VirtualR – Sim Racing News
100% Sim Racing News

Great job you are doing Andy. Continue to !

Nice T-Shirt Andy :)

Things I have learnt; The guys at ISR can’t set up FoV properly.

Clearly SMS have no idea about FOV either as they are adjusting things to make them seem more real. Like track elevations and such. When thats just all related to FOV.

Is this guy kidding me right now????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

They will make the tracks (and who knows what else) purposely wrong, data wise, because as he said in his example, that a 10 degree elevation change in real life is like a 40 degree on screen, because the higher FOV of video games makes everything seem flatter?? Well YA thats SUPPOSED TO HAPPEN. Thats what happens when you use high FOVs. Its simple math/science.

WOW!

In case anyone doesnt know, FOV stands for field of view.

The higher it is the more flat the world looks, and the more distorted the side of your image gets as all your peripheral vision is getting distorted to fit onto one flat screen, but you see more perepherial vision.

The lower you set your FOV the LESS FLAT and MORE REALISTIC your view becomes (bad side vision though, so cant set it too low, thats why we have to compromise on FOV, but triple screens really helps with this).

So why in the world are they putting in un-accurate values? Thats whats SUPPOSED to happen with high FOV’s.

What a joke. Totally catered for the casual gamers, rather than true almost industrial like sims (RF2, IRacing, Kunos, Reiza) etc.

Noone makes tracks narrower than they really are so that trackside objects appear closwer to you and therefore you get a faster sense of speed.

Like who are these guys? Codemasters? The Grid or Dirt franchise?

This is such “large video game company” speak. Making tracks have more elevation change so that all the video game players can see more elevation when they play with there controllers and there 75 degree FOV.

If this is honestly the way of thinking for SMS, than how can people think they are fgoing to cater to the “hardcore” sims market.

Ths is such an “artificial” and “mass sales at all costs” way of thinking.
If you are not trying to compete and be a true hardcore sim ala RFactor 2, Netkar Pro, Game Stock Car 2012, iRacing, d we all know Assetto Corsa aswell (you would have to be an ignorant idiot to question Assetto Corsas determination to be a true sim), then just tell us!!.

Just tell us straight up, give mucking around and just tell us, yes we are not trying to be hardcore at all costs like the above mentioned sims, but rather a middle ground between GT5/Forza4 and the hardcore sims, in order to take both sides of the market (like on a smaller scale GTR 2 and Race 07 series sort of did).

Just say it!

Shame on you SMS!!!

Shame on you SMS!

I like at the end when he’s saying how diverse the gameplay options are. Gran Turismo, Forza, Iracing, … Burnout Paradise.
umm, a bit extreme on the arcade side don’t you think ?.. that would be fun to see Burnout Paradise style gameplay settings.

What are you on about ? SMS not knowing about FOV ? Of course they do… All he said is that they take real life experience ALSO to model the tracks.
Especially since they don’t laserscan ( although some will be )

Won’t ever give it a rest will you? Even I can move on to other things you are obsessed with this my friend. Isn’t there other things in life for you?

Even if, nobody is forcing you to play or use it. I’m this time also don’t know if it will meet my intrests as a final product but if it is necessary to keep the big company at life why not. Than i go and play another title which meets more my intrests. I have also put some money in even if it isn’t that much but i’m not angry about there way to think or there vision. I suggest some guy’s to let them do what is necessary to be sucesfull on the end. I’m really sick about this and constantly attacks at pCars. Why is that ? Because it is the best looking Sim game but not only hardcore ? Is it envy that it is not for you but for more casual gamer ? Man how you would like to generate money with a sim game based on pur numbers and sliders. Those times are ahead us, we are in 2012 where smartphones and mobile gaming as well as console gaming lead the market not pure simulating anything. With such a crab you could generate some pocket money but not more to save a feature of a company with near 100 employees. Yes, I prefer also a more accurate simulation but if it is not, than it is so. You must and should understand it. However, I do not believe. This will be only for casual gamers. The development progresses and there is still much time. It can and will change much. Like saying otherwise there are alternatives coming. For us as well.

