Setting up your rFactor FOV - Tutorial

[WhiteShadow]

ZeosPantera, you're one of the most knowledgable guys around when it comes to FOV and stuff like that. I was always under the impression that - although RF2, RF1, SCE, etc. don't have all the in-game triple screen customizability options as AC, IR, and (I think) LFS - you could setill get a perfect 1:1 FOV match with real-life.

Sure, you need to do the bezel compensation in your GPU control panel rather than in-game, but in the end it still get's done.

Sure, you need to angle your monitors accordingly, but once done, the in-game world will look perfect from your perspective (no distortion) (well within reason since most people will probably angle their monitors by eye by lining things up in the game until they look straight rather than actually measuring their monitors' exact angles).

So to summarize, we can still have a perfect image because the bezel compensation is still done (albeit by the GPU control panel rather than the game), and the image still looks perfectly straight/non-distorted (lining up monitor angles by eye or measurement). Therefore, although we have less flexible in-game triple-screen "tuning" options, we can still technically get a just as perfect image/view in rFactor...


Or so that's what I thought...


WhiteShadow is saying that it's impossible for anyone to use a 1:1 FOV in rFactor (RF2, RF1, SCE, etc.). Something to do with the fact that the game itself doesn't do any bezel compensation (even though it's being done by the GPU control panel instead). He says that - because of this - you will always be off from a 1:1 FOV by around 4-5 %...


I really want to get the best, most realistic, 1:1 view/FOV with my triple 27s as I can and have always went by PixSim's triple screen calculator (along with GPU bezel compensation, obviously,).


Can you please share your thoughts with us??...



The following post #s are the discussion between me and WhiteShadow:
- 437
- 443-445
- 448
- 464
- 466
- 482
- 483

Thread --> https://community.racesimcentral.net/showthread.php/24623-So-who-has-PCars/page22


Your input would greatly appreciated

https://community.racesimcentral.ne...-who-has-PCars?p=359486&viewfull=1#post359486

"I still don't understand how rFactor 2 apparently doesn't allow a user to use a 1:1 realistic FOV. Other than the fact that your GPU does the bezel compensation instead of the game, I don't see what the difference is. In the end bezel compensation is still done somewhere.."

Fov calculator https://community.racesimcentral.ne...-who-has-PCars?p=359486&viewfull=1#post359486 uses aspect ratio to calculate FOV and it is here it all goes wrong with bezel correction.

Lets say that we have 3x 24" monitors resolution 5760 x 1080 Aspect Ratio is 16:9. Bezel correction (4cm bezel) resolution is 6000 x 1080. The problem is that Aspect Ratio 16:9 resolution is 6000 x 1125 and this is why we get wrong scaling. Bezel Correction stretches only wide from 5760 to 6000.

rFactor2 Multiview is also using aspect ratio (19:9, 16:10, 21:9, 5:4 and 4:3) What if you 24" monitors are much wider and same have diagonal as higher monitor as some gaming monitors are. (Benq 21,5", 24,5"... etc, LG 24" is 51 cm wide, Benq 24" is 54cm wide and both have aspect ratio 16:9 same diagonal). and like rFactor2 multiview is working there is no perfect 1:1 FOV match with real-life to everybody.

What we need is this : Arbitrary angles between screens, bezel correction, and proper FOV based on distance to screens.

https://community.racesimcentral.ne...r-FOV-Tutorial?p=359632&viewfull=1#post359632

 

[Lazza]

I think you're adding a lot of extra stuff that isn't the issue you're talking about, which is confusing things. I'm not sure talking about specific screens makes a lot of sense, presumably rF/2 assumes square pixels and that's about it. It draws according to the resolution from there.

Are you able to provide screenshots showing the 'warping' of an object at screen centre? It sounds to me like you're saying rF2 will force an aspect ratio and therefore draw an image at 6000x1125, which then gets squashed into your 6000x1080, and the bezel correction makes the correct parts disappear from view. This would make everything appear flatter/wider. I would have thought if rF2 'receives' a resolution of 6000x1080 it will draw into that with the correct aspect ratio and the bezel correction will just makes the right bits disappear.

Of course if the resolution it's working on doesn't match your screen aspect ratio things will warp, but that can happen with the wrong resolution on a single screen. A bit more explanation and some samples would be nice.

Not arguing that a more flexible setup is required, but I'm not yet convinced on aspect ratio errors. Could well be wrong though.

 

[WhiteShadow]

I think you're adding a lot of extra stuff that isn't the issue you're talking about, which is confusing things. I'm not sure talking about specific screens makes a lot of sense, presumably rF/2 assumes square pixels and that's about it. It draws according to the resolution from there.

