Adding fuel to the view-angle fire

Famine · Sep 16, 2003

Well, I was messing about today on GT: Concept (which my girlfriend bought me for my birthday) and thought I'd try something out on that, rather than load in GT3 and do it.

I took a Peugeot 406 Coupe V6 round Midfield, and stopped it on a landmark - in this case one of the grid boxes, so that according to the "1st person view" it was slap-bang in the middle of that line. I left the car sat there on the handbrake for about a minute, took a snapshot with a digital camera and finished the lap.

Then I viewed the replay and, when the car stopped and sat there, paused it and took an exterior replay-angle snapshot at roughly the same time-index (I was about 0.2s out - so sue me. The car was stationary for a good minute).

The results are attached to the bottom of this post.

The conclusion?

Neither 3rd person camera nor 1st person camera are, in any way, attached to the car. Both view-angles are as viable and legitimate as each other and you "in-car" snobs can now, officially, stop it

milefile · Sep 16, 2003

What are you talking about?

Famine · Sep 16, 2003

Hmm... Wasn't expecting THAT response...

One of the classic responses to the question of "which viewing angle do you use" (the options being the so-called 1st person, or "in-car" view, or the 3rd person view where you are behind and above the car) is that 1st person view is superior, because the "camera" is attached to the front bumper.

In the pictures I've shown, the "camera" is showing an image from at least a full FOOT (30ish cm) in front of the car - not even vaguely attached to the car.

So, as I said, all the snobs who say 3rd person is "less realistic" because it's not attached to the car can shut up, because 1st person view isn't either.

As an aside, I thought it better to make the point to create a new thread (since I very rarely do), rather than drag up an old thread, already jammed full of arguments.

Duke · Sep 16, 2003

Originally posted by Famine

In the pictures I've shown, the "camera" is showing an image from at least a full FOOT (30ish cm) in front of the car - not even vaguely attached to the car.

I wouldn't say that. Considering the cone of view from the camera lens, which is if anything a little narrower than the human eye cone of view (about 60 degrees of arc), I'd say the camera is located right in the grille of that car.

milefile · Sep 16, 2003

I see what you mean now. But by looking at those pictures I'd come to conclusion neon duke does. It looks pretty accurate to me.

Famine · Sep 16, 2003

Looking at the perspective on the walls, I'd say the height of the camera is certainly not scraping the tarmac, but about the same as the top of the wall - which is different to what most of us consider. But I can't agree with you on the position relative to the vehicle - the player angle has the car exactly half way over that line, with the sides of the grid-box being out of the camera's scope - yet the replay has the car quite some distance away... I don't think the arc explanation covers it (just IMO).

drifting S15 · Sep 16, 2003

good job discovering that but i feel 1st person is more how do i say itless awkward than 3rd person

milefile · Sep 16, 2003

But you have to consider the angle of view, in this case down. The visible area will expand outward, like duke said, in a cone. You seem to be thinking that the camera sees straight down, which it doesn't. In it's position right on the front of the car, it can't see the ground until some distance away, in this case about a foot.

Duke · Sep 16, 2003

Originally posted by Famine
Looking at the perspective on the walls, I'd say the height of the camera is certainly not scraping the tarmac, but about the same as the top of the wall - which is different to what most of us consider. But I can't agree with you on the position relative to the vehicle - the player angle has the car exactly half way over that line, with the sides of the grid-box being out of the camera's scope - yet the replay has the car quite some distance away... I don't think the arc explanation covers it (just IMO).

I disagree (also MO). Most cameras, and definitely most CG perspective renderers, have a useful cone of vision of about 45 degrees. The human eye expands out to about 60 degrees, discounting preipheral vision. I do a lot of architectural perspective renderings, and the truncated view you're getting in the top "car" view is typical in that it is very restricted in the lateral peripheral vision. This is because perspective distorts the edges of the cone very radically. When our brains filter that information, it is un-distorted a bit in "software", so to speak, which doesn't happen when we look at a 2D projection of a 3D perspective view.

The reason you're not seeing the side marks of the grid bay is that they are well off screen to the left and right, so the corners are lost. This doesn't mean the camera is too far forward. It means that the lateral view is cropped severely, like a Cinemascope movie shown on full-screen-TV mode. If the camera was where you are describing, you wouldn't see the marker line at all.

Based on the perspective at top, I'd have to say that the camera is about six inches to a foot above the Peugot badge in the grille, and about a foot aft of it. It's just that the car body itself is not rendered into that view, as it would likely appear as a dull blue band at the bottom of the screen, covering the bottom half of the instrument binnacle. Not exactly "driver's seat" view, but closer than the "parasailer's view of the tow boat" view.

This is all moot discussion, because you like what you like, and I like what I like.

