trrll's justification of Bioshocks bad FOV

Post by **Paddy the Wak** » 09 Sep 2007, 22:05

Sorry guys I accidentally deleted the thread ... :oops:
Please accept my apologies ... I screwed up.

trrll ... please continue ...

Post by **Tamlin** » 09 Sep 2007, 22:09

Just sent you a PM asking if you had deleted it... I was reading it... :lol:

Post by **Tamlin** » 09 Sep 2007, 23:33

While Paddy is looking for a method to get this thread back on track again... :) (I've been there and done that when it comes to pressing delete as a mistake...) :lol:

@Trrll:

As a little food for thought:

Did you ever consider the real world application of

(10"/2) / tan(45/2) = 12.07" ?

link from a previous post of yours

I think, if you put it into practical use for gamers, you'll figure out soon enough that monitors diagonal size is not a realistic measurement point for PC users.

PC users adjusts their distance to screen according to default font size and readability. Factors like resolution, eyesight, pixel pitch etc. influences this a great deal.

I would elaborate a bit more, but I'm stretched for time as always.

Edit: I see Paddy got my cached pages to work here! :D Honest mistake.

Post by **Paddy the Wak** » 09 Sep 2007, 23:50

Yeah mate ... thanks for the help and the cached pages ... 8)

Once again sorry guys ...

trrll · Post by **trrll** » 10 Sep 2007, 00:46

While Paddy is looking for a method to get this thread back on track again... :) (I've been there and done that when it comes to pressing delete as a mistake...) :lol:

@Trrll:

As a little food for thought:

Did you ever consider the real world application of

(10"/2) / tan(45/2) = 12.07" ?

link from a previous post of yours

I think, if you put it into practical use for gamers, you'll figure out soon enough that monitors diagonal size is not a realistic measurement point for PC users.

PC users adjusts their distance to screen according to default font size and readability. Factors like resolution, eyesight, pixel pitch etc. influences this a great deal.

I would elaborate a bit more, but I'm stretched for time as always.

Edit: I see Paddy got my cached pages to work here! :D Honest mistake.

Yes, I agree that for many PC users, game playing is often not the dominant basis for setting distance to the screen. However, my point is rather that it is reasonable for a developer to consider this equation, in conjunction with typical screen distances in considering what FOV will provide a distortion-free view in which objects appear actual size.

My point here is simply that few PC users sit close enough (half a screen width) for a FOV of 90 degrees to provide correct perspective, and virtually no PC users sit close enough for 120 degrees to look correct (although perhaps some home theater enthusiasts with giant screens get that close).

trrll · Post by **trrll** » 10 Sep 2007, 04:54

Sorry about this guys but it was a genuine mistake ...
Here are the pages I deleted ...

I've pulled out a couple of short comments from here that I wanted to respond to. There were also a couple of longer, reasoned rebuttals that I''d like to respond to at a later time.

The mathematics and what the "correct" FOV should be doesn't matter. This isn't science, it's a game. Delivering the best player experience trumps everything else.

I mean when you put an electric current into water it doesn't make little blue flashes and arcs randomly jump through the water, but it does make for a better game. Maybe a smaller FOV is more "accurate" for a screen at a distance, but I don't care; it looks zoomed and I want to see more of the environment. I'm not a robot, I don't analyze FOV angles in my head, all I know is whether or not something looks "right" to me.

I basically agree, and I'd be surprised if 2K used this sort of mathematical calculation. They said that they went through dozens of variations on FOV, and picked the one that they thought gave the best player experience. The fact that they happened to hit on one that is very close to the perspective-correct FOV for typical viewing distances suggests to me that they were looking for a FOV that produced the maximum sense of realism and suspense.

The simple fact is that a lot of people don't like Bioshock's tight FOV. That is all that matters.

You (trrll) and others put so much effort in trying to rationalize something which is ultimately a matter of a opinion when all you really need to say is that you like it or you do not. In this instance most people seem to be on the "do not like it" side of things.

I haven't seen any surveys, but considering that this the game is selling in the high six figures and has received rave reviews in every single professional review that I've seen, there are clearly a huge number of people in the "like it very much" class. I am myself. However, I certainly agree with you that it is a matter of opinion and personal taste. I do not mean for a moment to dismiss the validity of the experience of those who don't like Bioshock because it is too hard, or too easy, or too dark, or too scary, or too politically incorrect, or has a FOV that they don't like.