Are you able to provide screenshots showing the 'warping' of an object at screen centre? It sounds to me like you're saying rF2 will force an aspect ratio and therefore draw an image at 6000x1125, which then gets squashed into your 6000x1080, and the bezel correction makes the correct parts disappear from view. This would make everything appear flatter/wider. I would have thought if rF2 'receives' a resolution of 6000x1080 it will draw into that with the correct aspect ratio and the bezel correction will just makes the right bits disappear.

Of course if the resolution it's working on doesn't match your screen aspect ratio things will warp, but that can happen with the wrong resolution on a single screen. A bit more explanation and some samples would be nice.

Not arguing that a more flexible setup is required, but I'm not yet convinced on aspect ratio errors. Could well be wrong though.

Maybe this can convince you.

NVIDIA Control Panel > Spam displays with Surround > configure > Bezel Correction V1& V2 = 120 = 4cm bezel = 6000 x 1080(bezel corrected) vs 5760 x 1080 (recommended) = 3 x 1920 x 1080.

If you look the numbers it is easy to see what happens and how the bezel correction is working, Bezel Correction zoom out the monitor width, not the height. Each monitor has resolution 1920 x 1080 and this is why bezel correction hides part of you visible picture behind the(vertical) bezel. Maximum resolution > 3x 1920 x 1080 = 5760 x 1080 it is not possible physically to stretch monitors to 6000 x 1080. Height (1080) is unchanged and this is why Bezel Correction (Width ZOOM only) scaling is incorrect.

It is easy to see this in game. Go out to the track, park the car. Use keyboard shortcut CTR + ALT + S .What you see is wider and narrower track but height is the same. You may think that you can compensate this by FOV but you can not because height (1080) is unchanged. If you compensate FOV monitors are not lined anymore.

ISI is aware problems with multiview.

Community Q&A
A: Yes. I (Joe) am currently working on a complete setup for triple screen including arbitrary angles between screens, bezel correction, and proper FOV based on distance to screens.

 

[Spinelli]

But even in iRacing, AC, etc. the bezel corrected part is invisible and rendered behind your bezels. The games must still do bezel correction (unless you don't have bezels). I'm still not understanding you're POV.

ZeosPantera is often very active in this thread and in RF threads about this subject (FOV); hopefully he can chime-in here with his thoughts as he's quite the FOV guru.

 

[WhiteShadow]

But even in iRacing, AC, etc. the bezel corrected part is invisible and rendered behind your bezels. The games must still do bezel correction (unless you don't have bezels). I'm still not understanding you're POV.

ZeosPantera is often very active in this thread and in RF threads about this subject (FOV); hopefully he can chime-in here with his thoughts as he's quite the FOV guru.

Maximum resolution > 3x 1920 x 1080 = 5760 x 1080 it is not possible physically to stretch monitors to 6000 x 1080. Height (1080) is unchanged and this is why Bezel Correction (Width ZOOM only) scaling is incorrect.

It is easy to see this in game. Go out to the track, park the car. Use keyboard shortcut CTR + ALT + S .What you see is wider and narrower track but height is the same. You may think that you can compensate this by FOV but you can not because height (1080) is unchanged. If you compensate FOV monitors are not lined anymore.

Sorry I can not exlpain this with any other way to you.

 

[Slamfunk3]

I'm getting into this late and not exactly understanding the problem so I apologize if any of this comes across as putting down your point of view, that is not the intention.

I'll start with what's perhaps a dumb question, are you selecting the correct (6000x1080) resolution in both nvidea and rF config? Reason I ask is your use of words like stretching or zoom. As far as I understand, even tho not fully customizable, the rF way to triple screen is visually spot on. Your monitors still each render 1920x1080 (5760 across combined). The game however renders 6000 across, the extra 240 pixels are not seen they are used as a spacer for your bezels. Now it is important to set your bezel compensation correctly as that would affect the lining up of the screens. The FOV in rF is vertical so it doesn't matter how wide the resolution is. When using a FOV calculator i use a simple triangle calculator, all I care about is 1/2 screen height and eye distance to monitor. Then multiply the resulting angle.

Also wanted to say that i haven't tried your ctr-alt-s trick, i will when I get home. However using things like steering wheels or wheels and tires, they always looked fully round to me.

I don't disagree that having more control over the setup (like iracing) would be a plus. I just don't think what we have now is incorrect.

 

[Spinelli]

Exactly, that's what I thought too, that more in-game setup options would be nice (of course), but regardless, the current system is still capable of achieving a spot-on view.

I'm beginning to wonder if WhiteShadow is indeed correct about all this though as he seems to disagree quite strongly. Maybe WhiteShadow is on to something that most of us (if not all of us) haven't realized before...

