Widescreen Gaming Forum

Hi, I want to use sh3FOV.exe to play Silent Hill 3 in 1920x1080 16:9 with the proper aspect ratio but I don't know which values I have to use for this resolution/aspect ratio.
Here it says you have to use Width Field of View (FOV): 0.91 and Height Field of View (FOV): 1.1 for 1920x1200 but that's a 16:10 aspect ratio. Can someone please explain to me how I can calculate the right values for 1080p?

Hy, pal. Just like this:





*..*

Hy, pal. Just like this:





*..*

Thanks but Height FOV: 1 is the default setting - I find it hard to believe that you change that for 16:10 but not for 16:9. Makes no sense. Where or how did you get these values?

Sorry that it can't help you. It work for my, or for my eyes! :mrgreen:

When I have a 16:10 monitor it look good with the "Width Field of View (FOV)" in 0.9.



Later, when I try it in 16:9 it look better in 0.8. Look:

Without hack:



With hack:



Anyway... it very simple. Just run the hack and the game in window mode and change that value till you like how it see.

So it's only a case of trial and error?
There is no way to calculate the values properly?

I guess that have to be one exact value (I'm gonna try find the original page of this hack), but... the last screen from above do not look right FOV to you in 0.8? A matter of taste maybe. :P

Well... this is that the original post say, but is for 16:10:

Width Field of View (FOV): 0.91
Height Field of View (FOV): 1.1


:|

I have the correct values for 16:9. I would gladly update the Master Game List entry, but unfortunately I do not have the necessary permissions as of now. Anyways here they are:

They are:
Width FOV=0,85
Height FOV=1,2

My results were these, if you want to compare:

Example 1:
Regular 4:3
Edited 16:9 with the above values.

Example 2:
Regular 4:3
Edited 16:9 with the above values

Example 3 (gameplay):
Regular 4:3
Edited 16:9 with the above values

Thanks for contributing radiantmonolith, ive added your 16:9 FOV settings plus the screenshots you posted in the DR.

The question still stands how to calculate the needed values, though. It seems no one knows that. It would have been interesting. For now I assume there is no way to calculate them exactly and we only work with approximate values. Well, I guess that's good enough.