Yeah. Not to mention all this saturation-marketing is getting on my teets.

I’m sorry, but the previous poster is right. The idea that you have to make a track wrong to appear right is silly. That’s why the laser scanned tracks at Iracing are so good, as they are accurate. You don’t go through some of the peaks at some of there race tracks thinking that these millimeter accurate tracks look way off do you?

He didn’t talk about making tracks inaccurate.

CAD Data CAN be inaccurate though, laserscanning probably not if calibrated right i guess.
Since they are modelling the tracks with google maps and then lots and lots of reference pictures they also need information from driving the tracks IRL. I think that’s what he’s talking about and not making something inaccurate.

You are filled with so much hate. We’re talking about games here. Geez.

Thank You.

Your knickers seem to be in a twist.

Really now ?? I was trying multiple cars and not doing anything serious. I set it up properly enough to win races ;-)

pCars has the most adjustable FOV to date. You can even set up a speed sensitive FOV. So the faster you go the more the FOV moves forward or backward. As you choose. Plus all the standard adjustments, of up, down, etc.

Does any other racing game have infinitely adjustable, speed sensitive, FOV? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbvqmPN0ogk&list=UUaEDRxDkp_wDWBNVXZvFG5w&index=1&feature=plcp

He was talking about the kind of people who plays these games, not how scalable the game itself is.

We’ve seen the same approach with Shift series – full realism that will please hardcore racing fans, raising the bar for anything that is out there. And then it turned out that by “full realism” they meant nice graphics, shaky cam, blurry dashboard, and terrible driving experience.

New pCARS top-hater?

Project CARS – Andy Tudor, Behind this project 100% :)

A comparative video of the Nordschleife was posted on the PCARS Facebook page.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqdjTO7vUmA&feature=player_embedded

This has nothing to do with how adjustable in game settings are, it’s to do with SMS’s mindset and approach to the game. Due to video games largely being played in high FOVs, the tracks seem flatter visually than in real life. He is right about this as higher FOV values will have this knock on effect. So they are going to over-exaggerate all the hills and elevation changes of the track model so that the tracks look equally (or around) just as steep for all the players using super high FOVs (mostly console players or casual players looking for a semi-realistic experience).

So the tracks are going to be purposely modeled wrong to give players using a high FOV visuals that represent real life.

It would be like making all the corners on a track much sharper and tighter than in real life to compensate for the fact that a high FOV makes all the corners seem less sharp than in real life.

How could anyone who is serious about sim-racing agree with this, take down your pride and invested money concerns out of the equation for once.

Oh, and to your comment about speed adjustable FOV? Man, that’s straight up Need for Speed Underground stuff, who in God’s name would even think about putting that setting in a so called “racecar driving simulator”, let alone actually use it, well maybe for kids or something.

Haha yup, marketing and money making schemes at it’s finest, SMS trying to lure us and our money into there product as if we are all mindless idiots that get hard ons over their dumb 360 degree panoramic pics and “brainwashing” vids.

Yes Eric you are right, all sims have to do this with physics because no physics engine is anywhere near as accurate and complex as real life physics,

But this is simple stuff like the height of a hill, the radius of a corner, the length of a straightaway.

Modeling a real-life elevation change of 10 degrees as actually 40 degrees in game just so that they both look similiar to someone using a high in-game FOV is certainly not what I would consider a trait of a racecar driving simulation.

Plus, what about all the people that use lower FOVs? I use 45 on a single screen, i know people that use between 20 and 35 on triple screens. Now the exaggerated track modelliing (to give real high FOVs a better visual representation) is going to be wayyyyyy too exaggerated, and now a for example, 40 degree elevation change (which is supposed to look like a 10 degree) is actually going to in-game visually look around 25-35 degrees to our eyes, when it’s only supposed to look like 10 degrees.

No you are totally taking what was said out of content as a way of defending PCars at all costs.

