I used to play on 4:3 CRT until it broke, now i still play 4:3 stretched on a 16:9 screen, I think my aim has adapted to this so much that I have a harder time aiming on 16:9

I've always preferred the classic non-wide aspect ratios. But widescreen is just one of those things that are unavoidably forced onto you, when it comes to buying a modern display that is - I didn't, and wouldn't go out of my way to set up black borders.
I don't know how much of a disadvantage it is to force 4:3, if any, but I assume a few ppl still do that and do fine with it.

I play 720p, fov90 on 16:9 and i like it.. no way to go back 4:3.

im playing counterstrike in 4:3 low res now, as well as a lot of pros too.

People think its just because they started 1.6 on that res and it makes no difference, however I never played cs seriously so when I started csgo global I went 16:9 res but kept getting rekt. The moment I played the game on 4:3 I was destroying kids again.

So there is something about that res that just works.

4:3 lowers ur fov

If you run the same FOV on both 4:3 and 16:9, you will get more vertical FOV on 4:3. :D

So 4:3 is actually not too bad for low FOV, especially if you were not going to increase your FOV when going to widescreen.

I mean with 90 FOV on 4:3, you get 74 vertical FOV, but if you keep that FOV while going to 16:9, your vertical FOV becomes much less at 59 degrees. To keep the same vertical FOV when going to 16:9, you'd need a FOV of 106.

It doesn't matter what you tweak. In 4:3 you are missing key spots on the horizontal axis compared to 16:9. For example the one I mentioned in ztn, or also in ztn, you can keep track of if the RA spawns while spamming grenades.

Can you explain to me why you would not be able to see the same horizontal range with the same horizontal FOV regardless of display?

The only possibility is that QL is actually displaying a wider FOV than you enter when you go to 16:9 as some sort of compensation. I can't for the life of me see why they'd bother with such retardation.

I don't know. You see more screen with 16:9 in every case, and adding fov to compensate in 4:3 would distort the view. I can't raise my fov or else I play like shit.

I mean, do you use the same FOV on 4:3 as on 16:9?

If you do, and you see more, it means the real FOV the game is running at is higher than what you've set it to.

I vaguely remember hearing something about this, but I honestly can't remember and never bothered to verify it. It's just confusing and pointless IMO.

That's what every sensible engine does, you feed them a 4/3 value and they recalc for your aspect ratio.

Except QC and OW, which apparently take a 16:9 baseline FOV. :D

This entire retardation exists only because they were afraid at some point to have FOV specified as vertical FOV rather than horizontal FOV---because that's what people had got used to.

Now, people have to use converters anyway, so they may as well have made it vertical FOV in every game. That way, it'd be the same in every game. Having some legacy 4:3 shit hanging around for the rest of time as the meaning of the FOV value is stupid.

Realy? Letz be hornest, u can at some point do this right now.

I depends on the width of the screen. 3times 16:9monitor, cg_fov 100 should give u 360° view. 48:9 view. R_customwith and r_customheight should do the job. Than u are the limit not the field of viw ingame.

I don't actually understand what it is this has to do with my comment. :D

Even in your example of an ultra wide 48:9 monitor, specifying the vertical FOV will cause the horizontal FOV to be calculated correctly, and you will not need to change FOV settings or enter in some "baseline" FOV setting that potentially changes from game to game.

I'm not sure where you got 360 degrees from either.

Nah, ezquake 3 can autoconvert properly ( ezq 2 could only do that for 16/10 because russia ).

Overwatch does everything stupidly.

i will prove that:
https://ibb.co/nz5fWQ
https://ibb.co/bYJOkk
https://ibb.co/i1e7BQ
https://ibb.co/g6SG5k

to see the realdeal download the 4 screenshots and open them in windowsPhotoviewer and switching back and forward.