 

[WhiteShadow]

The thing is that if you have ultra wide monitors like I have and when I compensate FOV monitors are not lined anymore and it is even worse when I am using bezel correction.Everything is off Scale. Turns looks too sharp draw distance on the track is also wrong. Multiview is not near useable when I must use locked FOV bezel correction or not..

 

[Spinelli]

The thing is that if you have ultra wide monitors like I have and when I compensate FOV monitors are not lined anymore and it is even worse when I am using bezel correction.Everything is off Scale. Turns looks too sharp draw distance on the track is also wrong. Multiview is not near useable when I must use locked FOV bezel correction or not..

Hmmm...Let's see if I can help...


Problem: Image on outer monitors looks like it either bends away or towards you.

Solution: Physically angle your monitors until the problem disappears. I use the dashboard and cockpit of the car, but others have suggested going to a wall or fence and using that as a reference.

Note: Instead of adjusting your monitor angles, you can also adjust the distance between your eyes and your screen, and/or adjust your in-game FOV. All 3 methods can be used as a solution, however, most people have their eyes-to-monitor distance and their in-game FOV already set (according to a FOV calculator) and therefore adjusting your monitor angles would be the way to go (or else you'll mess with your perfectly calculated FOV).


Problem: Images on outer monitors aren't lining up with the centre monitor as they imaginarily cross over from the centre monitor, through your bezels, across your outer monitors.

Solution: This means that your bezel correction was not done correctly. Try doing it again, and try doing it separately for both monitors (in case you are sitting slightly off center or if one of your outer monitors is angled slightly different than the other).


Problem: Turns look too sharp

Solution: If turns look too sharp than you are using a FOV too low for your setup (this is extremely rare; if anything, most people use a too high FOV). Use a FOV calculator to find out your proper FOV.

If turns still look too sharp than either the track-maker has physically modeled the turn too sharp, or, you're just not used to the game actually looking correctly scaled.


Problem: Draw distance is off (I'm guessing you mean visual depth looks off).

Solution: Draw distance is just until how far-away images in the game world get rendered so what I actually think you meant is that the depth perception looks off. Well, the only fix for this is to use 3D (I recommend Nvidia 3D Vision, it is truly amazing, but I believe Tri-Def, HD3D, VR headsets, etc. work great as-well).


Don't Forget!: You must set the new resolution every/any time you do bezel compensation. You'll see the custom/weird looking resolution in the list of resolutions in the RF2 config screen or in the in-game GFX settings. Don't forget to do this or else the game will not be set to use your properly set-up bezel correction


I hope that helps...

 

[ZeosPantera]

Late to the party as usual. I think this could be settled by driving up to a slanted object in each game, Something that goes diagonally across all three screens in all three sims and SEE if bezel compensation is actually occurring. I don't have the hardware to test this theory right now.

 

[Lazza]

Maybe this can convince you.

NVIDIA Control Panel > Spam displays with Surround > configure > Bezel Correction V1& V2 = 120 = 4cm bezel = 6000 x 1080(bezel corrected) vs 5760 x 1080 (recommended) = 3 x 1920 x 1080.

If you look the numbers it is easy to see what happens and how the bezel correction is working, Bezel Correction zoom out the monitor width, not the height. Each monitor has resolution 1920 x 1080 and this is why bezel correction hides part of you visible picture behind the(vertical) bezel. Maximum resolution > 3x 1920 x 1080 = 5760 x 1080 it is not possible physically to stretch monitors to 6000 x 1080. Height (1080) is unchanged and this is why Bezel Correction (Width ZOOM only) scaling is incorrect.

It is easy to see this in game. Go out to the track, park the car. Use keyboard shortcut CTR + ALT + S .What you see is wider and narrower track but height is the same. You may think that you can compensate this by FOV but you can not because height (1080) is unchanged. If you compensate FOV monitors are not lined anymore.

ISI is aware problems with multiview.

Community Q&A
A: Yes. I (Joe) am currently working on a complete setup for triple screen including arbitrary angles between screens, bezel correction, and proper FOV based on distance to screens.

Again, you're bringing up a number of issues and even a quote that refers to a few things and certainly doesn't confirm your stated issue. If there is distortion you should be able to capture it?

The whole idea of bezel correction is you don't see part of the (6000 wide) view. You don't change the height as well, otherwise everything will look too tall (or, if you don't 'not draw' part of the picture, you're squashing your whole bigger picture onto your screens, so there's no correction happening). The game should be working from 6000x1080, but only 5760x1080 gets drawn.

*Edit: Nope, I have no idea what I meant when I said 'everything will look too tall'. Made sense when I typed it. The rest still applies... all bezel correction does is 'block' the parts of the image that your screens aren't in a position to show, so that what they do show is in the correct place. The 6000x1080 is correct.

 

[TechAde]

Some random thoughts on the subject...