He clearly said for example, modeling a real life 10 degree elevation change as 40 degrees in game, so that the 40 degrees in game looks like what the 10 degrees in real life does.

It has nothing to do with laser scanning, information like an elevation change, corner radius, length of a building or length of a straightaway could all be accurately measured for many many many years now.

It has nothing to do with laser scanning in any way shape or form, not sure what you are going on about.

No he specifically said in his example that a 10 degree elevation change in real life would have to be modeled in game as actually much much steeper like 40 degrees, that way the 40 degrees in-game to the gamer, at a certain FOV, will visually look like what 10 degrees looks like visually to a real life driver.

Nothing to do with an in-ability to model the track accurately, as even GTR1 had decently accurate tracks, not in terms of the fidelity and all the tiny bumps, ripples, soft undulations of the pavemet, etc like laser scanning provides. of course laser is the best, but stuff like corner radius’, straightaway lengths, degrees of elevation changes etc etc could all be measured and modeled for many, many, many, many years.

Yes, all this saturation marketing is getting to me as well (clearly), it’s like SMS take us all as complete retards or something, I can’t even believe these are the guys behind GT2002, GTR1, and GT LEGENDS.

It’s like they take the entire sim racing crowd as a bunch of mindless idiots.

SMS are so goddamn arrogant, especially in terms of how they talk about and market their product to all us sim-racers.

That’s a bit silly. Why would the FOV change via speed?

I suppose to each their own, whatever feels good to people.

What’s the timestamp in the video where he mentions that?

I think you’re overreacting. I use 65 which is calculated based on my screen size and proximity to my eyes. Most people on WMD do this (there was a VERY lengthy article in WMD about this) but many use this only as a guideline and go a bit higher or lower based on personal tastes. Some have single screens, massive screens, and triple screen setups. Yet none of them have complained of seeing a massive hill where others see a small ridge. None of them have seen a sweeping left hand crest where others see a tiny kink.

There are now tons of comparison videos (including against iRacing’s laser scanned tracks) and they look essentially identical.

I don’t know if you’re just trying to see how far you can push things but you need to tone down your rhetoric. The amount of anti-SMS posts you’ve made in the last 24 hours alone is bordering on trolling. You’re not even a member are you ?

Kendra…you sound like a retard…:-)

I don’t know about you. But when driving in fast situation. The inside of the car ceases to exist, as all I can see is the road ahead. This is a trick of the mind that doesn’t happen in a Simulation. Unless you have a monitor the size of real life car windshield. So find this feature very handy. Have you even tried it? Probably not!

Right. I had you figured out correctly the first time we crossed paths: you’re here to dismiss, ridicule and rip on all things pCARS, SMS and WMD in a rather obsessive manner. That much is perfectly obvious by now. :-))

It’s of course wasted on you, but for other readers it may be worth explaining why we have speed sensitive FOV: speed sensitive FOV is allowing the simulation of the effects of motion perception (speed in particular) at differing FOVs. You can read a paper on that subject here:
ftp://ftp.mpik-tueb.mpg.de/kyb/bresciani/papers/pretto09.pdf

I.e. the speed sensitive FOV is an advanced (and experimental, if you will) feature of this simulation. This is one point where SMS is ahead of the curve in simulation visuals. Oh, and if you don’t want it, don’t use it – it’s entirely optional.

On a related note. I’ve seen you (and other “hard core” folks) scoff at the importance of graphics. Those that do so should think about this: a racing simulation provides output in three domains: visual, audible and haptic. These are the domains in which the effects of the /physics/ can manifest themselves. The most important domain is visuals; that’s where you get the most cues about the dynamic behaviour of the car and how the car moves relative to its surroundings. Visuals have everything to do with the perception of realistic physics in a simulation, so in this area we want the highest possible quality and most advanced concepts.

Since you’re likely to attempt to twist and misrepresent what I wrote in the above paragraphs, I’ll try to explain the bigger picture in simple terms for you: To achieve a high quality simulation of racing, all of physics, ffb, graphics, and sound must be of high quality and work together. Only then can your brain be properly fooled into thinking you’re having the visceral experience of driving a race car. With the technological possibilities 2012 I will accept nothing less than that.

