Modifying the F1 2002 cockpit cam FOV settings

Can anyone recommend settings for F1 2002 that approximate GPL? I changed the FOV line from 75.00000 and 62.50000 to 76.00000 and 76.00000 after someone on VROC said that GPL defaults at 76 degrees and it seemed to make the faster turns a bit easier to navigate, as if I could see the turn better. I'd like to try fiddling more, but I dunno what the GPL settings are like. I have a feeling that part of my problem with F12k2 is the exaggerated peripheral vision, since I always have trouble judging distance... Jason

Depends on what you are trying to achieve. FOV is measured vertically, so if you set F1 2k2 to the same FOV as GPL you will have the same vertical viewing distance, but you will still have greater peripheral vision with GPL due to it's wider aspect ratio. If you want the same width as GPL you would have to factor in the aspect ratio differences. F1 2k2 runs at 4:3, whereas I believe GPL runs at 9:16. So GPL has a horizontal viewing angle of 76 * 16 / 9 = 135 degrees. Working backwards you would then need an FOV in F1 2k2 of 135 * 3 / 4 = 101 degrees. Even FPS games don't normally use more than 90. I just tried it to see how it looks - the car looks horrible, but I think this is because modern F1 cars are quite a bit longer than '67 F1 cars and therefore it stretches out into the distance more. Also you can see parts of the car model that you weren't supposed to see, but that can probably be changed with the clipping numbers in default.cfg. Interestingly though everything else does look about GPL size at that angle. The pit guys look smaller, and the track looks narrower and seems to taper off into the distance the same way it does in GPL. This makes me think that 101 is correct, and that the view models (your car) in GPL are probably scaled up or squashed horizontally or something so that you don't see the perspective distortion. "jason moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (13 lines)

> Can anyone recommend settings for F1 2002 that approximate GPL? > > I changed the FOV line from 75.00000 and 62.50000 to 76.00000 and > 76.00000 after someone on VROC said that GPL defaults at 76 degrees > and it seemed to make the faster turns a bit easier to navigate, as if > I could see the turn better. > > I'd like to try fiddling more, but I dunno what the GPL settings are > like. I have a feeling that part of my problem with F12k2 is the > exaggerated peripheral vision, since I always have trouble judging > distance... > > Jason

Thanks! I'll crank up the FOV until it starts to get ridicuous. =) Do you know why there are 2 values for FOV? Just changing it to the values below greatly improved my ability to take high speed turns (like the two flat-out right handers at Albert Park). Jason On Fri, 26 Jul 2002 23:07:54 -0400, "Haqsau" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (37 lines)

>Depends on what you are trying to achieve. FOV is measured vertically, >so if you set F1 2k2 to the same FOV as GPL you will have the same >vertical viewing distance, but you will still have greater peripheral >vision with GPL due to it's wider aspect ratio. If you want the same >width as GPL you would have to factor in the aspect ratio differences. >F1 2k2 runs at 4:3, whereas I believe GPL runs at 9:16. So GPL has a >horizontal viewing angle of 76 * 16 / 9 = 135 degrees. Working >backwards you would then need an FOV in F1 2k2 of 135 * 3 / 4 = 101 >degrees. Even FPS games don't normally use more than 90. I just tried >it to see how it looks - the car looks horrible, but I think this is >because modern F1 cars are quite a bit longer than '67 F1 cars and >therefore it stretches out into the distance more. Also you can see >parts of the car model that you weren't supposed to see, but that can >probably be changed with the clipping numbers in default.cfg. >Interestingly though everything else does look about GPL size at that >angle. The pit guys look smaller, and the track looks narrower and >seems to taper off into the distance the same way it does in GPL. This >makes me think that 101 is correct, and that the view models (your car) >in GPL are probably scaled up or squashed horizontally or something so >that you don't see the perspective distortion. > >"jason moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >news:[email hidden]... >> Can anyone recommend settings for F1 2002 that approximate GPL? >> >> I changed the FOV line from 75.00000 and 62.50000 to 76.00000 and >> 76.00000 after someone on VROC said that GPL defaults at 76 degrees >> and it seemed to make the faster turns a bit easier to navigate, as if >> I could see the turn better. >> >> I'd like to try fiddling more, but I dunno what the GPL settings are >> like. I have a feeling that part of my problem with F12k2 is the >> exaggerated peripheral vision, since I always have trouble judging >> distance... >> >> Jason >

A-Ha! I found out what's been throwing me off. It's not the raw FOV, it's whatever effect is being caused by the 2 numbers varying. I can set the FOV to a static 62.5 through 80 and I'm turning 2-3 tenths per second faster at Albert Park because of keeping my foot into the fast turns. However, if I change the FOV to 2 different values, say 75 and 37, it makes fast turns impossible to judge. Woo. I'm guessing the first number refers to FOV near, and the second is FOV far, and it somehow extrapolates between them? Jason On Sat, 27 Jul 2002 03:38:21 GMT, [email hidden] (jason moyer) wrote:

Quoted text (51 lines)

>Thanks! > >I'll crank up the FOV until it starts to get ridicuous. =) > >Do you know why there are 2 values for FOV? Just changing it to the >values below greatly improved my ability to take high speed turns >(like the two flat-out right handers at Albert Park). > >Jason > >On Fri, 26 Jul 2002 23:07:54 -0400, "Haqsau" <[email hidden]> >wrote: > >>Depends on what you are trying to achieve. FOV is measured vertically, >>so if you set F1 2k2 to the same FOV as GPL you will have the same >>vertical viewing distance, but you will still have greater peripheral >>vision with GPL due to it's wider aspect ratio. If you want the same >>width as GPL you would have to factor in the aspect ratio differences. >>F1 2k2 runs at 4:3, whereas I believe GPL runs at 9:16. So GPL has a >>horizontal viewing angle of 76 * 16 / 9 = 135 degrees. Working >>backwards you would then need an FOV in F1 2k2 of 135 * 3 / 4 = 101 >>degrees. Even FPS games don't normally use more than 90. I just tried >>it to see how it looks - the car looks horrible, but I think this is >>because modern F1 cars are quite a bit longer than '67 F1 cars and >>therefore it stretches out into the distance more. Also you can see >>parts of the car model that you weren't supposed to see, but that can >>probably be changed with the clipping numbers in default.cfg. >>Interestingly though everything else does look about GPL size at that >>angle. The pit guys look smaller, and the track looks narrower and >>seems to taper off into the distance the same way it does in GPL. This >>makes me think that 101 is correct, and that the view models (your car) >>in GPL are probably scaled up or squashed horizontally or something so >>that you don't see the perspective distortion. >> >>"jason moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >>news:[email hidden]... >>> Can anyone recommend settings for F1 2002 that approximate GPL? >>> >>> I changed the FOV line from 75.00000 and 62.50000 to 76.00000 and >>> 76.00000 after someone on VROC said that GPL defaults at 76 degrees >>> and it seemed to make the faster turns a bit easier to navigate, as if >>> I could see the turn better. >>> >>> I'd like to try fiddling more, but I dunno what the GPL settings are >>> like. I have a feeling that part of my problem with F12k2 is the >>> exaggerated peripheral vision, since I always have trouble judging >>> distance... >>> >>> Jason >> >