My point is simply that, in addition to the esthetic and gameplay reasons that probably drove the actual decision, the choice of FOV is reasonable based on objective criteria of accurate perspective at typical viewing distances. I have no argument with people hacking the game to be more to their personal taste. Myself, I am interested in playing it in its original form, for the same reason that I would want to first see "Casablanca" in black & white before watching a colorized version.

What about my argument, I clearly stated what I thought.. and you agreed. Therefore there isn't really any argument at all.

If you sit in the correct position when playing bioshock with the FOV hack enabled it doesn't distort (Even though it does, your eyes compensate as was discussed).

2k is even patching the game to allow the correct FOV, this is also happening for the 360 version.

No, I don't think we have any real argument, although I interpret it as you agreeing with me

My only point is that it is reasonable for a developer to produce a game that does not require players to get uncomfortably close to their monitors in order to get correct perspective.

Apple · Post by **Apple** » 10 Sep 2007, 05:44

No, I don't think we have any real argument, although I interpret it as you agreeing with me :)

Sigh, as I said I knew you would some how twist it.

I don't agree with you, games shouldn't be Vert- how ever you look at it. Your whole argument is worthless, the "Distortion" or how far you sit from the screen to stop the distortion doesn't really matter. Most don't notice any distortion.. I know I don't, and I sit where ever I wan't. I don't have my face planted on the screen to get the correct FOV without distrotion....

You can use the hack and still have no distrotion according to what you have said anyway, so why is any game suppose to be Vert-?

For a person that is obviously trying to be extremely smart, why are you on an internet forum that doesn't agree with you... With an argument that is going nowhere because its wrong anyway?

I'm not going to reply anymore... this thread is useless and needs to die, goodluck in your endeavours Trrll.

Post by **Tamlin** » 10 Sep 2007, 13:25

Yes, I agree that for many PC users, game playing is often not the dominant basis for setting distance to the screen. However, my point is rather that it is reasonable for a developer to consider this equation, in conjunction with typical screen distances in considering what FOV will provide a distortion-free view in which objects appear actual size.

My point here is simply that few PC users sit close enough (half a screen width) for a FOV of 90 degrees to provide correct perspective, and virtually no PC users sit close enough for 120 degrees to look correct (although perhaps some home theater enthusiasts with giant screens get that close).

Heard about tripplehead? ;)

Since I am stretched for time, I think it would be fruitful to find a common ground on the perspective related to what angle we speak of. The human eye are totally different from a lens. Not only have we both mono and stereo sight, but also can be selective to our focus point. Our brain interpete what we see and adjusts accordingly. Note that we have a larger total field of view then shown here.

Here's a scetch of the human vision. The field of view a person can see totally is larger in horizontal width there, but lets find the angle YOU refer to:

Here's one where the "stereo eye" (depth perseption) is implemented in the scetch:

link where scetches are taken from

Edit:
Note that our eyes have 150 degrees optimal sight each and our binocular vision is about 180 degrees. Vertically we have 90 degrees.

Note also that our brains interpete the shape of the object as well. When we see a widescreen, our brains expect more horizontally (a larger FOV). Since the limitation is greater vertically with its 90 degrees vs. 180 degrees horizontally, vert- is unacceptable.

trrll · Post by **trrll** » 11 Sep 2007, 00:09

Heard about tripplehead? ;)

Yes, I posted a detailed discussion of how a game could best handle triplehead, but I think it vanished when the thread got deleted.

Basically, spreading out a horizontal field of view over 3 monitors arranged in a line doesn't really work very well in terms of perspective, as distortion at the edges tends to be extreme

I gather that people sometimes set the screens at an angle so that they wrap around them, but this actually exaggerates the distortion (because the projection calculated by the game assumes that the screen is flat, not bent), and does not really solve the problem.

The best way for a game to support triplehead would be to produce a distinct view for each monitor, based on how you have them arranged. For example, you could set up the screens as 3 sides of a box. The game would generate 3 views: one straight ahead, one 90 degrees right, and one 90 degrees left. Each view would have a FOV of 90 degrees. If you were to sit in the middle of the box, you would see a full 270 degree vista in absolutely perfect perspective. This is the configuration used for the CAVE VR environment.

Alternatively, you could set the screens up with a 120 degree angle between each pair. The game would generate one view straight ahead, one 60 degrees left, and one 60 degrees right, each with a 60 degree FOV. Seated along the line connecting the outer edges of the two end screens, this would give you a perspective perfect 180 degree vista.

