure that crts have a native res?).
How far the screen is from the wheel is irrelevant, it is how far it is from your eyes.
Give me the information required and I can calculate for you if you like.
I do appreciate that a horizontal of 30 can be difficult, especially for hairpins. I think i've used 22 and even less before. Just try and get the screen as close as possible / move closer to it.
I just hope that any of you seeing how distance is no longer distorted see this as a reason to maybe get a wider / bigger screen, or to get 3 cheap monitors for racing. Then you will have all of the pros, without the cons!
Posted Mar 21 2013 - 05:36 PM
But as I can use 1920X 1080 setting in GPL, I set it because of a better and crispier image
Screen is at more than one meter from the eyes
Posted Mar 21 2013 - 06:02 PM
Aren't you losing a lot of vertical image space by running 1920 * 1080 though?
Wow, more than a meter, no wonder you are getting a really low FOV. Try to get it 50 - 60 cms away and you should get something half decent.
Posted Mar 22 2013 - 05:39 AM
one2fwee, yes I use a 17" laptop 16:10 and I don't have a wheel, I sadly use a joyppad; that's why I tend to edit and build tracks more than actually drive in GPL.
Edited by Ginetto, Mar 22 2013 - 05:57 AM.
Posted Mar 22 2013 - 01:57 PM
Also, i agree with you that Michel should use a 4:3 resolution for his monitor
Posted Apr 10 2013 - 06:40 PM
Pedro, your FOV should therefore be 81 degrees, not 97. This explains why you felt that 97 was so bad and that gpl's default of 78 felt much worse hahaha. So yer, try 81 and see what you think
Sky, yours doesn't change very much - 41.7 so either 41 or 42. Triple screen would be 97.62 (but without bezel compensation so it's kind of meaningless really unless you are using matrox triplehead to go as this does bezel compensation in a different way so it would be correct!).
But yes, i just reread your post - bloody hell don't run a 3 screen area FOV setting on 1 screen, that would look way distorted!!! For a start it won't be representitive of what you would see as your aspect ratio is different with 3 screens.
Others - i can't see your values in your posts so unless i am missing something then i am sorry.
If anyone needs any help, just ask. The formula in my original post has been updated to reflect ratio conversion.
Posted Apr 10 2013 - 08:05 PM
80 cm away from the monitors
3 monitors 5760x1080 without bezel correction, the bezel around 2cm each border if that matters
Dimensions(HxWxD mm) 516.9 x 571.4 x 149.9
have no idea what arctan is
Edited by Andreh, Apr 10 2013 - 08:05 PM.
Posted Apr 11 2013 - 02:20 PM
3 monitors 5760x1080
Dimensions(HxWxD mm) 516.9 x 571.4 x 149.9
WOW ... I am not jealous ........ I am only a lot smaller
Posted Apr 12 2013 - 05:43 AM
3 monitors 5760x1080 without bezel correction...
Posted Apr 12 2013 - 08:20 AM
Gem and the vs rasterizers, amazing work from the comunity
ps, just in case it aint clear, 5760x1080 is the total resolution
Posted Apr 13 2013 - 03:12 AM
Would you look at the attached xls spreadsheet & verify that I have understood & written the formula correctly?
Screen resolution 1440 x 900
Screen size 48cm x 27cm
distance to screen 75cm
Posted Apr 13 2013 - 09:20 AM
A lot of the values you seem to be giving me are not the actual screen area - for example 1440*900 is 16:10 aspect ratio, but 48*27cm is obviously including bezels or something.
Apart from that your calculations seem correct although your answers are in radians - you will need to convert them to degrees (though i think you can do this by changing cell formatting).
Ginetto, you can go to very high resolutions if you use the opengl renderer. It is only the directx 7 one that is vastly limited.
Andreh: arctan is the same thing as tan-1.
Can you give me your actual screen height? On the monitor's website i am not sure what the dimensions it is stating actually are. What is the difference between CTN Dimensions and dimensions?