Geeze, ok to get an idea of how much this was throwing me off at some tracks... I've run about 50-100 laps at Magny Cours not counting practice. I know from real life accoutns that this is a Mickey Mouse track that the drivers absolutely abhor. In my experience at the track, it's impossible to judge many of the turns, especially the exit to the fast right near the beginning, both sets of 4th gear esses, and the exit to the 3rd gear right before the 2nd set of 4th gear esses. Sorry can't remember corner names. Just by setting the second FOV setting to 75 to match the first FOV setting, I've knocked a full second off my time - on the first lap, when I ran wide on the exit of the 2nd last right (2nd gear) because I wasn't concentrating. From 17.8 to 17.2 on a fiddling about lap, where I was still having some confidence lifts, using a full fuel load and the default setup. I'm pretty sure once I tweak the setup and drop the fuel load I'll be in the 1:10 range, which is pretty good by my standards. I'm amazed at how much easier it is to judge distances now. Before I had a habit of understeering (i.e. not enough lock) on turn exits because I couldn't judge the distance, now I'm actually not drifting out far enough usually. Woo, feels like a new sim. And I was enjoying it enough already. =) Jason On Sat, 27 Jul 2002 03:58:56 GMT, [email hidden] (jason moyer) wrote:

Quoted text (70 lines)

>A-Ha! > >I found out what's been throwing me off. It's not the raw FOV, it's >whatever effect is being caused by the 2 numbers varying. > >I can set the FOV to a static 62.5 through 80 and I'm turning 2-3 >tenths per second faster at Albert Park because of keeping my foot >into the fast turns. However, if I change the FOV to 2 different >values, say 75 and 37, it makes fast turns impossible to judge. > >Woo. I'm guessing the first number refers to FOV near, and the second >is FOV far, and it somehow extrapolates between them? > >Jason > >On Sat, 27 Jul 2002 03:38:21 GMT, [email hidden] (jason moyer) >wrote: > >>Thanks! >> >>I'll crank up the FOV until it starts to get ridicuous. =) >> >>Do you know why there are 2 values for FOV? Just changing it to the >>values below greatly improved my ability to take high speed turns >>(like the two flat-out right handers at Albert Park). >> >>Jason >> >>On Fri, 26 Jul 2002 23:07:54 -0400, "Haqsau" <[email hidden]> >>wrote: >> >>>Depends on what you are trying to achieve. FOV is measured vertically, >>>so if you set F1 2k2 to the same FOV as GPL you will have the same >>>vertical viewing distance, but you will still have greater peripheral >>>vision with GPL due to it's wider aspect ratio. If you want the same >>>width as GPL you would have to factor in the aspect ratio differences. >>>F1 2k2 runs at 4:3, whereas I believe GPL runs at 9:16. So GPL has a >>>horizontal viewing angle of 76 * 16 / 9 = 135 degrees. Working >>>backwards you would then need an FOV in F1 2k2 of 135 * 3 / 4 = 101 >>>degrees. Even FPS games don't normally use more than 90. I just tried >>>it to see how it looks - the car looks horrible, but I think this is >>>because modern F1 cars are quite a bit longer than '67 F1 cars and >>>therefore it stretches out into the distance more. Also you can see >>>parts of the car model that you weren't supposed to see, but that can >>>probably be changed with the clipping numbers in default.cfg. >>>Interestingly though everything else does look about GPL size at that >>>angle. The pit guys look smaller, and the track looks narrower and >>>seems to taper off into the distance the same way it does in GPL. This >>>makes me think that 101 is correct, and that the view models (your car) >>>in GPL are probably scaled up or squashed horizontally or something so >>>that you don't see the perspective distortion. >>> >>>"jason moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >>>news:[email hidden]... >>>> Can anyone recommend settings for F1 2002 that approximate GPL? >>>> >>>> I changed the FOV line from 75.00000 and 62.50000 to 76.00000 and >>>> 76.00000 after someone on VROC said that GPL defaults at 76 degrees >>>> and it seemed to make the faster turns a bit easier to navigate, as if >>>> I could see the turn better. >>>> >>>> I'd like to try fiddling more, but I dunno what the GPL settings are >>>> like. I have a feeling that part of my problem with F12k2 is the >>>> exaggerated peripheral vision, since I always have trouble judging >>>> distance... >>>> >>>> Jason >>> >> >

In what file do you change the FOV? I looked in the Player file (in the SAVE directory), and can't find that setting. Thanks. Bert jason moyer wrote:

Quoted text (102 lines)