When running without bezel correction total horizontal FOV will not quite match the calculated (actual) horizontal FOV of the three monitors. This is because in the physical world there are gaps (bezels) between the monitors, whereas in the virtual (rendered) world there aren't. Effectively this means images on the side monitors are rendered slightly further outwards than they should be, so what should be visible at the far left/right edges is actually pushed a little too far left/right (how far out is dependant on the width of the bezels).

Adding bezel correction fixes this as the display driver reports an extra wide resolution to rF2 (e.g. 6000 x 1080) to cover the areas behind the bezels. This extra area is rendered by rF2 but then dropped from the final image by the display driver. This results in a total physical horizontal FOV that exactly matches the calculated horizontal FOV (assuming bezel correction has been set up correctly).

 

[Lazza]

The thing is that if you have ultra wide monitors like I have and when I compensate FOV

This part is confusing. 2 parts:

- Your ultra-wide monitors. They are 1920x1080? Are their dimensions not also this ratio? (in other words, are the pixels not square?)
- Related to that, what do you mean by 'compensate FOV' ?

 

[WhiteShadow]

This part is confusing. 2 parts:

- Your ultra-wide monitors. They are 1920x1080? Are their dimensions not also this ratio? (in other words, are the pixels not square?)
- Related to that, what do you mean by 'compensate FOV' ?

34"(144hz) curved gaming monitors, resolution 3440x1440 rFactor don't have SLI support. I am forced to turn of my three way SLI and use single card at 2560x1080 (7680x1080) to rFactor2. Higher resolution is mission impossible if you look how many pixels and fps is needed to run 3 x 3440x1440 144hz.
Compensate FOV is +-

rFactor multiview is 10 years old with minor updates to rFactor2. rFactor multiview is great with old rectangular monitors. rFactor2 does not support modern hardware. If you read this: https://community.racesimcentral.ne...-who-has-PCars?p=358836&viewfull=1#post358836 Noel Hibbart is ISI knowledgeable member and hes statement gives you picture when we can expect new multiview UI to rFactor2. It is going take a long time maybe years and probably it is never going to happen and it is also partly because you guys are so happy like it is today, It is great, excellent, you can not setup you hardware etc. are statements I read all over ISI forums. Do you really believe that I spend lot of money to hardware I can not use and that I am not able to setup my triples, hardly.

I made thread asking support form community: https://community.racesimcentral.net/showthread.php/24807-Multiview-User-Interface . Seriously, wtf.

rFactor2 does not offer any support to my hardware. Multiview is no good, low graphic in game settings, HDR off etc. no SLI support I must probably also turn off my triples to get acceptably game experience and it is probably going to stay like this still many years, no thanks.

I am done here. See you guys in some other place and time. Enjoy you triples.

 

[Lazza]

Well thanks for the info, belatedly. I don't understand why you kept talking about x1080 when you're running x1440. Curved screens complicate matters more and it would have been good to mention that in the numerous posts about your FOV and stretching issues.

You are making a mistake thinking 'you guys are so happy like it is', many people have asked for better flexibility for multiview and it's been mentioned by ISI in the past as something they'll improve on. Don't take it so personally that it's not at the top of their list - there are other things we've been waiting just as long for, which are actually more important for a racing simulation, and all we can do is wait. No different here.

Hell, I don't even have triples...

 

[Spinelli]

WhiteShadow. Have you read the last few replies from me and a few other people? Have your multiview issues (issues with FOV, circuit-turns looking too sharp, bezel correction issues, etc.) been resolved?

You were mentioning 1080p resolution with a bezel corrected resolution of 6000x1080. But now you say that you have a completely different resolution...

Furthermore, you never brought up the fact that your monitors are curved. Without some kind of software programming to compensate for the exact curvature of your screen, how do you expect to get a perfect looking image? This should be happening in any game though, not just RF2 since no game has any sort of monitor curvature compensation.

Anyways, I hope we (those who replied on this thread and the other multiview/FOV thread) have helped you resolve your RF triple-screen image/FOV issues.


With regards to the performance hit taken when using RF's multiview...

Yes, multiview is more demanding than non-multiview, but I can still manage to play at around 80-120 fps - with graphics almost all maxed-out - with a single Nvidia GTX 780 Ti at a bezel corrected resolution of around 5900x1080 or 6000x1080.


With regards to RF and SLI scaling issues when not being run in 3D Vision (SLI scaling is great when running in 3D)...

Please try turning both in-game reflection settings to low, then check performance. Once you've done that, go back and set both reflection settings to off, then check performance again. The two in-game reflection settings negatively affect SLI scaling the higher they're set to. The special effects option may do the same - I can't remember - so maybe try lowering that option as-well.

Hope this helps .

