So....who has PCars?

[DurgeDriven]

Yawn I think that's the problem.

Too much reading, debate, worry and not enough driving.

You can't tell what you like most through the seat of "your" pants..........Give UP !

 

[WhiteShadow]

WhiteShadow, there is a bezel peek shortcut in the Nvidia surround settings, press it if you can't see something due to the bezel corrections.

Like emery said, multiview works perfect in RF2, RF1. It isn't as customizable from the game's POV, but the user can do that himself (adjust monitor angle, adjust FOV, adjust distance between eyes and monitors).

Furthermore, if you use a realistic in-game FOV, then I believe RF2 should work out to be 45 degrees for the outer monitors.

I've had 3 different triple screen setups (Samsung PX2370, ASUS VG248QE, BenQ XL2720T), two operating systems, many GPUs (AMD and Nvidia), three CPUs, 4 motherboards, and so on; multiview has always worked perfect for me so I highly doubt it's an issue of working with some systems but not with others. It's just down to user setup since it doesn't have as many customize-able options. And, yes,, even more-so considering the bezel-peek hotkey option which Nvidia offers (and I'm guessing AMD aswell).

I am happy everything works fine for you. I respect you point of view. I was hoping you do the same with my, you are using words "I highly doubt" I don`t think you do.

BenQ XL2720T bezel is 4 cm "very small portions of the UI may get cut-off at times, but that's seriously nitpicking" 4cm is huge bezel, nitpicking, really?

rFactor2 > new rFactor2 User Interface > Options > video res. > widescreen width. I can not see other reason then ISI is aware of problem with scaling , why is it there, is there some other reason ?

 

[Lazza]

Furthermore, if you use a realistic in-game FOV, then I believe RF2 should work out to be 45 degrees for the outer monitors.

No! No, no, no, and just no!

Yes, if it works out to be 45°. The rest of the time, no.

Sorry to be picky, but people pick these figures up and take them as gospel months down the track.. then you have to go explaining the whole thing to them so they stop saying multiview is broken because their screens are at 45° but it doesn't look right...

rFactor2 > new rFactor2 User Interface > Options > video res. > widescreen width. I can not see other reason then ISI is aware of problem with scaling , why is it there, is there some other reason ?

They've said in the past they'll have a better system allowing for multi screens, I'm sure when they do it won't be lacking. Nothing they do usually is. Just gotta wait for it.

 

[Spinelli]

I am happy everything works fine for you. I respect you point of view. I was hoping you do the same with my, you are using words "I highly doubt" I don`t think you do.

BenQ XL2720T bezel is 4 cm "very small portions of the UI may get cut-off at times, but that's seriously nitpicking" 4cm is huge bezel, nitpicking, rely?

I can see and access everything in my U.I. except maybe 1 or 2 digits of the FPS monitor when I use it. So, yes, it's seriously nitpicking because 99.9999% of the U.I. is visible and therefore useable.

It's not about not respecting your opinion. I've had a ton of different monitor/GPU/MB/OS/RAM/CPU/PS etc. setups, and I never had issues with multiview. Therefore - due to my experience with many different PC setup situations - I am lead to believe that it is not an issue about working with some setups but not others. If I only had experience with 1 or 2 PCs then of course I'd think that it could possibly be a system-compatibility issue.

No! No, no, no, and just no!

Yes, if it works out to be 45°. The rest of the time, no.

Sorry to be picky, but people pick these figures up and take them as gospel months down the track.. then you have to go explaining the whole thing to them so they stop saying multiview is broken because their screens are at 45° but it doesn't look right...

Are you sure? If you set a realistic FOV - and there is only 1 realistic FOV according to your monitor size (incl. aspect ratio) and the distance from your eyes to your screen - then I thought it would always be 45 degrees? I swear it seems to always be like that for me as I switch monitors (and therefore my in-game FOV to match reality).

P.S. This is a fantastic place to find out your setup's 1:1 with real-life FOV --> http://www.projectimmersion.com/fov/

 

[Emery]

Are you sure? If you set a realistic FOV - and there is only 1 realistic FOV according to your monitor size (incl. aspect ratio) and the distance from your eyes to your screen - then I thought it would always be 45 degrees? I swear it seems to always be like that for me as I switch monitors (and therefore my in-game FOV to match reality).

