GT6 Race View options

  • Thread starter research
  • 178 comments
  • 26,096 views
I agree the immersion that the clip shows for the E20 is wonderful but the engine note seems to be off and not correct to the real car. The car sounds like it never even touches 18k
 
I find the narrower fov in gt5 to be much more immersive and realistic, even with just a single screen. Makes me a better driver too, if I switch back to standard I start misjudging corners and speeds. The only problem is the lack of horizontal peripheral vision makes it difficult to see apexes and exits on tighter corners and hairpins. Would be nice if there was an option to have the drivers head turn slightly toward the apex, but I guess that could also be disconcerting as in a way it takes control away from you.

If only televisions were wider.
 
Imari
Are you actually serious? I'm not doing to waste my time explaining it if you're just being a jerk.
Click to expand...

Definitely not trying to be a jerk, but I am pointing out something fairly serious. You infer that perception and reality are two separate things, when those who study the topic (professors, writers, researchers, students of psychology/metaphysics/world control) have nearly all come to the conclusion that they are one and the same. There is no objective reality, my friend. The only things that your consciousness is aware of, are brought to it by your five senses, or told to you by others (often without examination). You could wake up tomorrow, and find your whole "reality" flipped upside down with new information.

Even big, known-worldwide things we think are obvious fixed 'laws', such as the speed of light, are being shown that they were never really 'laws' at all. But we're getting a bit OT here!(sorry guys) I suggest anyone who's interested to study Rupert Sheldrake and David Icke for a stunning intro into such topics..
 
Last edited:
research
Definitely not trying to be a jerk, but I am pointing out something fairly serious. You infer that perception and reality are two separate things, when those who study the topic (professors, writers, researchers, students of psychology/metaphysics/world control) have nearly all come to the conclusion that they are one and the same. There is no objective reality, my friend. The only things that your consciousness is aware of, are brought to it by your five senses, or told to you by others (often without examination). You could wake up tomorrow, and find your whole "reality" flipped upside down with new information.

Even big, known-worldwide things we think are obvious fixed 'laws', such as the speed of light, are being shown that they were never really 'laws' at all. But we're getting a bit OT here!(sorry guys) I suggest anyone who's interested to study Rupert Sheldrake and David Icke for a stunning intro into such topics..
Click to expand...

You are being a jerk. If you took off your "you can't distinguish between perception and reality" hat and read my post with an intention to understanding what I meant, I was describing that there are two ways to set up your FOV.

Firstly, the mathematically correct way. This makes sure the view on the screen is exactly what you would see if you were sitting in the car looking through a frame the same size as your TV screen set at the same distance. This is what I chose to label as "going for realism", because it's the most realistic from a mathematical and scientific point of view.

Secondly, the perceptual way. Driving a car in real life at speed has a certain feeling associated with it. Driving a car in a game at the same speed loses a lot of that sense of speed, simply because you lose peripheral vision and the vibrations and general seat of the pants feeling. A lot of that sense of speed can be replicated by widening the FOV. You then have a slightly stretched view that is not strictly optically correct, but nonetheless can give a more accurate feel to the drive. This is what I was referring to when I talk about people adjusting their FOV for perception over "reality".


So actually, I wasn't talking about anything even remotely related to the "objective reality" that you brought up. It's simply a shorthand for referring to different goals when setting up a FOV, whether you're replicating the optical or the emotional (for want of a better word) experience of driving. How you thought a post about FOV was talking about the perception of the universe in any way beats me. If you've got a better way to label them since everything is perception, then have at it, but everybody else seemed to understand without branching off into philosophy and physics.
 
Imari
... Firstly, the mathematically correct way. This makes sure the view on the screen is exactly what you would see if you were sitting in the car looking through a frame the same size as your TV screen set at the same distance. This is what I chose to label as "going for realism", because it's the most realistic from a mathematical and scientific point of view.
Click to expand...

Exactly what who would see? Every one of us will have a different seating position, and much more importantly- a different level of peripheral vision, sitting still and at speed. The only way to replicate this accurately is with the cockpit view options in the OP. There is no such thing as mathematically correct here- when it comes to individual perception of view from a driver's seat, peripheral vision and "feeling" must be taken into account.