> Geeze, ok to get an idea of how much this was throwing me off at some > tracks... > > I've run about 50-100 laps at Magny Cours not counting practice. I > know from real life accoutns that this is a Mickey Mouse track that > the drivers absolutely abhor. > > In my experience at the track, it's impossible to judge many of the > turns, especially the exit to the fast right near the beginning, both > sets of 4th gear esses, and the exit to the 3rd gear right before the > 2nd set of 4th gear esses. Sorry can't remember corner names. > > Just by setting the second FOV setting to 75 to match the first FOV > setting, I've knocked a full second off my time - on the first lap, > when I ran wide on the exit of the 2nd last right (2nd gear) because I > wasn't concentrating. From 17.8 to 17.2 on a fiddling about lap, > where I was still having some confidence lifts, using a full fuel load > and the default setup. I'm pretty sure once I tweak the setup and > drop the fuel load I'll be in the 1:10 range, which is pretty good by > my standards. > > I'm amazed at how much easier it is to judge distances now. Before I > had a habit of understeering (i.e. not enough lock) on turn exits > because I couldn't judge the distance, now I'm actually not drifting > out far enough usually. Woo, feels like a new sim. And I was > enjoying it enough already. =) > > Jason > > On Sat, 27 Jul 2002 03:58:56 GMT, [email hidden] (jason moyer) > wrote: > > >A-Ha! > > > >I found out what's been throwing me off. It's not the raw FOV, it's > >whatever effect is being caused by the 2 numbers varying. > > > >I can set the FOV to a static 62.5 through 80 and I'm turning 2-3 > >tenths per second faster at Albert Park because of keeping my foot > >into the fast turns. However, if I change the FOV to 2 different > >values, say 75 and 37, it makes fast turns impossible to judge. > > > >Woo. I'm guessing the first number refers to FOV near, and the second > >is FOV far, and it somehow extrapolates between them? > > > >Jason > > > >On Sat, 27 Jul 2002 03:38:21 GMT, [email hidden] (jason moyer) > >wrote: > > > >>Thanks! > >> > >>I'll crank up the FOV until it starts to get ridicuous. =) > >> > >>Do you know why there are 2 values for FOV? Just changing it to the > >>values below greatly improved my ability to take high speed turns > >>(like the two flat-out right handers at Albert Park). > >> > >>Jason > >> > >>On Fri, 26 Jul 2002 23:07:54 -0400, "Haqsau" <[email hidden]> > >>wrote: > >> > >>>Depends on what you are trying to achieve. FOV is measured vertically, > >>>so if you set F1 2k2 to the same FOV as GPL you will have the same > >>>vertical viewing distance, but you will still have greater peripheral > >>>vision with GPL due to it's wider aspect ratio. If you want the same > >>>width as GPL you would have to factor in the aspect ratio differences. > >>>F1 2k2 runs at 4:3, whereas I believe GPL runs at 9:16. So GPL has a > >>>horizontal viewing angle of 76 * 16 / 9 = 135 degrees. Working > >>>backwards you would then need an FOV in F1 2k2 of 135 * 3 / 4 = 101 > >>>degrees. Even FPS games don't normally use more than 90. I just tried > >>>it to see how it looks - the car looks horrible, but I think this is > >>>because modern F1 cars are quite a bit longer than '67 F1 cars and > >>>therefore it stretches out into the distance more. Also you can see > >>>parts of the car model that you weren't supposed to see, but that can > >>>probably be changed with the clipping numbers in default.cfg. > >>>Interestingly though everything else does look about GPL size at that > >>>angle. The pit guys look smaller, and the track looks narrower and > >>>seems to taper off into the distance the same way it does in GPL. This > >>>makes me think that 101 is correct, and that the view models (your car) > >>>in GPL are probably scaled up or squashed horizontally or something so > >>>that you don't see the perspective distortion. > >>> > >>>"jason moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > >>>news:[email hidden]... > >>>> Can anyone recommend settings for F1 2002 that approximate GPL? > >>>> > >>>> I changed the FOV line from 75.00000 and 62.50000 to 76.00000 and > >>>> 76.00000 after someone on VROC said that GPL defaults at 76 degrees > >>>> and it seemed to make the faster turns a bit easier to navigate, as if > >>>> I could see the turn better. > >>>> > >>>> I'd like to try fiddling more, but I dunno what the GPL settings are > >>>> like. I have a feeling that part of my problem with F12k2 is the > >>>> exaggerated peripheral vision, since I always have trouble judging > >>>> distance... > >>>> > >>>> Jason > >>> > >> > >

SeasonXX\Tracks\*track*\*track name*.cam files BRH @attbi.com> <"bertrh<no-spam> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > In what file do you change the FOV? I looked in the Player file (inthe SAVE

Quoted text (11 lines)

> directory), and can't find that setting. > > Thanks. > Bert > > > > > jason moyer wrote: > > > Geeze, ok to get an idea of how much this was throwing me off at

some

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > tracks... > > > > I've run about 50-100 laps at Magny Cours not counting practice. I > > know from real life accoutns that this is a Mickey Mouse track that > > the drivers absolutely abhor. > > > > In my experience at the track, it's impossible to judge many of the > > turns, especially the exit to the fast right near the beginning,

both > > sets of 4th gear esses, and the exit to the 3rd gear right beforethe > > 2nd set of 4th gear esses. Sorry can't remember corner names. > > > > Just by setting the second FOV setting to 75 to match the first FOV > > setting, I've knocked a full second off my time - on the first lap, > > when I ran wide on the exit of the 2nd last right (2nd gear) becauseI > > wasn't concentrating. From 17.8 to 17.2 on a fiddling about lap, > > where I was still having some confidence lifts, using a full fuelload > > and the default setup. I'm pretty sure once I tweak the setup and > > drop the fuel load I'll be in the 1:10 range, which is pretty goodby > > my standards. > > > > I'm amazed at how much easier it is to judge distances now. BeforeI

Quoted text (13 lines)

> > had a habit of understeering (i.e. not enough lock) on turn exits > > because I couldn't judge the distance, now I'm actually not drifting > > out far enough usually. Woo, feels like a new sim. And I was > > enjoying it enough already. =) > > > > Jason > > > > On Sat, 27 Jul 2002 03:58:56 GMT, [email hidden] (jason moyer) > > wrote: > > > > >A-Ha! > > > > > >I found out what's been throwing me off. It's not the raw FOV,

it's

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > >whatever effect is being caused by the 2 numbers varying. > > > > > >I can set the FOV to a static 62.5 through 80 and I'm turning 2-3 > > >tenths per second faster at Albert Park because of keeping my foot > > >into the fast turns. However, if I change the FOV to 2 different > > >values, say 75 and 37, it makes fast turns impossible to judge. > > > > > >Woo. I'm guessing the first number refers to FOV near, and the

second

Quoted text (12 lines)

