11 replies to this topic

[one2fwee]

So, i am trying to set my field of view to a properly calculated one, so that things appear in correct perspective. The problem is, with nr2003 i do not know how to do this - as 65 is the lowest value possible.

In gpl, i have been able to accomplish this using GEM+. That said, a problem with this is that it means that you cannot view your pitboard So even in gpl, i am having issues.

I assume that 65 is a horizontal field of view, as the setting in gpl was horizontal. Most games and applications nowadays use a vertical field of view, as this is a lot more practical - adding extra side screens would not require a change in value using a vertical field of view, but does with a horizontal one.

So, i was wondering if there was a similar tool or application to do this for nr2003?

Thanks!

[fortine_oo]

Possibly by creating a new "make_a.cam" with GPLcarcam File Editor (link).
I know the program can be used for NR2003.
I haven't tried changing the field of view, only the position of the camera, so I'm not sure how changing the field of view might get interpreted by the exe (or even if it would).


edit:
Silly me.
You can't edit the cockpit view, so the adjustible field of view (which only works on the cockpit view) can't be changed.
I have changed the camera position and the field of view for the roll bar.
Here are 3 FOV's, all using the same camera location.

Attached Thumbnails

• 

Edited by fortine_oo, Jul 06 2012 - 05:37 AM.

[Bob Simpson]

In the player.ini, what does this do?  Would changing it to 50 put the FOV at 50°?


[Graphic Options]
field_of_view=70.0                 ; cockpit field of view, in degrees

Edited by Bob Simpson, Jul 06 2012 - 07:39 AM.

[one2fwee]

Hmm yes i thought about a camera editor but then didn't think you would be able to set things numerically - the one i saw seemed to be of the type of adjusting things by arrow keys while in-game.
If you can't adjust cockpit view, sadly that doesn't help hugely.


In terms of the ini tweak, sadly i already tried editing that value, but it just gets reset to 65 if you enter a value too low.

Thanks for trying to help though, any other ideas? It seems harder to find information out about nr2003 than it is gpl.

Thanks

[one2fwee]

On a side note, does anyone know if the values that you can edit in-game (65 - 78) or for the vertical FOV or for the horizontal FOV?
I might be on to something (albeit with very large issues), but this is quite important.

[fortine_oo]

one2fwee, on Jul 09 2012 - 11:03 AM, said:

On a side note, does anyone know if the values that you can edit in-game (65 - 78) or for the vertical FOV or for the horizontal FOV?
I might be on to something (albeit with very large issues), but this is quite important.

The driving view is nothing more than a camera view. The camera position is fixed and what you see depends on the focal length of the lens.
The variable FOV is a zoom lens on the camera. The longer the focal length, the greater the magnification and the less angle of view. That angle is 3 dimensional, the field of view is conical, so at greater magnification you see less of the 360 degree view and conversely, at reduced magnification you see more of the 360 degree view.

[one2fwee]

Yes but either the horizontal or vertical dimension of the screen must be taking preference. A 4:3 screen is not square.

Therefore, when you set the FOV to 65 degrees, which dimension is actually seeing 65 degrees? - Which dimension are you setting when you change the fov value in-game?

[fortine_oo]

one2fwee, on Jul 09 2012 - 07:11 PM, said:

Yes but either the horizontal or vertical dimension of the screen must be taking preference. A 4:3 screen is not square.

Therefore, when you set the FOV to 65 degrees, which dimension is actually seeing 65 degrees? - Which dimension are you setting when you change the fov value in-game?

The picture is a screenshot of the cockpit view, blue band is 78 degrees, red band is 65 degrees.
Since the 65 screenshot is "magnified", I resized the 65 screenshot to overlay the 78 screenshot (as best I could without spending hours getting it perfect).
Voila! Now you know what you're missing at 65 degrees.

Attached Thumbnails

• 

[one2fwee]

Sorry, you misunderstand me. What i mean is, whether the game engine uses the vertical or horizontal dimension to set the angle of FOV.

As you can see from your screenshot, the aspect ratio is not square. Therefore, there are two possibilities:

If the horizontal axis is used then the vertical axis will see less than the specified fov.
If the vertical axis is used then the horizontal axis will see more than the specified fov.

Thanks

[fortine_oo]

one2fwee, on Jul 10 2012 - 01:37 PM, said:

Sorry, you misunderstand me. What i mean is, whether the game engine uses the vertical or horizontal dimension to set the angle of FOV.

As you can see from your screenshot, the aspect ratio is not square. Therefore, there are two possibilities:

If the horizontal axis is used then the vertical axis will see less than the specified fov.
If the vertical axis is used then the horizontal axis will see more than the specified fov.

Thanks

I understand what you're saying. You're not understanding how fov works, it's 3 dimensional. The whole picture, what is on screen, increases or decreases in magnification with a change in fov degrees used. In other words, the zoom effect is proportional for vertical, horizontal, and diagonal.

[Gui]

Stop complicating things, jimmy clark .

Basically he (and I, I suppose!) wants to know how to make the FOV in the game be even closer to the dashboard than when it's set to 65º. That would supposedly improve driving as your view of the game would be closer to what you would see in real life.

[one2fwee]

Yes i understand that - but due to the aspect ratio not being square (well, strictly speaking circular), one dimension has to take precedences over another.

If you forced 65 degrees both horizontally and vertically and then put it inside a 16:9 aspect ratio, it would be basically like stretching a square image in the horizontal plane - everything would look horribly stretched and squashed.