Imari
... You then have a slightly stretched view that is not strictly optically correct, but nonetheless can give a more accurate feel to the drive. This is what I was referring to when I talk about people adjusting their FOV for perception over "reality".
Click to expand...

The overriding "reality" you speak of does not exist. Gives us both turns at blasting a spec miata around Phillip Island, and we will both interpret that experience in different ways. Even sitting in the car at the starting line looking straight ahead -ask us to draw what we see and will likely produce two very different pictures.

Imari
How you thought a post about FOV was talking about the perception of the universe in any way beats me. ..
Click to expand...

I knew exactly what you were trying to convey, but I wanted to point out an important point about how your idea of perception vs reality may have been formed by your academic and social programming. Everyone's perception is, in fact, their picture of reality- and the concept of getting a viewpoint "wrong" (compared to some objective reality being right) is old and busted.

I meant no ill-will, and if you perceive me to have been a jerk, I sincerely apologize. I should work on how I make such points, and be more constructive. I hope your open-mindedness will allow you to accept my apology. I wish to have no quarrels with anyone. Exept maybe Samus. :lol: Just kidding, Samus!
 
research
Exactly what who would see? Every one of us will have a different seating position, and much more importantly- a different level of peripheral vision, sitting still and at speed. The only way to replicate this accurately is with the cockpit view options in the OP. There is no such thing as mathematically correct here- when it comes to individual perception of view from a driver's seat, peripheral vision and "feeling" must be taken into account.
Click to expand...

Did I stutter? What YOU would see. You measure YOUR seating position, YOUR television, the distance YOU are sitting from it. From this you calculate what YOU would see sitting in YOUR car through a frame the size of YOUR television that is the same distance away from YOU.

There is a mathematically correct optical FOV for any given setup. Let me give an example.

My screen is 480mm wide. My eyes are 500mm from the screen when I play. Using trigonometry and the three points of either edge of the screen and dead between my eyes, I can calculate that the screen takes up 51° of my field of vision in "reality".

For correct optical vision, I want my 51° of vision at the surface of the screen in "reality" to exactly correspond with 51° of vision at the surface of the screen in the simulation/game. So I set the FOV to 51°. My view is then not optically distorted in any way, I might as well be looking through a window.

Again, OPTICALLY correct. Optically correct for YOU, and YOUR setup.

The overriding "reality" you speak of does not exist. Gives us both turns at blasting a spec miata around Phillip Island, and we will both interpret that experience in different ways. Even sitting in the car at the starting line looking straight ahead -ask us to draw what we see and will likely produce two very different pictures.
Click to expand...

Again, which is why I suggested that people adjust to their own personal preference. You adjust the FOV to suit YOUR perception of what YOU feel when YOU are driving a car.

How is this complicated? I never suggested that there was one optimal setting for everyone. The whole thing started because I was taking issue with someone who made exactly that point, and I replied that actually you would have to adjust the FOV to suit you personally, and that depending on your goals there are different ways of going about it.

I couldn't care less what reality is. It doesn't matter at all. Whatever you happen to perceive as reality is what you can use to make these adjustments. I've already implied that each person's experience is unique in telling them to set it up to suit themselves rather than giving them an objective "best" setting. Because there isn't one.

The point is to adjust the game so that it suits YOU. Yeesh.

I knew exactly what you were trying to convey, but I wanted to point out an important point about how your idea of perception vs reality may have been formed by your academic and social programming. Everyone's perception is, in fact, their picture of reality- and the concept of getting a viewpoint "wrong" (compared to some objective reality being right) is old and busted.

I meant no ill-will, and if you perceive me to have been a jerk, I sincerely apologize. I should work on how I make such points, and be more constructive. I hope your open-mindedness will allow you to accept my apology. I wish to have no quarrels with anyone. Exept maybe Samus. :lol: Just kidding, Samus!
Click to expand...