- u are comming from 4:3 where cg_fov 90 means hfov 90 vfov 90
-switching to 16:10 gives u normaly more hfov ( 100.38885781546962) u where stupid and blacked it out :p

- now u are switching from 16:10 (4:3 with black bars) to 16:9

but this means, if u want to maintain the same picture without distorsion, u gain again hFov but have to lower vfov. and this can be bad if not used to it!

on the screenshots u see
4:3 with cg_fov 90, hfov 90
16:10 with cg_fov 90, hfov 100.38885781546962
16:9 witch cg_fov 83,97442499163333 ; hfov 100.38885781546962

so u have to choose what u want to archiv.

but plz dont go black bars.. compensate with fovsettings!

some years ago i was on dm6 infront of bridge set fov 90 and make a screenshot in 4:3 and 16:9. It was exactly the same image only with more fov vertical...

Postet the results here..in forum

http://esreality.com/post/1913098/re-eswc-201...pid1913461

Fov 90 means horizontal.

Fov 106 in 4:3 matches the vertical fov from 90 in 16:9.

Thats why i play fov 90 on 16:9.

In CA the ppl like high fov curz they dont like if some jump at start on top of head and u get in trouble for not seeing.

So you are saying if you set the FOV to 90, it will only be 90 in 4:3 and actually 106 in 16:9?

So cg_fov is actually cg_horizontal4:3Fov? :D

Your screenshots in the other thread show the vertical FOV being maintained regardless of aspect ratio, so the FOV you specify must be only the real FOV for 4:3 and internally increased when you change aspect ratio to 16:9.

So you're inputting 90, playing on 16:9, and actually getting a FOV of 106.

That's what I was vaguely remembering in my other comment, and I'm pretty sure q3 doesn't do that. I think it ties into the r_aspectRatio command they added, which can be used to get "fat mode" when set to 4:3 on a 16:9 screen.

Cg_fov 90 set the horizontal fov to 90

Vertical fov depends on aspectratio. 3:3 means 90:90fov!

4:3=4÷3*90= 120
16:9= 16÷9*90=160

Easy, isnt it?

Forcing an 4:3 r_mode like 800:600 with r_aspectratio to 16:9 means stretching an 4:3 image to 16:9.. its stupid.. dont do that!

That's not how the maths works, which I'd expect you to know since you somehow calculated the correct values in the other thread, which you will not get using that method.

With a 4:3 aspect ratio and horizontal FOV of 90, your vertical FOV must be 73.7.

With a 16:9 aspect ratio and the same vertical FOV, your horizontal FOV must be 106.2.

So if you're on 16:9 with cg_fov 90 and getting the same vertical FOV as at 4:3, then the game is internally scaling up your 90 input into a 106.2 actual horizontal FOV.

Your screenshots in the other thread would seem to suggest that is what it is doing.

Sry was on the go and not realy into it like 7 year ago.

Cg_fov 90 set the vertical fov to 90

Horizontal fov depends on aspectratio. 4:3 = 90:90 fov.


https://www.reddit.com/r/QuakeChampions/comme...onversion/


http://www.casualhacks.net/Source-FOV-calculator.html

Maybe this will help.

At least try it ur self with screenshots and gimp.. curz the math behind all this is crazy

In Quake/Reflex/Source your field of view is calculated on the assumption that you have 4:3 aspect ratio. So if your fov is 90 and your screen has a 4:3 aspect ratio, your horizontal fov will be 90. If your aspect ratio is different, the vertical fov remains fixed, while the horizontal fov changes. This means that if you have a 16:9 screen and a fov of 90 your actual horizontal fov will be 106.

Quake Champions uses a similar idea for measuring field of view, however it uses 16:9 as the baseline. So if your aspect ratio is 16:9 and your field of view is set to 110, that is your actual horizontal field of view. However if your aspect ratio is something else, like 16:10 or 21:9, your horizontal field of view will be different.

Okay, so I was right. cg_fov is a normalized FOV and really means:

cg_horizontal4:3Fov

cg_fov is not the vertical FOV.
cg_fov gives you the horizontal FOV needed to make the vertical FOV the same as it would be if your horizontal FOV was cg_fov on a 4:3 screen.

I think I preferred it when FOV meant your actual FOV and not some confusing normalized FOV. It's really beautiful that this is not well documented anywhere officially and even that regurge console guide doesn't define it.

