FOV: Best Method of Calculation?

CrimsonKnight13

CrimsonKnight13

Lord Stabington of [H]ard|Fortress
Joined
Jan 8, 2008
Messages
8,439
It seems that as of late, I've been much more aware of the FOV (Field of View) while gaming with 3rd person shooters & RPGs.

Since I've read all sorts of articles & reviews about what people set their FOV to, I've never quite figured out what I need it to be.

What is the best method to calculate FOV? I currently game at 2560x1440 & would like to take full advantage of this resolution if a game doesn't properly set it.
 
That's helpful but I don't know what my desired horizontal FOV would be either. :confused:
 
FoV is a subjective thing...

The only "correct" fov we can talk about is the one matching the angle formed between your head and the edges of your screen: you get no distortion or fisheye effect at this setting, but it is almost universally too low to be practical in games. So we set it at some value high enough to have usable peripheral vision and awareness but low enough to not have ridiculous distortion or difficulty seeing distant objects.

PC and console games tend to run different fovs because of an assumed difference in seating distance relative to the screen—different "correct" fovs, console being lower, meaning you set the fov lower so as not to deviate too much.

Some people [like myself] try to play all PC games at the same fov to maintain consistency between titles, rather like nailing your mouse sensitivity down between games to keep your skills honed. It's important to note, however, that this is all about maintaining a particular look or comfortable focal length and not about one setting being more correct than another. I like to enforce 73.74° vertical fov on all of my PC games because I grew up a Quake player, and that was the default setting (90.0 horizontal at 4:3, translated). When you are looking to maintain a particular look, keeping vertical the same is the way to go as it is independent of aspect ratio. This is the old Hor+ concept: still subjective, but done for good reasons.

When you see people talking about calculating fovs, usually they are talking about the translation between vertical and horizontal fovs in a given aspect ratio. Just about every game out there defines fov on one axis and automatically determines the other, so you just need to know which game uses which value.

There are outliers to be aware of though, like games that strictly define horizontal fov as it would appear at 4:3 [QuakeLive, all Call of Duty titles, Oblivion, Doom 3]. CoD on console for example does not have 65° horizontal fov as is famously quoted, that is only when played at 4:3. It is actually 80.69° horizontal when at 16:9. Black Ops 2 on PC pushes 106.29° at 16:9, not its "90" value as listed in the menu. Borderlands 2 plays its cards the opposite, with its fov being defined as it would appear at 16:9, cropping as necessary for narrower aspect ratios. Play that game with a value of 106° on a 16:10 panel and you'll be seeing 100° horizontal.

tl;dr: my recommendation is to pick a value that feels alright to you and stick with it between games.
 
Horizontal+ is the right way to handle it, value is your opinion.
 
Is 90 a good value to start with for 16:9? I sit about 2 feet from the screen, I think. If I can consistently figure out what I need to set for every game I play, I'd be very happy since consistency would keep it enjoyable.
 
CrimsonKnight13 said:
Is 90 a good value to start with for 16:9? I sit about 2 feet from the screen, I think. If I can consistently figure out what I need to set for every game I play, I'd be very happy since consistency would keep it enjoyable.
Click to expand...
Sure, set 90° in games specifying horizontal and 58.7° for those using vertical. In the case of those weird examples [QuakeLive, all Call of Duty titles, Oblivion, Doom 3], set 73.7°. This is all assuming 16:9 on your monitor, of course.
 
Is there a method to figure out how a game is scaling resolution? I see a lot on WSGF about Hor+ & such, which is mostly how I know what a game has.

Thanks to everyone for the tips & info. I'll try out some FOV alteration tonight & see how that goes.
 
CrimsonKnight13 said:
Is there a method to figure out how a game is scaling resolution? I see a lot on WSGF about Hor+ & such, which is mostly how I know what a game has.

Thanks to everyone for the tips & info. I'll try out some FOV alteration tonight & see how that goes.
Click to expand...
WSGF's bullishness on hor+ can be a bit behind the times these days.

8+ years ago, it used to be that default fovs were all set with 4:3 in mind, and those games deemed hor+ were ones that would maintain vertical fov as the user changed from 4:3 to a widescreen resolution, hence an appropriate increase (+) in horizontal fov. Those that did not (those that maintained horizontal and thus reduced vertical) were labeled as vert-. Vert- was undesirable because by changing the vertical fov, that overall feel, or focal length if you want to think about it that way, was changed in the transition.

Ever since the current-gen consoles, however, the 16:9 aspect ratio is the standard assumption in game development. Nobody is developing games assuming people are going to be playing it 4:3 and so there is no need to worry about making sure your game is expanding that default fov to your wide aspect ratio. 4:3 players are in the extreme minority now and so it is them who face a similar conundrum as widescreen users did in the past.

In most games you'll be fine simply using your 90.0h/58.7v number.

*edit: Bioshock's PC release received an unwarranted and furious storm of hate from WSGF because of it being vert-. It was the scapegoat despite the majority of titles operating in the same way. This would eventually lead to the game being patched in appeasement to add a silly hor+ option, going against the game's default 16:9 [albeit console-derived] fov. IMO this served as a spark to get us to where we are today with many games having fov sliders, but it was won for the wrong reasons. The solution was always to get fov as an adjustable parameter, not to fall in-line with WSGF's hor+ crusade. The most flexible support we see today is in games where fov is adjustable and defined on the vertical.
 
Last edited:
I say pick which feels right...yes there are TECHNICAL means about it...but over all just play the way you want too.

I use a 4:3 monitor (CRT 2048x1536) and just beat Far Cry 3 at 110 FoV. Sure things along the sides would be stretched, but for the most part I never noticed it and I could see SO much more going on around me...plus, it did feel natural. Never did I feel like I was "sitting" too far back or anything.

Again, just go with what feels right...if its too much or too little then just adjust again!
 
Nihilanth99 said:
Bioshock's PC release received an unwarranted and furious storm of hate from WSGF because of it being vert-. It was the scapegoat despite the majority of titles operating in the same way. This would eventually lead to the game being patched in appeasement to add a silly hor+ option, going against the game's default 16:9 [albeit console-derived] fov. IMO this served as a spark to get us to where we are today with many games having fov sliders, but it was won for the wrong reasons. The solution was always to get fov as an adjustable parameter, not to fall in-line with WSGF's hor+ crusade. The most flexible support we see today is in games where fov is adjustable and defined on the vertical.
Click to expand...

Hehe yeah I was on the receiving end of a torrent of shit when I tried to make that very argument on these forums back when the Bioshock thing blew up. I absolutely agree with everything you've said in this thread.

WSGF is just another bunch of random internet people (including some very capable modders), not some sort of official graphics best practices review board.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top