This is of course the opposite direction of the Top Trumps car game, or running printout of physics variables, which some “hard core” players seem to want a racing simulation to be – that is of more use to race engineers than racing simulation drivers. I know which one I prefer, and which one is closest to experiencing the reality of racing :-)

“Modeling a real-life elevation change of 10 degrees as actually 40 degrees in game just so that they both look similar to someone using a high in-game FOV is certainly not what I would consider a trait of a racecar driving simulation.”

Agreed. And that’s not happening in pCARS. Andy Tudor was merely talking about how much steeper an elevation change can look/feel in real life, using random and exaggerated numbers to illustrate a point.

Wow, you are so full of misinformation about pCARS it’s scary. Good thing I know better than the sewage you’re spewing here.

Wow, talk about taking things out of context and reading in to things. Andy never said they are modeling the tracks to be different. He was giving an example of how a Virtual vs a Real track can ‘feel’. He was pointing out up or down hill Grades can look not as steep in a simulation compared to driving a real track. By allowing the client to have a dynamic FOV(if the player chooses to enable it, running a fixed player adjustable FOV is a another Game option) they can replicate the illusion that a stretch of a track that is down or up hill ‘feels’ steeper than it really is.

I can assure you the Tracks in pCARS as they stand so far have accurate elevation changes. I’ve been around and raced 3 of the tracks they have in pCARS for real. The look to apex, dynamic, and speed sensitive FOV system does a damn fine job of replicating what a diver experiences for real. For example, when I’m running hard the interior of my car becomes all but invisible. I don’t see it I’m looking so far down the road/track. The faster I go the further I look. All I might notice it the top of my dash and hood. No other sim out there replicates this. Why I can’t drive in iRacing after a few hours in pCARS. The fixed FOV throws me off.

NO HE DID NOT!! You are the one taking things out of context. He is giving an example of how a track FEELS in real life vs a simulator. I’ll quote it for you since you seem incapable of listening and comprehending to what some one said out loud in a video. Lets just hope your reading comprehension doesn’t suffer from the same faults as well.

From 09:37 onwards in the video.
“The CAD data may say the elevation is just, you know, 10 degree’s, but when you actually turn that corner in real life it feels like 40 degrees, right?” and then at 10:25 “So that means we try to make it as authentic as possible as to what you actually see in real life.” and bit later, “REGARDLESS of whether we get to actually laser scan or not.”

Seems pretty strait forward and to the point that the tracks are as close as possible mathematically to the real ones. NO WHERE in that interview did Andy say “modeling a real life 10 degree elevation change as 40 degrees in game,
so that the 40 degrees in game looks like what the 10 degrees in real
life does.”

So stop making things up and attempting to spread misinformation!

From 09:37 onwards in the video. And Kendra didn’t even get it close to right.

Retard is a bit harsh. Troll on the other hand would be more befitting.
Poor thing is out numbered. Must really suck to have his minority view.

Thats how I play it, only with ‘Look to Apex’ turned on also. Feels more real to me that way. If I use a fixed FOV I miss breaking points all the damn time because the sense of speed is totally gone. A dynamic FOV does a real damn good job at replicating that sense of speed.

Seriously, take note when you drive in Real life. Are your Eye’s and Head glued into one position? No. They move. Your focus goes further down the road the faster you go and you stop noticing the interior of your vehicle. You get a bit of tunnel vision actually.

Kendra mentioned in a previous discussion he had not invested one single penny and I somehow doubt SMS handed out a free account to him ;)

I highly recommend this for the Lotus Renault 98T. That turbo kicks in and slams you back in your seat. The dynamic FOV really helps with the sense of speed. Turning this off might be more realistic but it’s not as fun and doesn’t transmit that real life moment of “Oh sh!t” that even my Mazdaspeed 3 can get (on a track……of course).