 

[ZeosPantera]

Just to ignore what is going on in here I believe at some point in the near future I will be attempting a curved projection screen setup similar to this one done by MrPix

So FOV is alive and well and I will also re-do this post with rFactor2 in mind. IE no more need to edit cam files and instead just focusing on the math involved and limitations of rF2 and multi-view. I'd also like to add some text file tweeks for view and FFB as I have been rather lax with all this.

 

[Spinelli]

Zoes, what's your take on what WhiteShadow has been saying? Is he onto something when he says that - unlike IR, AC, etc. - it's impossible for any triple-screen RF/RF2, etc. user to get a perfect 1:1 FOV since things like bezel compensation, monitor angles, etc. aren't performed by the game itself (albeit still performed by the GPU control panel and user)?...

I would really like some more people's confirmation/opinions on this as I'm very determined to have the most accurate/representative-of-real-life view possible.

Once I have everything setup correctly (bzl cmpnstn, mon angl, etc.) I can achieve a perfect (or what seems like perfect to my eyes/brain) view from monitor to monitor in RF/RF2. Perfectly straight lines (not bending away/towards me), perfectly lined-up lines as they cross over from the centre monitor to the outers, etc. It looks just as "perfect" to me as IR, AC, etc. but maybe it's still wrong in some way/ways? According to WS, it will always be off around 4-5% for a person using a GPU-control-panel-bezel-compensated resolution of around 6000x1080 no matter what...

 

[Lazza]

Spinelli, while I'm reluctant to dismiss a point of view lightly I really don't think WS has put forward anything compelling. The mix of figures and issues aside, the numbers he keeps stating as some sort of proof only indicate a lack of understanding of bezel correction.

You should quite easily be able to confirm things are right by measuring the dimensions of an object in the centre screen, then using the glance left/right feature (you can change the angle to match your wide-screen offset angle) to move that same object to the side screens without moving or changing anything else. If a square object looks square in each screen and what you can see in each screen matches I don't think you have any need for concern.

The thing is, if WS was onto something this same sort of test would also confirm it. Unfortunately with his unusual aspect ratios and curved screens he'll personally struggle to confirm anything.

 

[ZeosPantera]

I would really need to get three screens and dig myself. I know you NEED 45° angles for the side monitors if you use Multiview and want to render all three viewpoints without distortion. How those renders occur (before or after the bezel compensation) will have an effect on the overall layout but not to a degree that would concern me. With curved displays it would be a matter of being at the convergence point of the curve on all three in the dead center and then you wouldn't have to worry about correcting it. Unfortunately curved monitors are even more rare and trying to figure that hurts my brain.

I do think a major overhaul of the whole FOV, Monitor, Seat and elevation height setup needs to be made. I fear that is something rF3 will need to address however.

 

[Spinelli]

Hey Zeos, I always thought the same that - as long as a perfect 1:1 FOV for a given setup was used - the side screens would require a 45 degree angle for a perfect image (nothing bends towards/away from you). However, someone made a good point against that...

Someone said you don't need 45 degrees when you use multiview, but rather, that it's variable depending on your setup (just like how the FOV, distance to screen, monitor size, etc. are all variable and can change if one of the other variables changes).

The person alluded to imagining that you were 30 feet away from your screens (relatively small screens, let's say 24") and that, at that distance, your monitors should obviously not be angled in at 45 degrees...

Hmmm......???


P.S. The screen angles aren't a huge concern for me as I can just move them until everything looks seemingly perfect, but it's still interesting technically speaking.

 

[ZeosPantera]

Well the issue is when using multi-view the in-game cameras are fixed at 45° away from the origin point. Which is seen in old comparison shots of rF1

They bend at a fixed angle which is hard to tell because that gif also has a high FOV. I think our perception of that angle can be "fudged" by a few degrees either way as it is hard to get reference and 98.4% of the time the eyes seeing it are not dead center of the monitors or have perfectly straight items to judge against.

 

[WhiteShadow]

Well thanks for the info, belatedly. I don't understand why you kept talking about x1080 when you're running x1440. Curved screens complicate matters more and it would have been good to mention that in the numerous posts about your FOV and stretching issues.

You are making a mistake thinking 'you guys are so happy like it is', many people have asked for better flexibility for multiview and it's been mentioned by ISI in the past as something they'll improve on. Don't take it so personally that it's not at the top of their list - there are other things we've been waiting just as long for, which are actually more important for a racing simulation, and all we can do is wait. No different here.

Hell, I don't even have triples...

Spinelli, while I'm reluctant to dismiss a point of view lightly I really don't think WS has put forward anything compelling. The mix of figures and issues aside, the numbers he keeps stating as some sort of proof only indicate a lack of understanding of bezel correction.