> > >is FOV far, and it somehow extrapolates between them? > > > > > >Jason > > > > > >On Sat, 27 Jul 2002 03:38:21 GMT, [email hidden] (jason moyer) > > >wrote: > > > > > >>Thanks! > > >> > > >>I'll crank up the FOV until it starts to get ridicuous. =) > > >> > > >>Do you know why there are 2 values for FOV? Just changing it to

the > > >>values below greatly improved my ability to take high speed turns > > >>(like the two flat-out right handers at Albert Park). > > >> > > >>Jason > > >> > > >>On Fri, 26 Jul 2002 23:07:54 -0400, "Haqsau"<[email hidden]> > > >>wrote: > > >> > > >>>Depends on what you are trying to achieve. FOV is measuredvertically, > > >>>so if you set F1 2k2 to the same FOV as GPL you will have thesame > > >>>vertical viewing distance, but you will still have greaterperipheral > > >>>vision with GPL due to it's wider aspect ratio. If you want thesame > > >>>width as GPL you would have to factor in the aspect ratiodifferences. > > >>>F1 2k2 runs at 4:3, whereas I believe GPL runs at 9:16. So GPLhas a > > >>>horizontal viewing angle of 76 * 16 / 9 = 135 degrees. Working > > >>>backwards you would then need an FOV in F1 2k2 of 135 * 3 / 4 =101 > > >>>degrees. Even FPS games don't normally use more than 90. I justtried > > >>>it to see how it looks - the car looks horrible, but I think thisis > > >>>because modern F1 cars are quite a bit longer than '67 F1 carsand > > >>>therefore it stretches out into the distance more. Also you cansee > > >>>parts of the car model that you weren't supposed to see, but thatcan > > >>>probably be changed with the clipping numbers in default.cfg. > > >>>Interestingly though everything else does look about GPL size atthat > > >>>angle. The pit guys look smaller, and the track looks narrowerand > > >>>seems to taper off into the distance the same way it does in GPL.This > > >>>makes me think that 101 is correct, and that the view models(your car) > > >>>in GPL are probably scaled up or squashed horizontally orsomething so

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > >>>that you don't see the perspective distortion. > > >>> > > >>>"jason moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > >>>news:[email hidden]... > > >>>> Can anyone recommend settings for F1 2002 that approximate GPL? > > >>>> > > >>>> I changed the FOV line from 75.00000 and 62.50000 to 76.00000

and > > >>>> 76.00000 after someone on VROC said that GPL defaults at 76degrees > > >>>> and it seemed to make the faster turns a bit easier tonavigate, as if > > >>>> I could see the turn better. > > >>>> > > >>>> I'd like to try fiddling more, but I dunno what the GPLsettings are > > >>>> like. I have a feeling that part of my problem with F12k2 isthe > > >>>> exaggerated peripheral vision, since I always have troublejudging

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > >>>> distance... > > >>>> > > >>>> Jason > > >>> > > >> > > > > >

It's in the default.cfg file in your SAVE directory. Jason On Sat, 27 Jul 2002 22:23:54 GMT, BRH <"bertrh<no-spam>"@attbi.com> wrote:

Quoted text (114 lines)

>In what file do you change the FOV? I looked in the Player file (in the SAVE >directory), and can't find that setting. > >Thanks. >Bert > > > > >jason moyer wrote: > >> Geeze, ok to get an idea of how much this was throwing me off at some >> tracks... >> >> I've run about 50-100 laps at Magny Cours not counting practice. I >> know from real life accoutns that this is a Mickey Mouse track that >> the drivers absolutely abhor. >> >> In my experience at the track, it's impossible to judge many of the >> turns, especially the exit to the fast right near the beginning, both >> sets of 4th gear esses, and the exit to the 3rd gear right before the >> 2nd set of 4th gear esses. Sorry can't remember corner names. >> >> Just by setting the second FOV setting to 75 to match the first FOV >> setting, I've knocked a full second off my time - on the first lap, >> when I ran wide on the exit of the 2nd last right (2nd gear) because I >> wasn't concentrating. From 17.8 to 17.2 on a fiddling about lap, >> where I was still having some confidence lifts, using a full fuel load >> and the default setup. I'm pretty sure once I tweak the setup and >> drop the fuel load I'll be in the 1:10 range, which is pretty good by >> my standards. >> >> I'm amazed at how much easier it is to judge distances now. Before I >> had a habit of understeering (i.e. not enough lock) on turn exits >> because I couldn't judge the distance, now I'm actually not drifting >> out far enough usually. Woo, feels like a new sim. And I was >> enjoying it enough already. =) >> >> Jason >> >> On Sat, 27 Jul 2002 03:58:56 GMT, [email hidden] (jason moyer) >> wrote: >> >> >A-Ha! >> > >> >I found out what's been throwing me off. It's not the raw FOV, it's >> >whatever effect is being caused by the 2 numbers varying. >> > >> >I can set the FOV to a static 62.5 through 80 and I'm turning 2-3 >> >tenths per second faster at Albert Park because of keeping my foot >> >into the fast turns. However, if I change the FOV to 2 different >> >values, say 75 and 37, it makes fast turns impossible to judge. >> > >> >Woo. I'm guessing the first number refers to FOV near, and the second >> >is FOV far, and it somehow extrapolates between them? >> > >> >Jason >> > >> >On Sat, 27 Jul 2002 03:38:21 GMT, [email hidden] (jason moyer) >> >wrote: >> > >> >>Thanks! >> >> >> >>I'll crank up the FOV until it starts to get ridicuous. =) >> >> >> >>Do you know why there are 2 values for FOV? Just changing it to the >> >>values below greatly improved my ability to take high speed turns >> >>(like the two flat-out right handers at Albert Park). >> >> >> >>Jason >> >> >> >>On Fri, 26 Jul 2002 23:07:54 -0400, "Haqsau" <[email hidden]> >> >>wrote: >> >> >> >>>Depends on what you are trying to achieve. FOV is measured vertically, >> >>>so if you set F1 2k2 to the same FOV as GPL you will have the same >> >>>vertical viewing distance, but you will still have greater peripheral >> >>>vision with GPL due to it's wider aspect ratio. If you want the same >> >>>width as GPL you would have to factor in the aspect ratio differences. >> >>>F1 2k2 runs at 4:3, whereas I believe GPL runs at 9:16. So GPL has a >> >>>horizontal viewing angle of 76 * 16 / 9 = 135 degrees. Working >> >>>backwards you would then need an FOV in F1 2k2 of 135 * 3 / 4 = 101 >> >>>degrees. Even FPS games don't normally use more than 90. I just tried >> >>>it to see how it looks - the car looks horrible, but I think this is >> >>>because modern F1 cars are quite a bit longer than '67 F1 cars and >> >>>therefore it stretches out into the distance more. Also you can see >> >>>parts of the car model that you weren't supposed to see, but that can >> >>>probably be changed with the clipping numbers in default.cfg. >> >>>Interestingly though everything else does look about GPL size at that >> >>>angle. The pit guys look smaller, and the track looks narrower and >> >>>seems to taper off into the distance the same way it does in GPL. This >> >>>makes me think that 101 is correct, and that the view models (your car) >> >>>in GPL are probably scaled up or squashed horizontally or something so >> >>>that you don't see the perspective distortion. >> >>> >> >>>"jason moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >> >>>news:[email hidden]... >> >>>> Can anyone recommend settings for F1 2002 that approximate GPL? >> >>>> >> >>>> I changed the FOV line from 75.00000 and 62.50000 to 76.00000 and >> >>>> 76.00000 after someone on VROC said that GPL defaults at 76 degrees >> >>>> and it seemed to make the faster turns a bit easier to navigate, as if >> >>>> I could see the turn better. >> >>>> >> >>>> I'd like to try fiddling more, but I dunno what the GPL settings are >> >>>> like. I have a feeling that part of my problem with F12k2 is the >> >>>> exaggerated peripheral vision, since I always have trouble judging >> >>>> distance... >> >>>> >> >>>> Jason >> >>> >> >> >> > >