Either way, neither seems to be the actual visible viewing area dimensions - as they include a depth, which obviously the viewing area doesn't. I can't see the viewing area dimensions listed though, so you will probably have to measure yourself (or it might say in the datasheet if one came with it).
Also, how are you rendering across 3 screens? Matrox? Or ati eyefinity / nvidia surround ? If it is ati or nvidia, then it would be better if you can add bezel compensation and then tell me that resolution.
In some other news, i have worked out a formula to convert horizontal FOV to vertical FOV when you just know the FOV and the aspect ratio.
A useful thing about this is that you don't need to know the size of the screen or distance away from it, just one of the FOV values.
This can also be used to correct the trackside / onboard cameras when using an aspect ratio that isn't 4:3 (did you ever notice that this makes them zoom in? I am guessing they all use a 78 horizontal FOV, which would cause this on change of aspect ratio).
So i might make another thread about that if anyone is interested (the functionality could possibly be added to an automatic tool like gpl shift if possible, as the then user wouldn't be forced to edit all their cam files every time they changed aspect ratio ).
Posted Apr 14 2013 - 01:01 PM
I have now set it to what I thought it was ie 1920x1080 (16:9) & now I can select that resolution in GPL.
However my measurements of the screen were correct at 48cm x 27cm. This is the visible screen not including bezel. see attached pic.
I have added a radians to degrees calc into the spreadsheet & the calculated FOV is now 35.4°.
I have not tried this whilst driving yet but I will soon.
Everyone feel free to use the spreadsheet to help you with the calculations of the rather confusing subject/calc.
Thanks one2fwee for your efforts in this
picture008 (2).jpg 649.94K 31 downloads
Posted Apr 14 2013 - 03:51 PM
You're right though, i forgot to mention, in order to set a resolution in GPL, you have to manually set your desktop to it before you enter the game.
For example, if you want to use bezel compensation, you have to enable it on the desktop first before going into gpl and then change the resolution to it in gpl.
In other games, you don't need to do this, it just appears to be a limitation of gpl "knowing" about what resolutions you can set.
Posted Apr 17 2013 - 10:51 AM
Here are some observations:
1: like Pedro I found this totally undriveable, my setup really sucked, the car was all over the place. For sure I could probably have tweaked the setup to compensate but I didn't like the idea of all my setups being essentially junked after years of fine tuning them.
2: so I decided to split the difference between default (78°) & the calculated 36° ie 57°. This was much better. My setup still worked as I expected it to & I could lap at near my pb.
3: at 57° I cannot quite see the outside corner of my tyres which made it difficult, for me, to place the wheel as close to the apex as I would like. Again, some track time could have resolved this, but seat time is limited these days
In conclusion, I looked back to my spreadsheet & noticed that the radian value was quite close to the half way value of 57° ie it is 0.619. OK, a little poetic licence used there
But it does allow me to see the outside corner of the tyres & after some laps I beat my pb by half a second.
Maybe I'm reading too much into this, but thought it might be of value to others who find the calculated FOV in degrees to be undriveable.
FOV 36°.jpg 93.66K 88 downloads FOV 57°.jpg 106.13K 108 downloads FOV 62°.jpg 108.19K 105 downloads FOV 78°.jpg 112.15K 93 downloads
Edited by Roo, Apr 17 2013 - 10:52 AM.
Posted Dec 29 2016 - 08:58 AM
Posted Apr 16 2018 - 11:42 AM
Finaly I tried Roo's FOV calculator and gave a 54° FOV a chance. (27inch full HD monitor 60cm away)
Yes, it was very strange in the beginning, but after some laps I will never go back to 94°.
One thing is missing here:
by using Lee's no Letterbox patch + GPLShift you can move the POV to get the mirrors or wheels back!
The FOV is not affected by moving POV!!!
POV manipulation does not work in every mod!
GPLSA is made for 67s only...
GPLShift works only for some mods,
For 69X I found no way yet to get the mirrors !
Now I am really driving in the car and every test I do, shows that I am faster and more consistent now...
PS the Spa hairpin is no problem as you can see it perfectly
Edited by Cookie, Apr 16 2018 - 11:51 AM.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users