You should quite easily be able to confirm things are right by measuring the dimensions of an object in the centre screen, then using the glance left/right feature (you can change the angle to match your wide-screen offset angle) to move that same object to the side screens without moving or changing anything else. If a square object looks square in each screen and what you can see in each screen matches I don't think you have any need for concern.

The thing is, if WS was onto something this same sort of test would also confirm it. Unfortunately with his unusual aspect ratios and curved screens he'll personally struggle to confirm anything.

Sorry to say this but It is you who don`t understand how bezel correction is working , why I am using resolution 5760x1008 and 6000x1080 is because this is what most people are using and it is more easy to understand, I thought . Bezel correction works similar curved monitors or not.

Lets forget side monitors for now and look to the center monitor and what is going on. It is easy to see this in game hit race button. You see now you racing engineer in front of you car. Use keyboard shortcut CTR + ALT + S . Look you racing engineer. What you see he gets thicker and thinner but hes height is the same. This is why I state bezel correction is Width ZOOM and scaling is incorrect.

I don`t take it personally. I am just tired to explain simple things like this so many times and still people like you just don`t get it and make statements about hardware they don't own.

Spinelli please confirm if your racing engineer gets thicker and thinner but hes height is the same. How much etc. is not relevant simple answer is fine.

 

[Lazza]

Sorry to say this but It is you who don`t understand how bezel correction is working , why I am using resolution 5760x1008 and 6000x1080 is because this is what most people are using and it is more easy to understand, I thought . Bezel correction works similar curved monitors or not.

Lets forget side monitors for now and look to the center monitor and what is going on. It is easy to see this in game hit race button. You see now you racing engineer in front of you car. Use keyboard shortcut CTR + ALT + S . Look you racing engineer. What you see he gets thicker and thinner but hes height is the same. This is why I state bezel correction is Width ZOOM and scaling is incorrect.

I don`t take it personally. I am just tired to explain simple things like this so many times and still people like you just don`t get it and make statements about hardware they don't own.

Spinelli please confirm if your racing engineer gets thicker and thinner but hes height is the same. How much etc. is not relevant simple answer is fine.

I have some idea how it should work, because that's the point of it. I'm not totally clear on what it's doing for you, partly because you haven't given any screenshots of a direct comparison. I can take your word for what you're saying but the fact it goes against what bezel correction should be doing makes it difficult.

Here's a thread where someone mistakenly thought desktop stretching applied to the game, and someone else came along with comparison screenshots that quite clearly show a wider FOV with bezel correction, which would (should) avoid the stretching you're describing:

https://community.racesimcentral.ne...is-poorly-done?p=260575&viewfull=1#post260575

As I mentioned I don't have triple screens, so I can't try your test personally. But if there is stretching happening for you it seems that something isn't working right; the resolutions you're talking about (6000x1080 up from 5760x1080) aren't the issue, because that's what should happen without any stretching once the display driver discards part of the image. I'm not even sure what settings you have available, maybe something isn't right there (bezels obviously vary, so there is potential to give it an incorrect figure)?

Well the issue is when using multi-view the in-game cameras are fixed at 45° away from the origin point.

They can't be fixed at 45°.

Let's say you have three 16:9 screens. Then you try a couple of different FOV settings:

- If you set v-FOV to 10°, your h-FOV is 17.4°.
- If you set v-FOV to 60°, your h-FOV is 72°.

If the side screen offset were fixed at 45°, the first setting would skip a big chunk of the scene (a screenshot would show an obvious slice), while the second setting would duplicate areas of the screens because the FOVs would overlap. I'm pretty sure every single multiview screenshot I've seen shows a continuous view, so either they're all done at the one exact FOV that gives them 45° h-FOV or the angles adjust.

 

[Spinelli]

WhiteShadow, I dont see any stretching. I tried what you said.

Maybe it has something to do with the fact that you're running a 16:9 resolution (6000x1080) on 21:9 monitors? 21:9 is wider therefore should be something like 7500x1080 or 8000x1080, so maybe that's what's causing you issues?

Also, the curved part will probably make things look all weird and such especially because you'll have 6 different parts of your image where the monitors alternate curving away from you and towards you. That must be quite to hinderance to getting a non-distorted view.

 

[WhiteShadow]

You guys make me to work really hard to proof my point. Just to get rid off all the arguments that I use curved 34 "screens I used LG 24" monitors resolution 5760x1080 (6000x1080 bezel corrected) camera and taped tape measure in my screens and took pictures. I used camera because Screenshot has same resolution (5670x1080) with bezel correction or not and it is obviously you don't see any difference.

From my pictures you can clearly see that my engineer is 20mm wide with no bezel correction and 22mm with bezel correction and that hes height is unchanged in both of my images with 24" triples. How much it is in mm and how much track is out of scale is not relevant the fact is that bezel correction is Width ZOOM only it don`t scale anything at all.