P.S. This is a fantastic place to find out your setup's 1:1 with real-life FOV --> http://www.projectimmersion.com/fov/

Yeah, Lazza's sure and I'm sure. Imagine your 27" monitors are 30' away; you can intuitively realize that 45 degrees is not an appropriate value at that distance.

Project Immersion's calculator has a selector for which game you're using. One of those games (can't remember which one) has an output value in the calculator that includes the proper triple monitor angle for your distance.

 

[Spinelli]

You may have a good point there, Emery. Maybe it's only with very, very extreme examples (such as yours)? I'm just speculating.

All I know is that - as long as I use my 1:1 FOV - that (from what I remember) my triple 23, 24, and 27 inch monitor setups have always been about 45 degrees. I'm just going by eye though, not measurements.

What I recommend to all RF2/SCE/RF1 etc. triple screen users is to use a 1:1 FOV (or very close - with triples there shouldn't be any reason not to) and set your monitors' angles accordingly. Then use that setup for all your sims (obviously) and everything will be perfect.

Remember, the distance between your eyes and the screen is a factor to. So when lining up monitors, make sure you check the in-game image only from your driving position.

 

[WhiteShadow]

I can see and access everything in my U.I. except maybe 1 or 2 digits of the FPS monitor when I use it. So, yes, it's seriously nitpicking because 99.9999% of the U.I. is visible and therefore useable.

BenQ XL2720T X 3 ," So, yes, it's seriously nitpicking because 99.9999% of the U.I. is visible and therefore useable." ,1 or 2 digits, 99.9999% of the U.I. is visible. Come on man, you bezel is 4cm wide , it don`t take much to understand that you claim is not truth. Nvidia Control Panel > Spam displays with Sorruond > Bezel Correction > V1&V2 = 110-120 (4 cm bezel) ctrl+f, lets say you get over 100fps you can see half of first digit two digits are hidden behind you bezel left-and right is 8cm and that is not 99.9999% of the U.I. is visible. Lost of 8cm of you visible U.I. is not nitpicking.

What if you monitor ration is not 4:3, 5:4, 21:9, 21:10 or 16:9, How can this tool work http://www.projectimmersion.com/fov/ ? To get it right there must bee monitor width Including bezel (mm), Visible width excluding bezel, if not it is wasted to use it.
I believe that ISI is aware of scaling problem and this is why new rFactor2 User Interface has widescreen width as option, but I don`t think this is the good solution, lowering widescreen width (resolution) gives you much worse picture quality. I am not sure about it, but I can not think any other reason to have option like that if it is not to scaling.

 

[Spinelli]

I've been playing RF2 and other ISI engine based sims for years on triples; everything is accessible and viewable that I can think of. The car setup options, the buttons when you're in the garage, the HUD, the buttons/options in the main menu, the replay buttons, the options in the car upgrades section, etc.

 

[Emery]

I've been playing RF2 and other ISI engine based sims for years on triples; everything is accessible and viewable that I can think of. The car setup options, the buttons when you're in the garage, the HUD, the buttons/options in the main menu, the replay buttons, the options in the car upgrades section, etc.

Agree with Spinelli. Biggest problem in my experience with triples has been when the bezel falls exactly in the middle of the rear view mirror. Never had a UI problem.

And, uh, er, how many monitors can you buy that aren't one of the 4:3, 5:4, 21:9, 21:10, or 16:9? Really, if there are any, it's an incredibly small market.

 

[WhiteShadow]

Ok guys I just give up. It is not relevant at all if Spinelli has played years ISI based sims and if Emery never had UI problem. I have scaling problem and you statements don`t help me or anybody else who has problem with scaling and triple screens. If Spinelli likes to loose 8cm from hes visible UI it is fine for me but it don`t change the fact that rFactor2 multiview is not near perfect as Spinelli states. I feel also it is hurtful to development of rFactor2 with our statements and I must face the fact that when you guys are happy with multiview ISI is never going to fix or update this problem me and few others have.
You guys claim and claim but still non of you can explain to me why rFactor2 User Interface has widescreen width as option, just for fun, I don`t think so.