[edit] Excellent diagram, Eric. [/edit]

LoudMusic · Sep 16, 2003

I'd like to first point out that I think (just MO) that this is a damn rediculous argument.

Moving along ...

What you're saying is that the camera is extended out from the front bumber of the car? Seems to me this would create a sweeping effect as you turned at extremely slow speeds - or more accurately an increased sweeping effect, as it will sweep from the front bumper which is a few feet forward of the wheels anyway.

... someone remind me, why do we even care?

daan · Sep 16, 2003

[off topic]

And may I be the first to say, "nice choice of car!"

I'm picking mine up on Friday! A gorgeous 3.0 litre V6 406 Coupe

[/off topic]

Normal programming will be resumed shortly

Tazio · Sep 16, 2003

Originally posted by Famine
So, as I said, all the snobs who say 3rd person is "less realistic" because it's not attached to the car can shut up, because 1st person view isn't either.

I've never said that it was better because it was attached to the car. :confused:

I said it's better because I'm faster when using it. And we both know that I'm the one who's important here. :lol:

Jugend · Sep 16, 2003

F: Neither 3rd person camera nor 1st person camera are, in any way, attached to the car. Both view-angles are as viable and legitimate as each other and you "in-car" snobs can now, officially, stop it

Hmm. I always thought that argument was about how the camera follows the movement of the car, in 3rd person you have a dead zone in which the camera doesn't follow the cars turning but in "1st person" the camera is always pointing in the direction (and "attached" to) of the car. Am I wrong?

Famine · Sep 16, 2003

To coin a phrase... "Whoops"... Maybe I should have posted it in an existing thread jammed full of arguments, 'cos this one's going to turn out just the same... Poor choice of title perhaps...

GTJ's point is a good one - and probably exactly why I prefer 3rd person to "1st".

daan - Knew you'd like it

VG30DETT · Sep 17, 2003

The only reason we mock your people who use the outside view is because we're insecure about the size of our genetalia.

Sorry, I'm just dumb and weird.

I bet it's pretty much all to do with your preferences. I drove in-car for a very long time and now I'm used to it, and when I try outside, its alien to me.

Famine · Sep 17, 2003

Originally posted by VG30DETT
The only reason we mock your people who use the outside view is because we're insecure about the size of our genetalia.

Sorry, I'm just dumb and weird.

I bet it's pretty much all to do with your preferences. I drove in-car for a very long time and now I'm used to it, and when I try outside, its alien to me.

I started driving 3rd person with Geoff Crammond's F1GP on the Amiga. It seems just that bit more intuitive to me - plus as GTJ pointed out, the way the camera moves is different and to my eyes more organic and intuitive in 3rd person.

Damn - if you'd posted that quote a month ago, you might have picked up an award... Still laughing

ving · Sep 17, 2003

hey famine, nice car d00d!

btw there are 2 views avaliable. 1 is third person, where your camera is situated above and behind the car. the other is bumper view where the camera is attached to the bumper of the vehicle. there isnt really a first person view otherwise we would be looking over the bonnet of the car (which IMO would be sick!).

live long and prosper d00d!

Famine · Sep 17, 2003

Peace and long life... I was mucking around with the 406 precisely because I know daan just bought one

I tend to call the other view "1st person" - as some people refer to it as such, when it clearly isn't. I still think that it's not a bumper cam either - but we each get our own opinions on this one. I can respect neon & milefile's opinions, but don't necessarily agree with them (although mostly I do... Just not today ).

ving · Sep 17, 2003

feeling a little argumentive hey?

DoZeRxXx · Sep 17, 2003

I actually think it might be under the bumper and tilted up a bit because, you would see the ground before that and you do see more of the sky than the ground

pddrifter · Sep 17, 2003

ur crazy

VG30DETT · Sep 17, 2003

Damnit. Always a tad too late. Oh well. I'm sure I'll have something else funny and witty to say. Like... oh damn, lost it... wait! Nope, gone.

Gil · Sep 17, 2003

In the first person view, I get "motion sick", In the 3rd person view I don't. It's as simple as that.

Because the #rd person view includes the car and the track, and the surroundings, I can see the car as relative to the track and surroundings.
From the 1st person view, I don't have enough frame of reference to prevent motion sickness.

For me EVERY game with a 1st person view has a big potential for making me "sea-sick"

I used to love "Outlaws". But if I got to moving too fast or spinning to engage a target, I would get dizzy or seasick in short order. I don't play "Dark Forces" for the same reason.
(of course both games use the same 'engine').

BadBatsuMaru · Sep 17, 2003

Famine:
I think you're misconstruing the reasons most people use the bumper view.