;)

Thanks for the interview!

But your FOV doesnt change. The lower the FOV the more steep up and down hills look, and the sharper the turns look, and the bigger and closer things appear. The higher the FOV the more these all change in the opposite direction.

Well the sharpness of a turn, the steepness of up and down-hills, and so on, doesnt change in your real life as you go faster and slower, maybe if you are on some wacky medications or something.

What you are talking about is your perepheral vision getting smaller (sort of like tunnel vision, when you focus on one spot and dont notice anything visually around you, this is not a good thing by the way).

FOV constantly changing would be your image constantly warping and distorting according to your speed, and thats the last thing that happens to any human being in real life.

But your FOV doesnt change.

The lower the FOV the more steep up and down hills look, and the sharper the turns look, and the bigger and closer things appear. The higher the FOV the more these all change in the opposite direction.

Well the sharpness of a turn, the steepness of up and down-hills, and so on, doesnt change in your real life as you go faster and slower, maybe if you are on some wacky medications or something.

What you are talking about is your perepheral vision getting smaller (sort of like tunnel vision, when you focus on one spot and dont notice anything visually around you, this is not a good thing by the way).

FOV constantly changing would be your image constantly warping and distorting according to your speed, and thats the last thing that happens to any human being in real life.

Ummm pretty graphics, and utilizing graphics in a way to help with grip and chassis information by visual senses are 2 completely different things.

You can have one without the other.

Amazing graphics, or average graphics dont make any difference to for example: head movement, yaw, pitch, roll, and all the other little things that go into relying grip to us by visual means.

Plus, you ever noticed how the redbull, toyota, mclaren and Ferrari mult-million dollar simulators have graphics probably even more basic than RFactor 1???

He said thats an example of things they will be doing.

No hukman being has speed sensitive FOV lol.

And no human being’s FOV changes.

The lower the FOV the more steep up and down hills look, and the sharper the turns look, and the bigger and closer things appear. The higher the FOV the more these all change in the opposite direction.

Well the sharpness of a turn, the steepness of up and down-hills, and so on, doesnt change in your real life as you go faster and slower, maybe if you are on some wacky medications or something.

What you are talking about is your perepheral vision getting smaller (sort of like tunnel vision, when you focus on one spot and dont notice anything visually around you, this is not a good thing by the way).

FOV constantly changing would be your image constantly warping and distorting according to your speed, and thats the last thing that happens to any human being in real life.

Seems pretty straight forward to me aswell, they will make the track visually seem what it is in real life, notice the word SEE.

So just like in his example, an elevation change of 40 degrees in game, (for example) will look exactly like a 10 degree change in real life, because a 10 degree change in game looks wayyy too flat when using a high FOV, compared to a 10 degree change in real life which looks pretty drastic.

Implying that they will make the tracks visually LOOK like they do in real life, well the only way to make the tracks look as close as they can (especially in terms of elevation and hill steepness, and corner sharpness) is to either A. drop to a lower more realistic FOV, or B. model the tracks to physically have much steeper declines and inclines, so that when you use the high in-game FOV (which flattens hills) the overley in-accurate and much steeper hills are now pretty accurate VISUALLY. (But not physically, the track is still modelled totally wrong).

Its like saying they are going to make all the turns on tracks much sharper than they really should be because when you use a high FOV, turns seem much straighter and less sharp. It is exactly the same thing, but with hills.

Dont know what part is so hard to comprehend, honestly.

Doesnt matter if I am outnumbered. People know the difference between real sims.

I once made a comment in another forum, and it was about some kind of arcadey feature, you know what peoples replies where to me??? “Why dont you use Need for Speed Underground style speed sensitive FOV while you’re at it too” and things like that.

So thats the kind of responses I get in other forums, but in Project Cars forums (at least the people on this page), its the COMPLETE OPPOSITE, speed sensitive FOV is in this group of peoples minds realistic and belongs in a racing simulation LOL What the… hahahaahah

Dosnt that tell you something about the general mindset on this page, compared to other sim racing sites?