I think there's good evidence that you still have no idea what I'm trying to convey. Your point about subjective and objective realities is in no way connected to what we're trying to discuss here. It's not about perception in the way you mean at all.

You're talking about is there anything really out there causing our perceptions. All I'm talking about is matching one set of perceptions with another, the "real life" (because if I use the word reality you'll take it into the cellar and abuse it some more) and the simulation/game. What causes those perceptions is entirely beside the point. I'm not trying to force some concept of reality on anyone, unlike you telling me that I've been socially programmed to disseminate falsehoods about reality.

I'm simply explaining to people how to set up their FOV to best experience the game the way they want. None of what I'm talking about is the least bit affected by whether reality is objective, subjective, or a piece of mouldy cheese. These methods work as well regardless of what you believe or what is. So what you're saying is totally and utterly irrelevant to the conversation at hand.

If you think your ideas on what reality is are relevant, please explain how it would change how you set your FOV.

This is not the Opinions & Current Events forum. If you want to talk metaphysics, I suggest you take it there.
 
It appears we are basically in agreement. Possibly the main point I was missing is here:

Imari
... the view on the screen is exactly what you would see if you were sitting in the car looking through a frame the same size as your TV screen set at the same distance. This is what I chose to label as "going for realism", because it's the most realistic from a mathematical and scientific point of view..
Click to expand...


This is one of the main issues with setting your preferred view. You must compensate for the lack of true peripheral input by stretching the FOV angle- attempting to make your TV frame into a simulated FOV covering the needed peripheral input. I missed that specific point from your post, and again I apologize.

Also I wish not to force concepts on anyone- I only wish to heighten awareness. Almost no-one would purposefully disseminate falsehoods, but to ignore the fact that we are all programmed since the moment of birth only serves to keep us ultimately limited. This 5-sense, 3D, Time-based reality (at this point in our understanding) is being outed as completely illusory.
 
ShiftingGears
Forza also has a view where you can circle around the car, which would be nice to admire the aesthetics with. Often I don't waste time with replays so I don't really get to admire any car I drive in action as much as I would like.
Click to expand...

Ah, reminds me of the days of playing NFS:HP2 on PS2. They had the circle cam thing so you could get a 360 birdseye of who was around you and that look ahead flame thing that allowed you to (cheat) and see what was up ahead for the next quarter mile. That was the last HP for me that got the feel of the game right. Good arcade fun.

The motion blur of course is a compensation for not having true peripheral view. Done at the right amount, it helps with the sense of speed. I dream of the day when we can all have our own 200,000 X 4320 flexible thin film displays that we setup in a semi-circle around our rigs (which by then of course have full hydrolics to simulate bumps and g-forces).
:)
 
As more raceview options we get as better but I dont have many hope that we have new options to customnize our views :( Becasuse so far it looks exactly as GT5. The FOV and the 4 Camera views.
 
Tenacious D
Were you gone for a while? ;) Regardless, this is a good thread and I'm glad you bumped it.

Since your list is so comprehensive, I might bring something up. There is a difference between head shake and car shake. And the reason I bring this up is because a few people mentioned that the mild vibrations in the NASCAR cars, I think, caused them to have motion sickness. It seems that after an update sometime, it was reduced quite a bit. When I updated Forza 4, the car vibrations in-cockpit were less too.

In real life, you tend to shake with the car (head shake), which causes the whole field of view to judder. But in a game, this seems to cause the most trouble to the motion afflicted because the gaming position is rock solid. It seems that most games just shake the car (car shake of course), and a few if I'm recalling right, would vibrate the scenery a bit too (something in-between). I'm wondering if this should be a consideration. How do the latest PC sims like iRacing and rFactor 2 handle this? Or do they have options like this?
Click to expand...
iRacing shake the car cockpit, the scenary don't move. Anyway I don't think booth effects, car shaking and horizont/camera/head shaking can be realistic because you can't really simulate G-force with a TV screen, it will be only a trick, a gimmick, let's be honest with ourselves.

Things start being somwhat realistic when you got something like this,
a Motion Simulator rig.