Thank you for you support, enjoy you triples.

 

[Juergen-BY]

And, uh, er, how many monitors can you buy that aren't one of the 4:3, 5:4, 21:9, 21:10, or 16:9? Really, if there are any, it's an incredibly small market.

http://p5.focus.de/img/fotos/origs2915853/6913882778-w630-h413-o-q75-p5/apple-1.jpg



Sorry for OT...

 

[Eddy]

When I am using windows option = NVIDIA Control Panel > Spam displays with Surround > configure > Bezel Correction V1 V2 to this and use ctrl+f to look at my fps I can not see the numbers it is hidden behind the bezel, Mode: Fullscreen.

I can confirm this and to me not being able to see fps counter is a big pita tbh

 

[Woodee]

Ok guys I just give up. It is not relevant at all if Spinelli has played years ISI based sims and if Emery never had UI problem. I have scaling problem and you statements don`t help me or anybody else who has problem with scaling and triple screens. If Spinelli likes to loose 8cm from hes visible UI it is fine for me but it don`t change the fact that rFactor2 multiview is not near perfect as Spinelli states. I feel also it is hurtful to development of rFactor2 with our statements and I must face the fact that when you guys are happy with multiview ISI is never going to fix or update this problem me and few others have.
You guys claim and claim but still non of you can explain to me why rFactor2 User Interface has widescreen width as option, just for fun, I don`t think so.

Thank you for you support, enjoy you triples.

It has had that from the start... not specifically for triple screen. It was for when the UI could be scaled from 4:3 to 16:9/16:10, that is all I think.

 

[Spinelli]

So there's a UI scaling option, what's the big deal (not to mention Woodee's post)?

Like I said, we are not missing anything in the UI. All buttons, all menus, etc. are visible and useable therefore I still don't see what the/your problem is...

 

[WhiteShadow]

So there's a UI scaling option, what's the big deal (not to mention Woodee's post)?

Like I said, we are not missing anything in the UI. All buttons, all menus, etc. are visible and useable therefore I still don't see what the/your problem is...

You are missing 8cm of you visible U.I. if you are using bezel correction and you Benq monitors. Use calculator and find out if 8cm is 99,9999% of you visible U.I. as you stated here before.

I described to you what is my problem but you just don`t seem want to understand, please read it again and if it is still to hard to understand just let it be, and go back to topic which is pCars, ok?

Thx, Woodee now I know it is to scaling.

 

[Lazza]

You may have a good point there, Emery. Maybe it's only with very, very extreme examples (such as yours)?

It was a good and extreme example, but in this case any example - extreme or not - will be different.

Look at it another way: sitting in front of your centre screen with correct FOV, perspective lines up and everything looks realistic. Move your seat to the right, so now you're lined up with its right-edge, and the perspective you see is no longer correct. It's not a long way off compared to 90° v-FOV on a 23" screen 4 feet away from you, but it's still skewed. This is why multiview-off screens should technically be placed in a straight line, while multiview-on screens should all be facing you directly. Hence if you move further away or closer, or change to smaller or bigger screens, their angles will have to change based on your new position relative to them. So for each screen size there is a single seating distance that will make things correct at 45°; all other distances (and corresponding FOVs) will require different angles.

Your various setups may have approximated 45° and been close enough to correct to satisfy you, but chances are very few (if any at all) were technically supposed to be exactly 45°.

But we have to counter this with some reality... a lot of triple screen users run multiview-off and angle the screens, and run higher-than-realistic FOV. And a lot of triple screen users running multiview-on don't run realistically-low FOV, to the extent that something in the game world that should appear behind them is drawn on a screen in front of them. Most of both groups will have adjusted their screens until it 'felt right', or even driven up to a fence or other straight object as a means of 'getting things right', though they most certainly technically aren't.

So it is splitting hairs when really most people don't care about, or understand, what's correct anyway. But I'd still prefer the '45° rule' doesn't keep getting thrown around

And yeah, sorry for the OT, but it's a pCars thread in an rF2 forum.

 

[DurgeDriven]

Maybe OT but a lot more interesting to PCars users then debating different tyre models and physics.