OK. Thanks! I'll give it a try..... jason moyer wrote:

Quoted text (121 lines)

> It's in the default.cfg file in your SAVE directory. > > Jason > > On Sat, 27 Jul 2002 22:23:54 GMT, BRH <"bertrh<no-spam>"@attbi.com> > wrote: > > >In what file do you change the FOV? I looked in the Player file (in the SAVE > >directory), and can't find that setting. > > > >Thanks. > >Bert > > > > > > > > > >jason moyer wrote: > > > >> Geeze, ok to get an idea of how much this was throwing me off at some > >> tracks... > >> > >> I've run about 50-100 laps at Magny Cours not counting practice. I > >> know from real life accoutns that this is a Mickey Mouse track that > >> the drivers absolutely abhor. > >> > >> In my experience at the track, it's impossible to judge many of the > >> turns, especially the exit to the fast right near the beginning, both > >> sets of 4th gear esses, and the exit to the 3rd gear right before the > >> 2nd set of 4th gear esses. Sorry can't remember corner names. > >> > >> Just by setting the second FOV setting to 75 to match the first FOV > >> setting, I've knocked a full second off my time - on the first lap, > >> when I ran wide on the exit of the 2nd last right (2nd gear) because I > >> wasn't concentrating. From 17.8 to 17.2 on a fiddling about lap, > >> where I was still having some confidence lifts, using a full fuel load > >> and the default setup. I'm pretty sure once I tweak the setup and > >> drop the fuel load I'll be in the 1:10 range, which is pretty good by > >> my standards. > >> > >> I'm amazed at how much easier it is to judge distances now. Before I > >> had a habit of understeering (i.e. not enough lock) on turn exits > >> because I couldn't judge the distance, now I'm actually not drifting > >> out far enough usually. Woo, feels like a new sim. And I was > >> enjoying it enough already. =) > >> > >> Jason > >> > >> On Sat, 27 Jul 2002 03:58:56 GMT, [email hidden] (jason moyer) > >> wrote: > >> > >> >A-Ha! > >> > > >> >I found out what's been throwing me off. It's not the raw FOV, it's > >> >whatever effect is being caused by the 2 numbers varying. > >> > > >> >I can set the FOV to a static 62.5 through 80 and I'm turning 2-3 > >> >tenths per second faster at Albert Park because of keeping my foot > >> >into the fast turns. However, if I change the FOV to 2 different > >> >values, say 75 and 37, it makes fast turns impossible to judge. > >> > > >> >Woo. I'm guessing the first number refers to FOV near, and the second > >> >is FOV far, and it somehow extrapolates between them? > >> > > >> >Jason > >> > > >> >On Sat, 27 Jul 2002 03:38:21 GMT, [email hidden] (jason moyer) > >> >wrote: > >> > > >> >>Thanks! > >> >> > >> >>I'll crank up the FOV until it starts to get ridicuous. =) > >> >> > >> >>Do you know why there are 2 values for FOV? Just changing it to the > >> >>values below greatly improved my ability to take high speed turns > >> >>(like the two flat-out right handers at Albert Park). > >> >> > >> >>Jason > >> >> > >> >>On Fri, 26 Jul 2002 23:07:54 -0400, "Haqsau" <[email hidden]> > >> >>wrote: > >> >> > >> >>>Depends on what you are trying to achieve. FOV is measured vertically, > >> >>>so if you set F1 2k2 to the same FOV as GPL you will have the same > >> >>>vertical viewing distance, but you will still have greater peripheral > >> >>>vision with GPL due to it's wider aspect ratio. If you want the same > >> >>>width as GPL you would have to factor in the aspect ratio differences. > >> >>>F1 2k2 runs at 4:3, whereas I believe GPL runs at 9:16. So GPL has a > >> >>>horizontal viewing angle of 76 * 16 / 9 = 135 degrees. Working > >> >>>backwards you would then need an FOV in F1 2k2 of 135 * 3 / 4 = 101 > >> >>>degrees. Even FPS games don't normally use more than 90. I just tried > >> >>>it to see how it looks - the car looks horrible, but I think this is > >> >>>because modern F1 cars are quite a bit longer than '67 F1 cars and > >> >>>therefore it stretches out into the distance more. Also you can see > >> >>>parts of the car model that you weren't supposed to see, but that can > >> >>>probably be changed with the clipping numbers in default.cfg. > >> >>>Interestingly though everything else does look about GPL size at that > >> >>>angle. The pit guys look smaller, and the track looks narrower and > >> >>>seems to taper off into the distance the same way it does in GPL. This > >> >>>makes me think that 101 is correct, and that the view models (your car) > >> >>>in GPL are probably scaled up or squashed horizontally or something so > >> >>>that you don't see the perspective distortion. > >> >>> > >> >>>"jason moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > >> >>>news:[email hidden]... > >> >>>> Can anyone recommend settings for F1 2002 that approximate GPL? > >> >>>> > >> >>>> I changed the FOV line from 75.00000 and 62.50000 to 76.00000 and > >> >>>> 76.00000 after someone on VROC said that GPL defaults at 76 degrees > >> >>>> and it seemed to make the faster turns a bit easier to navigate, as if > >> >>>> I could see the turn better. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> I'd like to try fiddling more, but I dunno what the GPL settings are > >> >>>> like. I have a feeling that part of my problem with F12k2 is the > >> >>>> exaggerated peripheral vision, since I always have trouble judging > >> >>>> distance... > >> >>>> > >> >>>> Jason > >> >>> > >> >> > >> > > >

Didn't know it was there, too... thanks, Jason jason moyer <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> It's in the default.cfg file in your SAVE directory. > > Jason > > On Sat, 27 Jul 2002 22:23:54 GMT, BRH <"bertrh<no-spam>"@attbi.com> > wrote: > > >In what file do you change the FOV? I looked in the Player file (in

the SAVE

Quoted text (11 lines)