I can clearly tell what sort of crowd I am dealing with here. I am sure you will all be glad that this is my last post on this 1 particular article, as im cleary dealing with a different crowd other than myself. It seems most in the project cars forums are the typical “casual racing video game” players and general “gamers”, (and probably half of you are under 16 aswell).

Where as I am on a completely different mindset than most of you all (looking for an almost industrial-like simulation, as close to an actual training tool as we can get on home PC technology).
Bye bye ;)

Nope not a member. I have had extensive time with many builds though at a friends. The most recent one I tried for at least 6 or 7 hours was the one before 306 (I think it was 296 or 301 or something?????)

Ya ill tone it down no worries :)

You may call it “pretty” graphics, I call it /realistic/ graphics. All the subtle lightning, shadows, movement etc, are cues that you brain will utilize for precise interpretation of the underlying physics.

The more realistic the graphics, as well as sound and ffb, are, the better they can convey the physics. Why on earth wouldn’t you want it all to be as high quality as possible? (no answer needed, it’s a rhetoric question)

No he did not. Back up that with facts, or back out ;-)
(Hint: I have a rough transcript of that part of the interview. Among other things, he emphasizes how lap times are bang on – that’s telling me that the tracks are pretty accurate, which Andy also says)

Sounds like you are really pissed that there are opinions that differ from yours. There is a massive community at WMD who have decided that there are features they would like in the game and the devs have responded by implementing them.

Sounds like you would rather have everything fit into this neat little box of what YOU believe a sim should be. That’s exactly the opposite of what Project CARS was about – letting the community decide the features, presentation and content of the finished product. These are mainly optional things so you can have the end game look and feel the way you want. Customization is not a a bad thing.

This holier than thou attitude of yours is wearing thin on the VirtualR community. We’re trying to have a discussion and you’re trying to shout over top of the conversation with your opinions-as-fact. It’s not needed and it’s not welcome.

“No hukman being has speed sensitive FOV lol.
And no human being’s FOV changes.”
But the perception of movement and speed changes with FOV, and so can the /subjective perception/ of the FOV itself. At high speeds, your peripheral vision starts to become useless, and you focus more on what straight ahead. If you concentrate intensely on something in front of you, tunnel vision sets in: “Tunnel vision affects police in a wide variety of ways during shootouts, fights, high speed chases or similar activities. Some officers are so focused on their attacker’s face (or their own gun sights) that they don’t see them drop their gun. Tunnel vision affects 82% of officers in the midst of critical incidents, according to Dr. Alexis Artwohl, a researcher who has studied these events.”
Since this feature is clearly too advanced for you to wrap your head around – just don’t use it and move on (or are you not driving pCARS at all?).

He may comment away, but so far his attitude, language, twisting of facts and others’ comments etc., leaves him with little credibility.

Luckily, that was his last post on this article, according to himself. It contained one point I agree with though: “we are on 2 COMPLETELY different levels of thinking here.” :-))

Sigh. You have been told many times: SMS aren’t making any videos, nor 360 panos (and how are they “stupid?”). It’s all fan made. Too bad that you’re impervious to facts and reason – first and foremost this is bad for yourself.

For others, enjoy the stunning 360 panorama work of one of our WMD members:
http://www.parispherique.com/panos/divers/pCARS/pCARS_suzuka_timelapse.html

Exactly!! So in pCARS when the faster you go and the FOV gets dynamically smaller vs faster speeds that’s the digital equivalent perception of speed induced tunnel vision. WWII Fighter pilots experienced it also when engaged in a Dog Fight.

Did you miss the part that the Speed sensitive FOV is an option in pCARS and can be disabled? I’m sure I stated it above. As a matter of fact it’s Off by default as is Look to Apex.

of course we all want the best graphics, but going from lets say Netkar Pro graphics to Project Cars graphics isnt going to make any difference to how you visually “feel” the car and its grip, its balance, its weight transfer etc.

lap times being bang on dont necessarily mean a track is accurate (talking about any game in general, not just project cars)

Things like the speed a car carries under braking, corner entry, mid corner, corner exit, acceleration, etc all affect your laptime.