 

[Noel Hibbard]

Ok guys I just give up. It is not relevant at all if Spinelli has played years ISI based sims and if Emery never had UI problem. I have scaling problem and you statements don`t help me or anybody else who has problem with scaling and triple screens. If Spinelli likes to loose 8cm from hes visible UI it is fine for me but it don`t change the fact that rFactor2 multiview is not near perfect as Spinelli states. I feel also it is hurtful to development of rFactor2 with our statements and I must face the fact that when you guys are happy with multiview ISI is never going to fix or update this problem me and few others have.
You guys claim and claim but still non of you can explain to me why rFactor2 User Interface has widescreen width as option, just for fun, I don`t think so.

Thank you for you support, enjoy you triples.

Bezel correction probably isn't a quick task so it falls down the priority list. IMO, a new rules system for the oval racing and improvements to the CPM come WAY ahead of the bezel hiding parts of the UI.

A quick fix would be to continue using the display driver to do the bezel correction and then add hotkeys to scale and shift the UI up, down, left and right to avoid hidden parts. But full blown in game bezel correction at this stage in development seems sort of low on the priority list to me.

 

[Satangoss]

And, earlier tonight I tried again.

Bathurst running in a BMW M3 GT. Multiclass racing (why in Earth I can't choose the damn classes and cars I want? Whatever...)

Car and track stunning, I've never seen such well done Bathurst version like this, it's a blast in terms of GFX.

And, amazingly, I was having a nice race coming from back of the grid. The BMW driving dynamic was appearing to be cool. The excellent graphics were helping too.

Then an AI car force me to the wall, aero damage. Going to the pits, there first annoyance: the stupid Autopit Driving. Why, God, why? Ok... And then the pit boxes cones were not made of plastic but made of concrete. Me and 4 AI cars were unsuccessfully trying to pit to repairs but the cones won't let us. And there we us going back and forth trying to park the goddamn car and it was not possible.

Just shut down the computer in the power button and went for a beer.

 

[Golanv]

As long as there is Nightwish or Amorphis playing through my headset.... I don't care what you people play.

 

[MrPix]

Yeah, Lazza's sure and I'm sure. Imagine your 27" monitors are 30' away; you can intuitively realize that 45 degrees is not an appropriate value at that distance.

Project Immersion's calculator has a selector for which game you're using. One of those games (can't remember which one) has an output value in the calculator that includes the proper triple monitor angle for your distance.

OT (sorry)
Hey Emery... you just inspired my next project... adding monitor angle (not what you have it set at, but what it should be mathematically) for triple screens to my calculator... thanks It's an easy formula, but going to be fun to code in the graphics

 

[Spinelli]

1. How can a definite angle exist for a given screen size/ratio, game-FOV, and user-distance to screen? In IR, AC, and (I think) LFS you can change the rendering on the outer monitors only - which therefore allows almost any angle you desire - without changing either the screen size/ratio, game-FOV, or user-distance to screen. Therefore, depending on how the outer monitors are rendered, the outer monitor angles can almost be limitless (or at least limitless between 0 degrees and 90 degrees)...

2. Does bezel compensation affect this even further? If so, then almost every triple screen user uses some amount of bezel compensation...

Mr. Pix, the current picture as it is currently (connected to screen size, screen aspect ratio, game FOV, and game selected), with a second more basic pic beside or underneath it which is a much simpler, direct overhead view which is only connected to the angle (and states the angle at one of the angle corners). Just the angle could be connected to this pic (and maybe aspect ratio if you want to go a step further, but I think screen size would be pointless and a waste of bandwidth, as well as game FOV and selected game since you can't even see those as the picture would be a 100%, exact perpendicular overhead view). Of course you could get fancy and do all sorts of off-centred views and such so as to combine the currently used graphic with the monitor's angle.

WhiteShadow, maybe I have wide bezels but I've stated multiple times that just about every single item in the game's U.I. is viewable and therefore usable. So I do not have a total of 8cm of the RF2 U.I. cut off. Well maybe edges of the irrelevent, non-functional background image, but with regards to the actual U.I. (the functional stuff we click, read, view, etc.) I don't have anything cutting off from what I remember. Also, In a worse case scenario, Nvidia and I think AMD as well support bezel peeking at the press of a button, but I've never had to use that, ever.