> >directory), and can't find that setting. > > > >Thanks. > >Bert > > > > > > > > > >jason moyer wrote: > > > >> Geeze, ok to get an idea of how much this was throwing me off at

some

Quoted text (8 lines)

> >> tracks... > >> > >> I've run about 50-100 laps at Magny Cours not counting practice. I > >> know from real life accoutns that this is a Mickey Mouse track that > >> the drivers absolutely abhor. > >> > >> In my experience at the track, it's impossible to judge many of the > >> turns, especially the exit to the fast right near the beginning,

both > >> sets of 4th gear esses, and the exit to the 3rd gear right beforethe > >> 2nd set of 4th gear esses. Sorry can't remember corner names. > >> > >> Just by setting the second FOV setting to 75 to match the first FOV > >> setting, I've knocked a full second off my time - on the first lap, > >> when I ran wide on the exit of the 2nd last right (2nd gear)because I > >> wasn't concentrating. From 17.8 to 17.2 on a fiddling about lap, > >> where I was still having some confidence lifts, using a full fuelload > >> and the default setup. I'm pretty sure once I tweak the setup and > >> drop the fuel load I'll be in the 1:10 range, which is pretty goodby > >> my standards. > >> > >> I'm amazed at how much easier it is to judge distances now. BeforeI > >> had a habit of understeering (i.e. not enough lock) on turn exits > >> because I couldn't judge the distance, now I'm actually notdrifting

Quoted text (11 lines)

> >> out far enough usually. Woo, feels like a new sim. And I was > >> enjoying it enough already. =) > >> > >> Jason > >> > >> On Sat, 27 Jul 2002 03:58:56 GMT, [email hidden] (jason moyer) > >> wrote: > >> > >> >A-Ha! > >> > > >> >I found out what's been throwing me off. It's not the raw FOV,

it's

Quoted text (8 lines)

> >> >whatever effect is being caused by the 2 numbers varying. > >> > > >> >I can set the FOV to a static 62.5 through 80 and I'm turning 2-3 > >> >tenths per second faster at Albert Park because of keeping my foot > >> >into the fast turns. However, if I change the FOV to 2 different > >> >values, say 75 and 37, it makes fast turns impossible to judge. > >> > > >> >Woo. I'm guessing the first number refers to FOV near, and the

second

Quoted text (12 lines)

> >> >is FOV far, and it somehow extrapolates between them? > >> > > >> >Jason > >> > > >> >On Sat, 27 Jul 2002 03:38:21 GMT, [email hidden] (jason moyer) > >> >wrote: > >> > > >> >>Thanks! > >> >> > >> >>I'll crank up the FOV until it starts to get ridicuous. =) > >> >> > >> >>Do you know why there are 2 values for FOV? Just changing it to

the > >> >>values below greatly improved my ability to take high speed turns > >> >>(like the two flat-out right handers at Albert Park). > >> >> > >> >>Jason > >> >> > >> >>On Fri, 26 Jul 2002 23:07:54 -0400, "Haqsau"<[email hidden]> > >> >>wrote: > >> >> > >> >>>Depends on what you are trying to achieve. FOV is measuredvertically, > >> >>>so if you set F1 2k2 to the same FOV as GPL you will have thesame > >> >>>vertical viewing distance, but you will still have greaterperipheral > >> >>>vision with GPL due to it's wider aspect ratio. If you want thesame > >> >>>width as GPL you would have to factor in the aspect ratiodifferences. > >> >>>F1 2k2 runs at 4:3, whereas I believe GPL runs at 9:16. So GPLhas a > >> >>>horizontal viewing angle of 76 * 16 / 9 = 135 degrees. Working > >> >>>backwards you would then need an FOV in F1 2k2 of 135 * 3 / 4 =101 > >> >>>degrees. Even FPS games don't normally use more than 90. Ijust tried > >> >>>it to see how it looks - the car looks horrible, but I thinkthis is > >> >>>because modern F1 cars are quite a bit longer than '67 F1 carsand > >> >>>therefore it stretches out into the distance more. Also you cansee > >> >>>parts of the car model that you weren't supposed to see, butthat can > >> >>>probably be changed with the clipping numbers in default.cfg. > >> >>>Interestingly though everything else does look about GPL size atthat > >> >>>angle. The pit guys look smaller, and the track looks narrowerand > >> >>>seems to taper off into the distance the same way it does inGPL. This > >> >>>makes me think that 101 is correct, and that the view models(your car) > >> >>>in GPL are probably scaled up or squashed horizontally orsomething so > >> >>>that you don't see the perspective distortion. > >> >>> > >> >>>"jason moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > >> >>>news:[email hidden]... > >> >>>> Can anyone recommend settings for F1 2002 that approximateGPL? > >> >>>> > >> >>>> I changed the FOV line from 75.00000 and 62.50000 to 76.00000and > >> >>>> 76.00000 after someone on VROC said that GPL defaults at 76degrees > >> >>>> and it seemed to make the faster turns a bit easier tonavigate, as if > >> >>>> I could see the turn better. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> I'd like to try fiddling more, but I dunno what the GPLsettings are > >> >>>> like. I have a feeling that part of my problem with F12k2 isthe > >> >>>> exaggerated peripheral vision, since I always have troublejudging

Quoted text (9 lines)

> >> >>>> distance... > >> >>>> > >> >>>> Jason > >> >>> > >> >> > >> > > > > >

I think one of the main problems with the cockpit view in F1 2002 is not the FOV but the height of the viewpoint. Try this.... Find the PositionOffset value under COCKPIT and remove the minus from the start of the second value. This raises the eye height a little and allows you to see quite a bit further into the distance. It's certainly a better alternative than using the TV Cockpit view since you can't see the mirrors properly in that view... -- Damien Smith [email hidden] ICQ: 77028579 F1 2001 rank: -11.512

Interesting. I tried that and it seemed a little high and still a bit too far front, so I set all 3 values to zero and now it seems, to me at least, that the view is approximately from where the drivers head is at. That combined with 76/76 for the FOV is making the driving a bit more fun. Jason On Sun, 28 Jul 2002 16:04:21 +1000, "Damien Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (15 lines)

>I think one of the main problems with the cockpit view in F1 2002 is not the >FOV but the height of the viewpoint. Try this.... Find the PositionOffset >value under COCKPIT and remove the minus from the start of the second value. >This raises the eye height a little and allows you to see quite a bit >further into the distance. It's certainly a better alternative than using >the TV Cockpit view since you can't see the mirrors properly in that view... > >-- >Damien Smith >[email hidden] >ICQ: 77028579 >F1 2001 rank: -11.512 > > >

"Haqsau" <[email hidden]> writes:

Quoted text (7 lines)

> Depends on what you are trying to achieve. FOV is measured vertically, > so if you set F1 2k2 to the same FOV as GPL you will have the same > vertical viewing distance, but you will still have greater peripheral > vision with GPL due to it's wider aspect ratio. If you want the same > width as GPL you would have to factor in the aspect ratio differences. > F1 2k2 runs at 4:3, whereas I believe GPL runs at 9:16. So GPL has a > horizontal viewing angle of 76 * 16 / 9 = 135 degrees.