Of course, generating a separate view for each monitor is a lot of trouble for a developer to go to for a configuration that is currently under 1% of the market, but if triplehead catches on, more developers may be motivated to provide proper support (as opposed to the rather unsatisfactory kluge of allowing you to spread a single planar projection across 3 screens)

Since I am stretched for time, I think it would be fruitful to find a common ground on the perspective related to what angle we speak of. The human eye are totally different from a lens. Not only have we both mono and stereo sight, but also can be selective to our focus point. Our brain interpete what we see and adjusts accordingly. Note that we have a larger total field of view then shown here.

Here's a scetch of the human vision. The field of view a person can see totally is larger in horizontal width there, but lets find the angle YOU refer to

No, the angle I refer to is the angle occupied by the screen in your visual field. There is not much understanding to be gained by considering the visual field of each eye separately, because the distance between the two eyes is small compared to the distance to the screen, and the display is flat, so parallax doesn't come into play. Our brain figures out distances by perspective cues.

Note also that our brains interpete the shape of the object as well. When we see a widescreen, our brains expect more horizontally (a larger FOV). Since the limitation is greater vertically with its 90 degrees vs. 180 degrees horizontally, vert- is unacceptable.

If your brain actually made such an assumption, you would find it terribly disorienting to look out a window. You would be expecting to see more to the sides when looking out a window two feet wide and two feet high than you see when looking out a window two feet wide and one foot high. Since perspective doesn't actually work that way, looking out windows of different shapes would be horribly confusing. But your brain understands perspective. It knows that looking through a two foot wide window from one foot away will show you the same horizontal FOV no matter what the window's aspect ratio is.

When the perspective is correct on a first person game, your brain interprets the screen as a window, and bases its expectation of what it should see on how much of the visual field the screen occupies, just as it does with a real window.

Post by **Paddy the Wak** » 11 Sep 2007, 00:41

Yes, I posted a detailed discussion of how a game could best handle triplehead, but I think it vanished when the thread got deleted ...

It is still there in the second link and I posted a reply pointing out what it is really like and why it works so well it as it is ...

On the other hand if you show a wider FOV, then you will end up very extreme perspective distortion at the extremes.

The sidescreens are for your peripheral vision ... to add to the immersion.
The action is in on the center screen and that is where you should be looking.
The distortion works fine if you bear that in mind.

So the best way to play Bioshock on a triple head configuration is probably to turn off the extra two monitors

No ... the best way is to use the FOV tool ... to get that peripheral vision immersion.

The ideal way to use 3 monitors would be for a game to generate three 3D perspectives, each with a 90 degree FOV: One looking straight ahead, one looking 90 degrees left, and one looking 90 degrees right. You would arrange the monitors as three sides of a box and sit in the middle, as in the "CAVE" virtual reality environment. You would then perceive a perspective-perfect 270 degree panorama, with everything actual size and no visible distortion.

Not really ... as explained above the sidescreens are for your peripheral vision and it works just fine as it is.

Since triple head is a rare configuration, you'll probably find few games at this point supporting this, but if they happens to catch on, perhaps triple head owners will have enough economic clout to persuade developers to offer this option.

Few games ... ?
There are well over 200 games that can be played in TripleHead without any FOV hacks.

When you have tried TripleHead instead of just looking at screenshots you will know what I'm talking about and not post such misinformation.

and ... also repeated from an earlier post ...

I'm not looking to see as much as possible on the sides; rather I'm looking for an immersive, suspenseful gaming experience.

You should try Bioshock in Triplehead (with the FOV tool) if you you really are ...

I'm not looking to see as much as possible on the sides; rather I'm looking for an immersive, suspenseful gaming experience.

... it isn't about seeing more on the sides it is about that immersion and suspenseful gaming you so desire ... :wink:

And after this statement ...

I'm not looking to see as much as possible on the sides; rather I'm looking for an immersive, suspenseful gaming experience.

I no longer believe you believe the FOV in Bioshock is a good one ... I bet your using the FOV hack just like everyone else ... :P

trrll · Post by **trrll** » 11 Sep 2007, 04:59

This was the point of the thread you tried to hijack for your own justification of Bioshocks bad FOV ... and ... my point was Bioshock as you say has distortion too at the edges of the screen not the amount of distortion.