 

[MrPix]

1. How can a definite angle exist for a given screen size/ratio, game-FOV, and user-distance to screen? In IR, AC, and (I think) LFS you can change the rendering on the outer monitors only - which therefore allows almost any angle you desire - without changing either the screen size/ratio, game-FOV, or user-distance to screen. Therefore, depending on how the outer monitors are rendered, the outer monitor angles can almost be limitless (or at least limitless between 0 degrees and 90 degrees)...

2. Does bezel compensation affect this even further? If so, then almost every triple screen user uses some amount of bezel compensation...

Mr. Pix, the current picture as it is currently (connected to screen size, screen aspect ratio, game FOV, and game selected), with a second more basic pic beside or underneath it which is a much simpler, direct overhead view which is only connected to the angle (and states the angle at one of the angle corners). Just the angle could be connected to this pic (and maybe aspect ratio if you want to go a step further, but I think screen size would be pointless and a waste of bandwidth, as well as game FOV and selected game since you can't even see those as the picture would be a 100%, exact perpendicular overhead view). Of course you could get fancy and do all sorts of off-centred views and such so as to combine the currently used graphic with the monitor's angle.

WhiteShadow, maybe I have wide bezels but I've stated multiple times that just about every single item in the game's U.I. is viewable and therefore usable. So I do not have a total of 8cm of the RF2 U.I. cut off. Well maybe edges of the irrelevent, non-functional background image, but with regards to the actual U.I. (the functional stuff we click, read, view, etc.) I don't have anything cutting off from what I remember. Also, In a worse case scenario, Nvidia and I think AMD as well support bezel peeking at the press of a button, but I've never had to use that, ever.

Nevermind, just not worth the debate, I wasn't asking for advice

 

[Old Hat]

Random thoughts:
Comparing pCars and AC on pretty much full graphics, pCars has some nice atmospheric elements. AC looks a little too sterile (like iRacing) but has I think better track textures, which are important for judging speed and distance. ISI's tracks surfaces look good too, and it has IMO a good dirty/real look generally about it. But the tracks are spoiled by the flickering textures, jaggies and looking like they were coloured in by a 3 yr old.

In pCars I tried the Caterham seven, Escort and Atom V8. I felt the physics was a bit...well 'easy' for want of a better term. You could take liberties that you couldn't in rF2, AC and iRacing. I understand what some people mean about rF2 tyres seeming more 'detailed', but what I think AC gets better than any other sim is the sense of inertia. You have to coax the car through corners because correcting loses time. There's more of a sense of respecting that the cars actually have mass.

Like AC, the pCars AI cars were too slow; on 100%, no aids, starting 20th it was easy to win at Donington in the Caterham with no practice. But my car/track choices obviously arent' popular because I tried 3 time trials and after about 2 or 3 laps was top of short leader boards at Donington, Brands and Laguna in the Escort. I expected there'd be a lot more laps recorded. I was on course to beat the Atom time at Imola when Steam said I'd been disconnected. Spent an hour trying to reconnect to steam, and eventually managed to login in after it sent me a code because it reckoned I'd changed my computer. That's the second time Steam's thought that. Very annoying when you're locked out of your games because of Steam, which I (at least) don't want anyway. pCars Imola seems similar to AC's. But Laguna is nothing like iRacing's laser scanned version.

The curb behaviour is extremely weird, auto pitting is sad. Also I did a fast lap in solo testing, but had no option to save the replay only leave with nothing or apparently stay to the end ...of what exactly?

First reaction then is pCars is fun and immersive because of the graphics, but physics is rather unsatisfying - at least in the cars I tried.

If we could get the best bits of all these sims into one it'd be rather excellent...except no-one would agree what they are.

 

[WhiteShadow]

Bezel correction probably isn't a quick task so it falls down the priority list. IMO, a new rules system for the oval racing and improvements to the CPM come WAY ahead of the bezel hiding parts of the UI.

A quick fix would be to continue using the display driver to do the bezel correction and then add hotkeys to scale and shift the UI up, down, left and right to avoid hidden parts. But full blown in game bezel correction at this stage in development seems sort of low on the priority list to me.