I've always thought that the GPL FOV was measured horizontally, and a bit of testing seems to confirm that. Try setting the FOV to 90 degrees and put the car where some object exactly fills the width of the screen. The check the angles from the outside views (a viwe looking down from straight above would be best). If the 90 degrees were vertically, the horizonal FOV would be close to 180 degrees (the GPL aspect is actually wider than 9:16, maybe around 1:2), and it is imho quite obvious it is not. I haven't tested much with F1 2002 but my guess is that it's the same there, i.e. FOV measured horizontally. _ Mats Lofkvist [email hidden] PS I suspect the aspect ratio with F1 2002 depends on the resolution used, i.e. if you use 1600x900 the aspect ratio will be 16:9. At least it should be, if it is not I would consider that a bug...

"Mats Lofkvist" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > > I've always thought that the GPL FOV was measured horizontally, and a > bit of testing seems to confirm that. Try setting the FOV to 90degrees > and put the car where some object exactly fills the width of thescreen. > The check the angles from the outside views (a viwe looking down from > straight above would be best). If the 90 degrees were vertically, the > horizonal FOV would be close to 180 degrees (the GPL aspect isactually > wider than 9:16, maybe around 1:2), and it is imho quite obvious it > is not. I measured the size of the GPL window on my screen (can't seem to get a screen capture, which would be the better way) and got a width of 12.3" and a height of 7.2". Given the limitations of trying to measure a curved screen with a flat ruler that works out reasonably close to 16:9. It's definitely not 2:1. Therefore if you set the vertical FOV to 90, your horizontal viewing angle will be 160, which seems to coincide with what you observed.

Quoted text (11 lines)

> I haven't tested much with F1 2002 but my guess is that it's the same > there, i.e. FOV measured horizontally. > > _ > Mats Lofkvist > [email hidden] > > > PS I suspect the aspect ratio with F1 2002 depends on the resolution > used, i.e. if you use 1600x900 the aspect ratio will be 16:9. > At least it should be, if it is not I would consider that a bug...

AFAIK 1600x900 is not a valid mode. All "normal" screen resolutions are 4:3 aspect ratio. Even if the pixels don't work out to a 4:3 ratio, they are mapped to a 4:3 ratio, because that is the aspect ratio of the standard CRT viewing area. The only way to deviate from that ratio is to mask off part of the screen, as GPL does.

Very nice. I'm liking it better already. With 3 zero's I feel that the drivers head is too high, but I'll take that considering the limitations of medium. I need all the help I can get. 76/76 is good, for giggles I put it at 50/50. Before my eyes started hurting I noticed that I got a lot more feel from the chassis and a much more detailed sense of speed. Any idea why a more narrow FOV would cause that? Is it simply because the variations are bigger? -- "Boy! You've got to have really big attachments to try a pass there... and make it." - David Hobbs mark "jason moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Interesting. > > I tried that and it seemed a little high and still a bit too far > front, so I set all 3 values to zero and now it seems, to me at least, > that the view is approximately from where the drivers head is at. > > That combined with 76/76 for the FOV is making the driving a bit more > fun. > > Jason > > On Sun, 28 Jul 2002 16:04:21 +1000, "Damien Smith" > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >I think one of the main problems with the cockpit view in F1 2002 is not the > >FOV but the height of the viewpoint. Try this.... Find the PositionOffset > >value under COCKPIT and remove the minus from the start of the second value. > >This raises the eye height a little and allows you to see quite a bit > >further into the distance. It's certainly a better alternative than using > >the TV Cockpit view since you can't see the mirrors properly in that view... > > > >-- > >Damien Smith > >[email hidden] > >ICQ: 77028579 > >F1 2001 rank: -11.512 > > > > > > >

"Haqsau" <[email hidden]> writes: > AFAIK 1600x900 is not a valid mode. All "normal" screen resolutions are > 4:3 aspect ratio. not true. 1280x1024 is, to give a common example, not 4:3. > Even if the pixels don't work out to a 4:3 ratio, > they are mapped to a 4:3 ratio, because that is the aspect ratio of the > standard CRT viewing area. The only way to deviate from that ratio is > to mask off part of the screen, as GPL does. you're a programmer. you know it's perfectly possible to show an aspect ratio of 1:10 on a 5:4 resolution on a 4:3 screen. it wouldn't look very good, of course. -- Gunnar #31 SUCKS#015 Tupperware MC#002 DoD#0x1B DoDRT#003 DoD:CT#4,8 Kibo�: 2 "a poster is a human being or the software equivalent"

"jason moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> Interesting. > > I tried that and it seemed a little high and still a bit too far > front, so I set all 3 values to zero and now it seems, to me at least, > that the view is approximately from where the drivers head is at. > > That combined with 76/76 for the FOV is making the driving a bit more > fun.

Gosh, I think you've nailed it - those are excellent settings...Well done, Jason. ; ) -- Damien Smith [email hidden] ICQ: 77028579 F1 2001 rank: -11.512

Yeah, I've often wondered why 1280x1024 is such a common resolution - considering it's not proper 4:3. 1280x960 is a more correct (4:3) resolution. -- Damien Smith [email hidden] ICQ: 77028579 F1 2001 rank: -11.512

"Haqsau" <[email hidden]> writes:

Quoted text (22 lines)

> "Mats Lofkvist" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > > > I've always thought that the GPL FOV was measured horizontally, and a > > bit of testing seems to confirm that. Try setting the FOV to 90 > degrees > > and put the car where some object exactly fills the width of the > screen. > > The check the angles from the outside views (a viwe looking down from > > straight above would be best). If the 90 degrees were vertically, the > > horizonal FOV would be close to 180 degrees (the GPL aspect is > actually > > wider than 9:16, maybe around 1:2), and it is imho quite obvious it > > is not. > > I measured the size of the GPL window on my screen (can't seem to get a > screen capture, which would be the better way) and got a width of 12.3" > and a height of 7.2". Given the limitations of trying to measure a > curved screen with a flat ruler that works out reasonably close to 16:9. > It's definitely not 2:1. Therefore if you set the vertical FOV to 90, > your horizontal viewing angle will be 160, which seems to coincide with > what you observed.