That said, GT5 1.0 interior view shake made me sick in some tracks, no AA + horizon
shake + racing game = unnecessary unrealistic epilessy. GT5 actual version reduced that luckly.
 
ProjectWHaT
Playstation Eye already does this.
Click to expand...

It still wouldn't be anywhere near the same as using a head-tracking VR setup. With a VR setup, you could actually turn your head 90˚ and look out the side windows, maybe even 180˚ and look out the rear. It would also track subtle movements like looking up at the rear view mirror, or down at your gauges. No chance of doing that with the PSEye.
 
Has anybody here played TDU 1? If you do you will know what I am talking about.
I think the solution to the ridiculous cockpit granny style view is like in TDU 1 adjustable racing position.
 
Nomadpt1
Has anybody here played TDU 1? If you do you will know what I am talking about.
I think the solution to the ridiculous cockpit granny style view is like in TDU 1 adjustable racing position.
Click to expand...
We're talking about PD here. Something as simple and logical as adjustable cockpit view would be great and make a huge difference. But PD doesn't do simple and logical.
 
Hyland
We're talking about PD here. Something as simple and logical as adjustable cockpit view would be great and make a huge difference. But PD doesn't do simple and logical.
Click to expand...

That's the ridiculous part, they already have done it in a menu, it works great and it'll probably be the same for GT6. They just won't allow people access to it which makes me mad >.<
 
Cosbuster
That's the ridiculous part, they already have done it in a menu, it works great and it'll probably be the same for GT6. They just won't allow people access to it which makes me mad >.<
Click to expand...
The only reasonable explanation I could think of PD doing so is due to the side and back mirrors being partially glitched and partially blacked out in a good number of cars. But I'm fairly sure that could've been fixed if they'd decided to do so. Still, the cockpit view is miles better with my custom FOV settings (which in order have made GT5 a better game for me personally) than PD's standard settings.
 
Last edited:
Hyland
The only reasonable explanation I could think of PD doing so is due to the side and back mirrors being partially glitched and partially blacked out in a good number of cars. But I'm fairly sure that could've been fixed if they'd decided to do so. Still, the cockpit view is miles better with my custom FOV settings (which in order have made GT5 a better game for me personally) than PD's standard settings.
Click to expand...

Im fully agree love my Custom FOV aswell way more enjoyable than the narrow one PD chosen...
 
Good picture from user Anonanon in another Thread.

PD please take note!!!

5gjJJ
 
From all the new gameplay videos it really seems like they didnt change any of the views and also the FOV is still the same. No new camera views, same awful chasecam... huge disapointment for me.
 
Still holding out hope here, @DonZonda !

:nervous:

EDIT: Interestingly, this video directly highlights a couple issues with GT in regards to to realism:





1. Sense of speed. While I no longer believe that motion blurring is completely necessary, FOV adjustment surely is. The GT6 side of this video feels slower, even though landmark objects at the edges seem to fly by at the same rate (albeit a quarter-second behind :dunce: ) It's possibly due to the resolution of the edges, such as the road surface zooming towards off-screen at the bottom. Maybe? The RL side just seems grittier, and much more intense. Certainly higher resolution isn't going to happen on the old console, but it's clear from the edited FOV pics/videos in this thread that such a sense can be manufactured- not to mention finely tuned.

@sayba2th I've finally seen what you're talking about in this video. The E21 onboard footage is at the end, after it seems the trailer is over. I always just stopped the player when the 'Forza 5' title is shown. You should have said, "hey research its at the very end, ya monkey" or something hilarious like that. Ha! Either way that part really feels like we're rocketing down mulsanne, and theres even a bit of head shake going on there. @Tenacious D 's head shakes when we mention head shaking. :lol:

2. The mountains in the backround, and many trackside objects, appear inaccurately lit/colored/something. This, in particular, is not a big deal- but how often does PD get these side-by-side, synchronous looks at GT vs RL? If they decide to use this to their advantage, we could be witnessing the beginning of something great. They could really hone the experience using this new tech. Right now these two videos are clearly different, but it may not be long until they are indistinguishable.
 
Last edited:

Latest Posts

Back