I am new in ISI forums, bought rFactor2 in 2012 and I have followed developments with close eye. I have not played rFactor2 much because multiview is an achilesheel for me.
My replays are to those who claims that Rfactor2 Multiview UI works perfect and bezel correction is only one example that it dont. What is high and low priority development is up to each to judge.

I read this from Community Q&A in 2013:

Q: Any plans to have proper support for Triplescreen? (angle, distance, bezel etc…)
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.

This is from 2013, I think it is time to get also multiview updated.

 

[Guimengo]

pC runs like it has hidden assists. It probably needs to go through the NFS Shift community work to unlock its capability.

 

[Spinelli]

Nevermind, just not worth the debate, I wasn't asking for advice

"Just not worth the debate"? What debate? I'm sorry you misunderstood my post. I was just asking questions (#s 1 and 2) out of curiosity because you and some others around here seem much more knowledgable about triple screens than me. I was just interested in how something works and thought I'd ask. Sorry for asking. I didn't know trying to explain some interesting simracing stuff on a simracing forum just isn't worth it to you.

"I wasn't asking for advice". Lol, wow! Geez. All I did was offer some ideas. Just friendly advice/ideas from an enthusiast to another, nothing more . But thanks for the response - real nice and appreciative.

 

[WhiteShadow]

pC runs like it has hidden assists. It probably needs to go through the NFS Shift community work to unlock its capability.

Yes hidden assists are on. Host can turn off aids online,Force Manual Gears > Yes, Force Realistic Driving >NO, Allow ABS > NO, Allow Stability Control > NO, Allow Traction Control > NO. I dont know if this can be done offline too.

 

[buddhatree]

Yes hidden assists are on. Host can turn off aids online,Force Manual Gears > Yes, Force Realistic Driving >NO, Allow ABS > NO, Allow Stability Control > NO, Allow Traction Control > NO. I dont know if this can be done offline too.

Yes it can. Weird thing is, when you first boot up the game and choose "Pro" as your gameplay mode, you would assume all assists are off by default. Because "Pro" = "simracer" right? But if you go into the gameplay section, all assists are ON by default in "Pro" mode. I had to set it to OFF manually.

 

[Guimengo]

After setting it to Pro then disabling everything tucked away in the menus, the game still runs that way. That is why I said it will likely take an effort like that from NFS:S community to make this more interesting in the PC for some of us.

 

[WhiteShadow]

After setting it to Pro then disabling everything tucked away in the menus, the game still runs that way. That is why I said it will likely take an effort like that from NFS:S community to make this more interesting in the PC for some of us.

Yes, I looked in to this to and it seem to me that the only possibility to get rid off all aids is to host.

 

[Guimengo]

Yes, I looked in to this to and it seem to me that the only possibility to get rid off all aids is to host.

Like Gran Turismo 5, when driving online it could really be a surprising and challenging experience on certain (Premium) cars. Complete shock to the rest of the game.

 

[Denstjiro]

After setting it to Pro then disabling everything tucked away in the menus, the game still runs that way. That is why I said it will likely take an effort like that from NFS:S community to make this more interesting in the PC for some of us.

Looking forward to your findings. getting pcars next week and the first thing on the list (as usual) is getting rid of all help.
Would sux if there where items not possible to turn off imo.

 

[Guimengo]

Looking forward to your findings. getting pcars next week and the first thing on the list (as usual) is getting rid of all help.
Would sux if there where items not possible to turn off imo.

My findings won't come until eons from now, I am not digging into it only reporting what I find online . I'm still waiting for my refund to be done correctly, asked for it over a month ago. This inability to eliminate these assist layers from single player was one of the two main reasons I decided to step away despite losing 7 dollars in the currency exchange.

 

[WhiteShadow]

WhiteShadow, maybe I have wide bezels but I've stated multiple times that just about every single item in the game's U.I. is viewable and therefore usable. So I do not have a total of 8cm of the RF2 U.I. cut off. Well maybe edges of the irrelevent, non-functional background image, but with regards to the actual U.I. (the functional stuff we click, read, view, etc.) I don't have anything cutting off from what I remember. Also, In a worse case scenario, Nvidia and I think AMD as well support bezel peeking at the press of a button, but I've never had to use that, ever.