For me, it is not distorted at all, because I am playing at a distance that corresponds to the FOV. The point of that thread was that the image is not distorted--it is correct perspective for the right viewing distance. The perception of distortion arises because of a mismatch between the FOV and typical viewing distance. With a wide FOV, the distortion-free viewing distance is uncomfortably close for most people.

Nonsense ... it is the way the game engine works ... they just couldn't be bothered until so many people complained about how bad the FOV was.

No, that's not the way the game engine works. With any 3D game engine, it is trivial to set any FOV the developer wants. I'm not at all surprised, however, that more and more games are choosing to take a vert+ approach to supporting 4:3 displays now that developing for widescreen has become the standard. When a game is developed and the FOV optimized for widescreen, the developer is likely to worry that if they cut off the sides for 4:3 that the game might become excessively difficult. On the other hand, if they keep the same FOV and expand the game vertically, they don't have to go through a whole additional cycle of play testing for 4:3. 2K has stated that they went through dozens of different widescreen FOVs before deciding on the one to use, but Levine has acknowledged that he was not directly involved in deciding how to handle 4:3--he just approved the final product.

The sidescreens are for your peripheral vision ... to add to the immersion.
The action is in on the center screen and that is where you should be looking.
The distortion works fine if you bear that in mind.

Yes, I suppose a distorted view is not too bad if you don't look at it too closely, and I imagine that a lot of people who have invested that much in a fancy triple screen are so thrilled to be getting some kind of image on those side screens that they don't mind that it doesn't really look right. But there is no reason why the side screens need to be distorted. The method for using multiple angled screens to produce a wide angle view in perfect perspective with no distortion at all is relatively simple. It is used, for example, in the CAVE virtual reality environment.

Few games ... ?
There are well over 200 games that can be played in TripleHead without any FOV hacks.

When you have tried TripleHead instead of just looking at screenshots you will know what I'm talking about and not post such misinformation.

When I said that few games support it, I meant support it correctly as I described above, without distortion. Again, you may well be reasonably satisfied with a distorted image, but I wouldn't consider that to be correct support when it is possible to provide an image without distortion and mangled perspective.

I no longer believe you believe the FOV in Bioshock is a good one ... I bet your using the FOV hack just like everyone else ... :P

No. I'm not interested in playing the game with an expanded FOV at the moment, for the same reason why I wouldn't watch a colorized Citizen Kane before watching the original black and white version. I'll play around with the patched version once I'm done with the director's cut version. But frankly, I don't expect to like it as well. I've played FPS games with a wider FOV, so I do know what that is like. But Bioshock is at this point my favorite FPS game--and a large part of that is because of exceptional realism and lack of perspective distortion.

Elios · Post by **Elios** » 11 Sep 2007, 05:03

hey Trrll heres a game that gets it right imo
http://www.widescreengamingforum.com/node/8124

not that its hor+ for widescreen AND vert+ for 5:4

i bet if you could setup nine monitors in a grid you would get vert and hor+ gamin

this is how it should be done

edit actuly Paddy can you do 3 monitors in "tallscreen" mode on your triplehead?

Post by **Paddy the Wak** » 11 Sep 2007, 23:31

edit actuly Paddy can you do 3 monitors in "tallscreen" mode on your triplehead?

Yep ...

BlueMak · Post by **BlueMak** » 12 Sep 2007, 00:30

[quote]edit actuly Paddy can you do 3 monitors in "tallscreen" mode on your triplehead?

Yep ...

As natural as trill-o-vision.

Elios · Post by **Elios** » 12 Sep 2007, 00:43

[quote]edit actuly Paddy can you do 3 monitors in "tallscreen" mode on your triplehead?

Yep ...

i was thinking [][][] like that and try it with quake wars since it seems to do both Hor+ and vert+

Osuperman · Post by **Osuperman** » 12 Sep 2007, 01:18

The more he posts, the more I'm convinced he works for them.

http://forums.2kgames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6627&page=78

If not, I wonder why he puts so much effort into arguing about this...?

Post by **Tamlin** » 12 Sep 2007, 03:07

Yes, I posted a detailed discussion of how a game could best handle triplehead, but I think it vanished when the thread got deleted.

Basically, spreading out a horizontal field of view over 3 monitors arranged in a line doesn't really work very well in terms of perspective, as distortion at the edges tends to be extreme

I gather that people sometimes set the screens at an angle so that they wrap around them, but this actually exaggerates the distortion (because the projection calculated by the game assumes that the screen is flat, not bent), and does not really solve the problem.