5760 x 1080
View attachment 16803

600 x 1080 (bezel corrected)
View attachment 16804


Can we now finally agree that bezel correction is Width ZOOM and scaling is incorrect?

 

[ZeosPantera]

Pictures always help. There is definitely something happening that is more than a shift. He should not be getting taller/wider between the two.

Can you take a high res shot of the full setup with correction and without?

 

[WhiteShadow]

I do it later this weekend but only if Spinelli promises to visit hes eye doctor

 

[Lazza]

Shouldn't the bezel corrected screenshot have a higher resolution?

 

[Spinelli]

Ok, to make the image even more obvious, can you make a very, very large bezel correction? Say 7000x1080? Do the biggest bezel correction that the Nvidia control panel will allow, then the pit guy should become very, very fat...

Try that

 

[WhiteShadow]

Shouldn't the bezel corrected screenshot have a higher resolution?

Pictures are not screenshots they are camera pictures.

 

[WhiteShadow]

Ok, to make the image even more obvious, can you make a very, very large bezel correction? Say 7000x1080? Do the biggest bezel correction that the Nvidia control panel will allow, then the pit guy should become very, very fat...

Try that

Whats the point can you not see what is going on when bezel correction is used? Question and my statement is not how much it is because that is not relevant. My 34" monitors engineer is 8 mm thicker it is not only bezel correction which makes the real life picture wider and engineer thicker. Height and wide of you monitors has also much to say as I stated before.

I find it strange that you still don`t agree with me.

 

[Lazza]

Pictures are not screenshots they are camera pictures.

I know, that's why I said screenshot.

You said screenshots with and without bezel correction are 5760x1080 and look the same; if the game is drawing 6000x1080 when bezel correction is on then the game should produce a screenshot that big, shouldn't it? Maybe that's only true when using the game itself (F12) to do the screenshot.

Either way even a 5760 wide image stretched across 6000 pixels would only be a 20.8:20.0 stretch. Not sure what's going on there.

 

[WhiteShadow]

I know, that's why I said screenshot.

You said screenshots with and without bezel correction are 5760x1080 and look the same; if the game is drawing 6000x1080 when bezel correction is on then the game should produce a screenshot that big, shouldn't it? Maybe that's only true when using the game itself (F12) to do the screenshot.

Either way even a 5760 wide image stretched across 6000 pixels would only be a 20.8:20.0 stretch. Not sure what's going on there.

Why are you talking about screenshots. I show you real life images and and by doing this there is no doubt what is going on. Bezel correction is Width ZOOM it don`t scale and that it is the naked truth.

 

[Lazza]

It's not supposed to 'scale'. It's supposed to draw a wider image, part of which you don't see. The central part of screenshots, bezel corrected and not, should be identical. Yours appear not to be, which is strange. Actual screenshots allowing a pixel-to-pixel comparison should confirm it.

My expectation was that a bezel correction screenshot would be wider. But I suppose a non-game screenshot might only show what's actually on your screens. That's all.

 

[Lazza]

Hang on a minute... are you restarting the game with the higher resolution when you turn on bezel correction?

 

[Lazza]

Sorry, I've completely overlooked the fact you're using a keyboard shortcut to turn bezel correction on and off?

The game has to draw a 6000 wide image so the bezel correction can cut part of it out and you end up with 5760 pixels. If you start the game with 5760x1080 and then turn bezel correction on, it will cut out part of that (not sure how much) and stretch the rest across 5760, right?

If that's the case I'm not sure why Spinelli didn't see the stretching, but it also at least partly explains why you're getting stretching.

It would be like starting the game with 1920x1080, then switching to triple-screen 'live' and showing that same image across your 3 screens. You have to go back out, set the game up at 5760x1080, and then they'll show correctly.

 

[ZeosPantera]

See. No more fighting. Now it is time to become Detectives.

We need..

- Screenshots of both resolutions.

- Photo's of the screens with both resolutions.

- An exaggeratory shot/photo with a massive bezel correction

- Multi-view on and off photo's

- I'd also like photos at the lowest FOV and one at the Higest FOV just to see what is going on.

 

[Spinelli]

Whats the point can you not see what is going on when bezel correction is used? Question and my statement is not how much it is because that is not relevant. My 34" monitors engineer is 8 mm thicker it is not only bezel correction which makes the real life picture wider and engineer thicker. Height and wide of you monitors has also much to say as I stated before.

I find it strange that you still don`t agree with me.

I'm/we're just looking for more evidence and trying to figure out what the truth is.