Plus grip coeffiecients of the track surface itself makes a difference too, aswell as tyre grip values and characteristics, etc.

By saying a car runs similiar laptimes in a video game as it does in real life means that a track must be accurate, is overly overly over-simplifing, something that is far from simple.

Making your perepheril vision disappeaer aka tunnel vision, is completely different than the FOV changing.

When you get tunnel vision, the steepness of up and down hills dont flatten or get extra steep, a turn doesnt look much sharper or much straighter than normal, your visual image of the world around you does not distort and warp as it does when a FOV changes.

If you actually understood the difference between the 2, maybe you would come to that conclusion aswell.

Go in any sim, do a lap while carefully paying attention to how the visual world in-game looks, now increase or decrease the FOV by a large margin like 20 or 30 and do another lap.

You see how much steeper and sharper (or less steep and less sharp) elevation changes and corners look? Do you think the world around you is constantly changing visually in that way depending on your speed??

That would be insane.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22Mk8NwuspI

That video has a comparison between 22 fov, 55, 75, 95 and 200.

Notice how the lower more realistic FOV makes things seem larger and closer (but has crappier peripheral vision, this is where triple screens help). This is the same in sims, the lower FOV will also make things look more similiar to real life, for example the steepness of elevation changes and sharpness of turns.

This does not change for no human being, When we get tunnel vision it just cuts out the peripheral vision yes , BUT the FOV doesnt change or else the world around us would visually look like its distorting and warping.

As the FOV gets decreased in realtime, things will start to zoom in on us, and hills will look like they are transforming and magically getting much much steeper, and turns will start to look like they are alive and stretching laterally as they become sharper looking, and then as the FOV increases, the hills will start to appear to gradually flatten and become less steep, and the corners will gradually strighten out and look less sharp, etc etc.

Can you imagine that happening? Back and forth, back and forth in real time as your speed increases and decreases? Thats what happens when the FOV of an image gets increased/decreased.

feeling like you have no (or much less) perepheral vision aka tunnel vision, is completely different than the FOV changing, if a FOV changed then the image of the world around you and everything you see would constantly be warping and distorting visually to your eyes, just like exactly what happens when you change the FOV yourself in the game settings, I explained it further just above your post.

Recently posted on NoGrip by AndyG as a response to the allegations, following the above interview, that tracks are made inaccurate on purpose:

“No pCARS tracks have been “adjusted” in this way. It is something we’ve been asked to do by a publisher in a previous title, so perhaps Andy was thinking of that.”

That ought to put that to rest.

I understand the issue perfectly well, thank you.

Here’s what the speed sensitive FOV can look like. It’s quite accentuated in the video. All parameters are fully adjustable for anything from expanding to contracting FOV, and to any degree from subtle to extreme, with speed thresholds:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbvqmPN0ogk

And, for the Nth time, it’s an advanced option, switched off by default. You don’t have to use it, so give it a rest.

Every little nuance is helping your cognitive processes, and the higher the quality, the more convincing the virtual world will be, which will allow even better immersion and “connection” with the sim.

Would you also say, that there’s no need for physics to become better than Netkar (or whatever you favourite sim is)? Of course not. You want every last nuance for physics, so why not for the graphics, and sound and ffb, that is in fact the only way the physics is conveyed to the user?

Well, maybe you don’t care, but others do. I don’t see your low ‘bar’ for graphics as a relevant argument for why pCARS should not have amazing graphics.

Now you’re just being argumentative. Look at my latest top level posting here, regarding track accuracy as it relates to the video and your general argument.

From a previous posting of yours:
“I am sure you will all be glad that this is my last post on this 1 particular article,…”

No such luck I guess :-))

IMO, if you want to simulate tunnel vision, you need to blur or letterbox the screen. The adjusting FOV ‘zoom’ is not the same.