The best way for a game to support triplehead would be to produce a distinct view for each monitor, based on how you have them arranged. For example, you could set up the screens as 3 sides of a box. The game would generate 3 views: one straight ahead, one 90 degrees right, and one 90 degrees left. Each view would have a FOV of 90 degrees. If you were to sit in the middle of the box, you would see a full 270 degree vista in absolutely perfect perspective. This is the configuration used for the CAVE VR environment.

Alternatively, you could set the screens up with a 120 degree angle between each pair. The game would generate one view straight ahead, one 60 degrees left, and one 60 degrees right, each with a 60 degree FOV. Seated along the line connecting the outer edges of the two end screens, this would give you a perspective perfect 180 degree vista.

Of course, generating a separate view for each monitor is a lot of trouble for a developer to go to for a configuration that is currently under 1% of the market, but if triplehead catches on, more developers may be motivated to provide proper support (as opposed to the rather unsatisfactory kluge of allowing you to spread a single planar projection across 3 screens)

Paddy showed you this one before I got time to answer. :) Take a note about his explaination about peripheral vision...

No, the angle I refer to is the angle occupied by the screen in your visual field. There is not much understanding to be gained by considering the visual field of each eye separately, because the distance between the two eyes is small compared to the distance to the screen, and the display is flat, so parallax doesn't come into play. Our brain figures out distances by perspective cues.

May I interpete this that you are reluctant to give a spesific angle and which part of the eyesight you base this upon?
If you talk about the angle occupied by the screen in your visual field and speak of our stereo vision, we are talking about a 180 degrees angle when the screen covers the whole visual field. Now, I ask you again, what angle do you refer to?

Your should read this before you answer:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_perception

If your brain actually made such an assumption, you would find it terribly disorienting to look out a window. You would be expecting to see more to the sides when looking out a window two feet wide and two feet high than you see when looking out a window two feet wide and one foot high. Since perspective doesn't actually work that way, looking out windows of different shapes would be horribly confusing. But your brain understands perspective. It knows that looking through a two foot wide window from one foot away will show you the same horizontal FOV no matter what the window's aspect ratio is.

Our brains makes such assumption. So does widescreen users. We EXPECT to see more horizontal (hor+).

When the perspective is correct on a first person game, your brain interprets the screen as a window, and bases its expectation of what it should see on how much of the visual field the screen occupies, just as it does with a real window.

When the perspective is correct in a first person game, you're brain and your wishes are to interpete the 3d world as if you are a part of it, not looking at it through a window. This is also one of the good parts with tripplehead, since it adds to the peripheral vision so to increase that effect. Increasing the horizontal FOV does just that. It makes it easier for the gamer to feel a part of the 3d world.

Post by **Tamlin** » 12 Sep 2007, 03:18

The more he posts, the more I'm convinced he works for them.

http://forums.2kgames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6627&page=78

If not, I wonder why he puts so much effort into arguing about this...?

Not to mention:
http://kotaku.com/commenter/trrll/

http://blog.wired.com/games/2007/08/why-jack-thomps.html

http://digg.com/pc_games/Bioshock_has_a_HUGE_widescreen_display_bug_on_both_Xbox_and_PC?t=8662902

and probably more places too...

JohnnyWakko · Post by **JohnnyWakko** » 12 Sep 2007, 04:16

The more he posts, the more I'm convinced he works for them.

http://forums.2kgames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6627&page=78

If not, I wonder why he puts so much effort into arguing about this...?

I could imagine that he probably more so works for EPIC. EPIC saw the uproar that happened with BioShock, 2K consulted EPIC, EPIC realised that 2K didn't get in early enought to remove it as it had penetrated the net to far, so they potentially sent one of thier devs over to try and put some flames for thier client where ever the issue arose.

Now EPIC have had time to react and thus decided to take the "remove all resistance" stance to this topic just like EPIC is doing so that it does not penetrate the net again and get out of hand.

I know, I know, consipracy theory, so perhaps not, but whatever is going on here is suspect.

EDIT: Made my theory clearer to understand.

Tanuki · Post by **Tanuki** » 12 Sep 2007, 05:50

They saw the uproar that happened, and 2K didn't have time to remove it, so they potentially sent one of thier devs over to try and put some flames out.

Lets see someone justify this as covered under advanced royalties. :D

Widescreen Gaming Forum