1. May you please do an example with the largest amount of bezel compensation that the NVidia GPU control will allow? Or at least much, much larger than 6000x5760? This will make it even more obvious because your pitman should be much fatter instead of only a tiny bit fat like you mentioned in the first pic.

2. Also, are you sure you don't have any weird scaling things going on since your not using your monitors' native resolution (native + bzl comp, obviously)?

3. Finally, are you making sure to set RF to the new, custom corrected resolution?

---

Well the issue is when using multi-view the in-game cameras are fixed at 45° away from the origin point. Which is seen in old comparison shots of rF1

They bend at a fixed angle which is hard to tell because that gif also has a high FOV. I think our perception of that angle can be "fudged" by a few degrees either way as it is hard to get reference and 98.4% of the time the eyes seeing it are not dead center of the monitors or have perfectly straight items to judge against.

Maybe I got this wrong but the internal camera at a static 45 degrees does not mean that it will be 45 degrees for us. For example, if I use a real high FOV where the image bends out away from me like crazy, then all I need to do is angle my monitors much more drastically (let's say, for eg. 75 degrees) and I'll then have perfect, non-bending/non-distorted images. I'm sure you already knew that though, I'm just pointing it out for info's sake.

Having said that, maybe because of the static in-game 45 degree cameras, that, as long as your in-game FOV matches your real-life setup (FOV calculator) you'll always have your real-life monitors required to be set to 45 degrees? Because if your real-life setup matches a perfect 1:1 of the game then I'd guess the monitor angles would also be 1:1 with the game, and the game is always 45 degrees, therefore our real-life ones would have to be 45 degrees as well (again, only if you're using a perfect, 1:1 FOV). This is what I originally thought, but then Emery made a seemingly good point (below)...

Imagine your 27" monitors are 30' away; you can intuitively realize that 45 degrees is not an appropriate value at that distance.

---

If that's the case I'm not sure why Spinelli didn't see the stretching, but it also at least partly explains why you're getting stretching.

It would be like starting the game with 1920x1080, then switching to triple-screen 'live' and showing that same image across your 3 screens. You have to go back out, set the game up at 5760x1080, and then they'll show correctly.

Personally, I always set the bezel correction in my GPU control panel until the lines are perfectly lined up. Then that creates a new, custom resolution based on the bezel correction I just finished doing. Click OK, Save, apply, whatever. Then, I go to the RF/RF2 config screen (I guess you can do this in-game as well with RF2), and I set RF/RF2 to use that brand new, custom, bezel corrected resolution. Then, in-game, I don't enable and disable anything. Also, I make sure to use my monitor's native resolution (+ bezel correction, of course).

 

[WhiteShadow]

I'm/we're just looking for more evidence and trying to figure out what the truth is.

1. May you please do an example with the largest amount of bezel compensation that the NVidia GPU control will allow? Or at least much, much larger than 6000x5760? This will make it even more obvious because your pitman should be much fatter instead of only a tiny bit fat like you mentioned in the first pic.

2. Also, are you sure you don't have any weird scaling things going on since your not using your monitors' native resolution (native + bzl comp, obviously)?

3. Finally, are you making sure to set RF to the new, custom corrected resolution?

WhiteShadow, I dont see any stretching. I tried what you said.

I thought that I let you get away with this lie but the way you are trolling I don't let you get a way with it. your lie is to everybody who has triple screens to see. ( Hit the race button. You see your racing engineer in front of you car. Use keyboard shortcut CTR + ALT + S . Look you racing engineer. What you see he gets thicker(22 mm) and thinner (20 mm.) but hes height is the same.) My pictures are also a proof about it. https://www.dropbox.com/s/2500jlxrs294kc1/Bezel.jpg?dl=0 , https://www.dropbox.com/s/s5cgwrq5jh78ehp/NoBezel.jpg?dl=0 . (res. 5760 x 1080, bezel corrected to 6000 x 1080, LG 24" monitors 16:9)

What you do is try is to figure out a way how you can explain and justify why you have made statements to me and all over the ISI forums that rFactor2 multiview is excellent, working perfect, 1:1 real-life FOV and realistic in-game FOV etc. Your statements are unreasonable based to no fact how multiview is working and how it looks like. Your statements don`t only ruin my gaming experience but also to all those who has bought large monitors and likes to be real and get as close as possible to 1:1 real-life FOV and realistic in-game FOV. Your statements hurtful to development priority to rFactor2 multiview and if you are going to hold on it is going to take years before we get new rFactor2 multiview, maybe never.

When I read the forums I notice that there are not many knowledgeable members who likes to debate with you.They ignores your trolling and stubbornness and don't reply. You have also gone over the limit to Patience to site leader many times he has warned you and also banned you. There is obliviously reason to that. I am new in forums and now I have also learned the lesson. I am going to ignore you also. Enough is Enough.