U dont get it right again.

Cg_fov 90 in Ql = cg_verticalFov 90

In 4:3 it also set the hfov to 90
In 16:9 it set the hfov to 106.26.....

Using the term "actual"fov is confusing..

In QC and thats will may be our next game the fov is based on 16:9 like in my link explained.. so there should be fov in the gui cg_horizontalFov 106.26 to give same cg_fov 90 like in QL.

But again i am not at home and cant test QC.

To be one the same level.

Left to right = hfov
Top to buttom = vertical

cg_fov is most certainly NOT the vertical FOV.

Even back on 4:3, cg_fov 90 would only give you a vertical FOV of about 74.

How is the term "actual FOV" confusing? It is the FOV that you actually end up having as opposed to the value of some setting.

"In QC and thats will may be our next game the fov is based on 16:9 like in my link explained.. so there should be fov in the gui cg_horizontalFov 106.26 to give same cg_fov 90 like in QL."

That is my understanding also.

"Left to right = hfov
Top to buttom = vertical "

Thanks, bro. All this time, I didn't know the difference between horizontal and vertical. :D

I will prove u that fact tonight with screenshots.

Making 4:3; 16:9 and 16:10 screnshots and overlay them for u. If u are a nice guy u DIY and sefe me some time.

I'm not gonna spend time proving what I am fairly confident is fact. It is this way in q3 without a doubt, and if QL is taking a 4:3 baseline FOV, it will be the same there. That is:

cg_fov 90 = vertical FOV of 74 regardless of your aspect ratio in QL.

I'm not even sure how you're gonna disprove that with screenshots. All they will show is that the vertical FOV is unchanged when you change aspect ratio.

Ur comment 23 starts with..

cg_fov is most certainly NOT the vertical FOV.

now u tell me it is.

Fist i prove with the screeshot that setting cg_ fov to "x" and changing aspectratio(r_mode) will only change hfov not the vfov. This lead to x=vfov.

After this u see that the vfov set in cg_fov ("x") can be a fantasyvalue callend x or for example 90 even if it is in "real" 74.

So its absoluty bullshit to say 90 is not 90, even if its not 90.

No. I said cg_fov is not vertical FOV as in it is not a measure of your vertical FOV.

If you set cg_fov to 90, your vertical FOV will not be 90, in q3 or QL.

If you show me two screenshots with the same vertical FOV, it doesn't tell you what the vertical FOV is.

"So its absoluty bullshit to say 90 is not 90, even if its not 90."

What drugs are you on, man?

The real FOV is what matters, not whatever the "fantasy value" is. You just set the "fantasy value" to whatever you have to to get the real FOV you want. You put the word "real" in quotes as if it is not really the real FOV.

cg_fov is not your vertical FOV, and there are no ifs or buts about it. Your vertical FOV is what you see, not what the value of some setting is. Using your logic, I could just as well say cg_fov is the bloody diagonal FOV---even though it isn't. And then which would it be? The diagonal or the vertical? It can't be both at the same time, right?

I can't actually believe I'm even having to say this.

U dont get it.

Give u an realworld example.

We both go in a goldstore to by gold. Each of us has a 100euro note. I say to the seller "here take my 100 euro note and give me gold for it"

U say "hey dude here take my 6cent worth paper that has 100euro printed on, give me gold for it"

If i set cg_fov 90 its gives me what i expect. X°:Y° where x is vfov and y is hfov in a fix calculation to ech other. I dont mix with "real" bullshit there...

It's more like me talking to some retard (QL), telling him to run 3km north (the setting) because I know it will make him run 2km south (the reality), the retard running off to the south, and then at the end, an observer (you) telling me that he actually ran 3km north.

This is more a philosopic thing. What is the truth... its like in my example. All ppl should know that the colored paper inst worth anything and ohter faktors like how much is printed vs the good u can trade with it. Gives the paper its value and not the number printed on it.

Gold vs money .. euro vs dollar... printer vs printer... bullshit vs bullshit. Good vs goods, That is real.