Ok, the aspect ration could very well by 16:9 (my measuring isn't exact either) but 16:9 and 2:1 are close enough to make no difference in this discussion. There still is such a huge difference between 90 and 160 degrees FOV that I can't see how it would be possible to mistake one for the other with a simple test as described above.

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > > PS I suspect the aspect ratio with F1 2002 depends on the resolution > > used, i.e. if you use 1600x900 the aspect ratio will be 16:9. > > At least it should be, if it is not I would consider that a bug... > > AFAIK 1600x900 is not a valid mode. All "normal" screen resolutions are > 4:3 aspect ratio. Even if the pixels don't work out to a 4:3 ratio, > they are mapped to a 4:3 ratio, because that is the aspect ratio of the > standard CRT viewing area. The only way to deviate from that ratio is > to mask off part of the screen, as GPL does.

I'm using 1600x900 with F1 2k1/2 :-). What modes are shown depends on your monitor (or rather what the os config files thinks your monitor can handle). It's the mapping to a 4:3 ratio that would be a bug since it would not work correctly on a monitor that is not 4:3. (I just haven't taken the time to check if F1 2002 uses the aspect from the choosen resolution or always maps it to 4:3, if nobody else has a definitive answer I may have to do it myself :-) _ Mats Lofkvist [email hidden]

On Tue, 30 Jul 2002 00:10:34 +1000, "Damien Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote: >Gosh, I think you've nailed it - those are excellent settings...Well done, >Jason. ; ) Thanks. Do you know what the second FOV setting does? It seems like it extrapolates between them somehow, causing what appears to me to be a strange distortion affect in the distance. It could be psychological, but I noticed that the default tv-cockpit and cockpit cams seem to distort objects in the distance more than the nose cam, which uses the same value for both settings by default. I nearly pooped myself last night when I was racing the AI and managed to keep the throttle mostly down through the right hand part of the first set of esses at Magny Cours. I didn't think it was possible but I saw the AI doing it and had to give it a go. =) Now if I could just get my times down at Australia without cutting the curbing at Waite or spinning off every other lap at the same... Jason

Mats (and Gunnar too) For the most part when I am using the term aspect ratio I am talking about the actual physical dimensions of the display window on your monitor. Any resolution occupying the full screen on a standard monitor is 4:3, regardless of how many pixels it is using. That's what I meant by mapping the pixels to the screen. The program's drawing code doesn't even necessarily know what the resolution is, since rasterization is done by the graphics library. Anyway Mats I am not saying you are wrong, since I can't prove it, but I will say that normally the term FOV represents vertical viewing angle. Also you have to be somewhat careful using an exterior view to judge angle, because the eye point isn't necessarily where you think it is. Regards, Hal

Ha that is what i have mine set at1280x 960x32 @ 85hz on a 19" LG 915 plus looks good to me "Damien Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:ai3jd5$115qas$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (12 lines)

> Yeah, I've often wondered why 1280x1024 is such a common resolution - > considering it's not proper 4:3. 1280x960 is a more correct (4:3) > resolution. > > -- > Damien Smith > [email hidden] > ICQ: 77028579 > F1 2001 rank: -11.512 > > >

Why don't you use Clever Ruler? Clever Ruler is a special program and it is a powerful measuring tool for Windows. It's simple and easy to use. Best of all, it can transparent and rotate any degrees! It is very useful to measure a slant line. If you right-click on the ruler, you will have several options for selecting. Also,it supports hot key and you can move it by arrow keys. It contains common unit:pixels, inch, cm and custom.With Clever Ruler, you can become a windows measuring expert. 1.measure anything'length on the desktop 2.can transparent 3.can rotate any degrees!... Download: http://www.gzg2002.com Mats Lofkvist <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted text (54 lines)

> "Haqsau" <[email hidden]> writes: > > > "Mats Lofkvist" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > > > I've always thought that the GPL FOV was measured horizontally, and a > > > bit of testing seems to confirm that. Try setting the FOV to 90 > degrees > > > and put the car where some object exactly fills the width of the > screen. > > > The check the angles from the outside views (a viwe looking down from > > > straight above would be best). If the 90 degrees were vertically, the > > > horizonal FOV would be close to 180 degrees (the GPL aspect is > actually > > > wider than 9:16, maybe around 1:2), and it is imho quite obvious it > > > is not. > > > > I measured the size of the GPL window on my screen (can't seem to get a > > screen capture, which would be the better way) and got a width of 12.3" > > and a height of 7.2". Given the limitations of trying to measure a > > curved screen with a flat ruler that works out reasonably close to 16:9. > > It's definitely not 2:1. Therefore if you set the vertical FOV to 90, > > your horizontal viewing angle will be 160, which seems to coincide with > > what you observed. > > Ok, the aspect ration could very well by 16:9 (my measuring isn't exact > either) but 16:9 and 2:1 are close enough to make no difference in this > discussion. There still is such a huge difference between 90 and 160 > degrees FOV that I can't see how it would be possible to mistake one > for the other with a simple test as described above. > > > > > > PS I suspect the aspect ratio with F1 2002 depends on the resolution > > > used, i.e. if you use 1600x900 the aspect ratio will be 16:9. > > > At least it should be, if it is not I would consider that a bug... > > > > AFAIK 1600x900 is not a valid mode. All "normal" screen resolutions are > > 4:3 aspect ratio. Even if the pixels don't work out to a 4:3 ratio, > > they are mapped to a 4:3 ratio, because that is the aspect ratio of the > > standard CRT viewing area. The only way to deviate from that ratio is > > to mask off part of the screen, as GPL does. > > I'm using 1600x900 with F1 2k1/2 :-). What modes are shown depends on > your monitor (or rather what the os config files thinks your monitor > can handle). It's the mapping to a 4:3 ratio that would be a bug since > it would not work correctly on a monitor that is not 4:3. > > (I just haven't taken the time to check if F1 2002 uses the aspect > from the choosen resolution or always maps it to 4:3, if nobody else > has a definitive answer I may have to do it myself :-) > > _ > Mats Lofkvist > [email hidden]