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), triple screens 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 bezel. Maximum resolution > 3x 1920 x 1080 = 5760 x 1080 it is not possible physically to stretch monitors to 6000 x 1080, right? Height (1080) is unchanged it is crystal clear that also FOV must remain unchanged and it crystal clear also that Bezel Correction (Width ZOOM only) scaling is incorrect.

It is also crystal clear that ISI is aware problems with multiview UI which you seem not to be.

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.

With this I hope you finally can face the fact with pros and cons with multiview like it is today, It is usable to some but not to all of us.

 

[Old Hat]

Yes, I looked in to this to and it seem to me that the only possibility to get rid off all aids is to host.

FWIW, AC still has some aids on too in "pro" mode that can be turned off in "custom". I think that depends a bit on the car.

I always try to "search and destroy" and it's annoying if a sim still has stuff on you can't turn off. A cynic might say they're "obfuscating" the true tyre behaviour.

Since you mention it, I didn't notice any threshold on the brakes in pCars, so ABS was probably the reason. I wasn't pushing but even I'd notice something somewhere.

The physics was all a bit dead though...now you mention it. The Atom did power-oversteer but snapped in slow motion even compared with AC.

Can someone tell me how you leave the solo practice mode (or whatever it's called) and save your lap times or replay? - that was the only reason I was doing time trials and didn't know they'd be uploaded.

 

[Spinelli]

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), triple screens 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 bezel. Maximum resolution > 3x 1920 x 1080 = 5760 x 1080 it is not possible physically to stretch monitors to 6000 x 1080, right? Height (1080) is unchanged it is crystal clear that also FOV must remain unchanged and it crystal clear also that Bezel Correction (Width ZOOM only) scaling is incorrect.

It is also crystal clear that ISI is aware problems with multiview UI which you seem not to be.

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.

With this I hope you finally can face the fact with pros and cons with multiview like it is today, It is usable to some but not to all of us.

? I know how bezel correction works. The GPU is basically rendering an extra wide screen that you can't see.

I know that RF2's in-game menus (UI) aren't multiview aware.

I know that ISI know that their U.I. isn't multiview aware and that they don't have all the customizability options that games like LFS (I think), IR, and AC have.

I've said it multiple times and all say it again. All I'm saying is that even with a multiview-unaware U.I. + not the slimmest bezels around, I still am able to see everything in the RF2 U.I. All lines of text, all buttons to click on, etc. So the reality is that the U.I. not being multiview-aware is not actually a problem 99.9% of the time, well, unless someone has massive bezels like 30 or 40 cm wide ones, lol.

 

[Emery]

@WhiteShadow - 6000 is what you have to set your width to for bezels? Jeez, that's 4.5% oversize... no wonder you experience problems with the UI. With my narrow bezel 27" monitors, I'm only at 5847. Only 1.5% oversize. Honestly, I couldn't imagine trying to use monitors with as wide of bezel as you have as it would drive me crazy.

 

[Guimengo]

FWIW, AC still has some aids on too in "pro" mode that can be turned off in "custom". I think that depends a bit on the car.

I always try to "search and destroy" and it's annoying if a sim still has stuff on you can't turn off. A cynic might say they're "obfuscating" the true tyre behaviour.

Since you mention it, I didn't notice any threshold on the brakes in pCars, so ABS was probably the reason. I wasn't pushing but even I'd notice something somewhere.

The physics was all a bit dead though...now you mention it. The Atom did power-oversteer but snapped in slow motion even compared with AC.

Assetto is set to run with factory settings. GT cars will have TC or ABS, you can turn it off completely with ctrl+ key but that wouldn't be realistic.

For excellent driving proof in pC, look no further than taking the C9 out and abusing the throttle and late braking.

 

[Golanv]

Assetto is set to run with factory settings. GT cars will have TC or ABS, you can turn it off completely with ctrl+ key but that wouldn't be realistic.

Considering that GT cars have adjustable TC and can be turned off, "TC is not used by drivers than only in wet and slippery conditions" (from the mouth of GT driver.) it is realistic to be able to turn it off.
Also AC "factory" ABS isn't an aid, its modeled as the ABS fuctions in any particular car. (very different from GT race car to a civilian sports car for example.)