1) It's a little awkward, but the bumper cam is the most realistic position (of the two). A true 1st person view would not feel right to most people. The majority of gamers are sitting about 5-6 feet back from their TV. If GT3 used a true 1st person view, it would feel like you were sitting behind the car, because you still have to account for the distance between you and the screen.

2) The bumper cam is a fixed camera. The 3rd-person view is a sloppy dynamic camera. When you're using the bumper cam, you can feel exactly when and how far you're turning in a somewhat natural way. When you're using the 3rd-person view, you will notice that the camera lags behind the movement of the car. If you turn hard to the right, the camera "understeers," and you will actually see the right side of the car. This totally changes the feeling of turning, and you can't possibly argue that it is more realistic than a static camera that is always in the same position relative to the position of the car.

3) The 3rd-person view looks down on the car, which is obviously less realistic than the bumper cam. In the 3rd-person view, sometimes the car in front of you is actually obscured by your own car. That's just not right. In many cases, seeing the track from above gives you more information, though. For example, if the camera was completely flush with the ground, you couldn't see the track at all. The higher the camera is, the more you see. In corners, you get to see exactly where your car's tires are relative to the track, the rumble strip, the wall, etc, instead of having to judge this yourself. When running a close race on Test Course, the 3rd-person view will show you exactly where the cars around you are, which can help you block much more effectively. In general, though, the benefits aren't nearly enough to learn something that is so much more awkward than the bumper view.

Majin SSJ Eric · Sep 17, 2003

I completely agree. The first person view gives you a "feel" for the car's dimensions. I can always place the car closer and more accurately to the walls at seattle in first person as opposed to 3rd person. I may not be able to see the sides of the car, but the feel is really more accurate than is actual sight. Another thing that I think is being overlooked here is that in first person mode, you get a much better feeling for what the car is doing underneath you. I can react to the car yawing much more naturally in 1st person. 3rd person has you fairly disconnected with the car and your reactions to the rear twitching, or the front plowing has a built in lag associated with the dynamic camera employed with that view. For me, 1st person is definitely superior (and btw, the camera is definitely mounted to the front bumper of the car. Milefile's diagram explains this accurately. The camera cannot see straight down. There can be no argument with that).

ving · Sep 17, 2003

it's not 1st person!!!!

Sailinghome · Sep 17, 2003

As far as using the "Bumper Cam" ( is that better, Ving?

) I personally find it not only better from an 'it's more accurate to place the car on the course' perspective, but hearing the engine noise that much louder helps too, I think IMO the whole feel of driving becomes more intuitive with the bumper cam.

Famine: could it be that PD places the Camera over the front wheels, it would be a bit further aft than you mentioned, but might make sense in a way, to prevent the camera view 'drifting' round corners, as mentioned before.

Vasco · Sep 17, 2003

I'm weird...I use third person in GT3 because I can't drive and I used to use that same view in WRC. Then I tried the in car view, got faster with it, and now I can't drive it from the outside anymore! So I don't care...whatever's slower for you.

Kelly · Sep 17, 2003

Well , the way I see it is...

The pics Famine posted do show a point! that is the bumper cam does not give you an accurate perspective of where you really are :confused:

I use 3rd person view, always have and it gives a much better sense of your posistion on the track, as the pictures show in 3rd person there's a few more inches there than one would assume in the bumper view.
Giving 3rd person view the edge (IMO

)when driving within the limits of the track you can push the car more to the edge this way, no? :confused:

Solid Lifters · Sep 17, 2003

If it's not a bumber cam, then what the hell should we call it?

I never use it, what ever it's called.

The "3rd person" view is the one I use, but I miss the the GT2 option of a second "3rd person" view.

There is a rumor that GT4 will not have the "bumber cam" view angle. How do you people who use this angle feel about this? The new view angle is a "roof cam" angle that is a little higher up than the bumber cam angle, and it shows, finally, the hood and the tops of the front fenders. I might like this view angle better than the one I am using now.

I have the American Le Mans race on my hi-def hard drive recorder, and it shows a Porsche GT race car with a small black camera directly on the middle of the roof, about six inches from the windshield. They showed some footage from the roof cam during the race from time to time, and it looked great! It showed the same portion of the hood of the car, like in those screen shots of GT4 we've seen that might be showing the new angle.

Maybe they had the camera footage sent to PD for production purposes. I hope so. It looked that good. I want to see it in GT4.

Adding fuel to the view-angle fire

GTP Editor, GTPEDIA Author

Attachments

GTP Editor, GTPEDIA Author

Keep 'em separated

GTP Editor, GTPEDIA Author

Keep 'em separated

Salut Gilles

GTP Editor, GTPEDIA Author

GTP Editor, GTPEDIA Author

GTP Editor, GTPEDIA Author

Bird man

Salting the snail