In ur example 2 guys vs one... democatic it would be the 2 will decide what is true or reallity, not the lonely one.

Get over it.. i check today the overlay.. and since 16:10 is not like 4:3 (12:9), 16:9 there can be a suprise. But i dont think so.

When you trade X for Y, X is worth Y to the buyer precisely because the trade took place. Obviously a counterfeit note isn't going to be worth as much as a legit note. I don't see how this is a valid analogy.

In the game, there is the game world you see on the screen. The angle formed by what you see at the top-centre of the screen, your in-game viewpoint, and what you see at the bottom-centre of the screen is the only valid definition of vertical FOV I am willing to entertain, and cg_fov will NEVER be equal to this in QL. Whatever you set cg_fov to, the vertical FOV will be different.

This is good enough for me to say that cg_fov is not your vertical FOV, and if you want to say that it is, I could use your same logic to say that cg_fov is my diagonal FOV (or any other random thing) because it is just as much not equal to that as it is not equal to the vertical FOV.

I'm sorry, bro, but reality is not democratic. If you jump off a cliff, you're going to fall and die. It doesn't matter how many billions of morons out there think otherwise. In any case, I'm not getting into some tiresome pseudo-philosophical mumbo jumbo with you.

And yeah, in my example, the very fact we are talking about north and south and kilometres means the meaning of those things has been agreed upon by the community at large, and it is just you and the retard who are getting it wrong.

Ita not that easy, if so i cold do a screenshot. To profe a real fov i must use mapeditor or something like that. Prob is for example the hight of the charakter. In realworld i need to know how far ur eyes away from the ground.

But other realworld example that matches maybe better is inch an meter, celsius and f.. kg and oz.

If i am right and cg_ fov set the vfov its not the problem and u have to use it like it is. If we see on the screenshot an increse of vfov if we change from 4:3 to 16:10 to 16:9 i fucked up. But i dont think this will happen.

And i will try to get a 360 view on 1 monitor with r_customwidth and heigth and cg_fov90 or 100.

Be honest.. u read somewhere cg_fov 90 means vfov 74 and have no proof for it. This i like "in god we trust".

I don't think vertical FOV will change when you change aspect ratio. It rings true and other people have been saying as much.

There is just no reason to measure it as you are suggesting---because we know how the projection system in these games works. It uses rectilinear projection, and that is the same in every game. This is not some QL specific thing. Under this system, if you know the vertical or horizontal FOV together with the display aspect ratio, you can calculate the other FOV that you want to know.

This is not "in god we trust". I made a spreadsheet for converting between these FOVs in a game independent way. The only question is what a particular setting means within the game.

Now in QL, we have cg_fov, which is either your vertical or horizontal FOV at 4:3 and which, since the beginning of time, has been the horizontal FOV and is without a doubt the horizontal FOV in QL's predecessor q3. The FOV command in q1 and q2 is horizontal FOV as well. Add to this the fact that if your vertical FOV really was 100 (the default value), your horizontal FOV would be 116 even at 4:3, which would be immediately obvious since it is much wider than what you'd get in q3 with cg_fov set to 100.

All this together makes me very confident that your cg_fov is the horizontal FOV at 4:3, and changing aspect ratio sets the horizontal FOV to whatever it needs to be to maintain the vertical FOV.

You know, I would prefer it if you were right because setting the vertical FOV makes much more sense than setting the horizontal FOV on screens that generally only vary in wideness.

Ok.. i tryed with the calculater linekd befor: http://www.casualhacks.net/Source-FOV-calculator.html

cg_fov 90; 3:3 = 73.73979529168803
cg_fov 90; 4:3 = 90
cg_fov 90; 16:10 = 100.38885781546962
cg_fov 90; 16:9 = 106.26020470831195
cg_fov 90; 21:9 = 120.51023740611558

cg_fov 86.4; 16:9 = 102.77345310403753

and there is no chance to have a hfov at or over 180, 360view is impossible in QL.

So now i know where ur 74 fov mythos is comming from. Its the hfov in 3:3 r_modes

Those values are correct. They are the values you get for horizontal FOV if you maintain the vertical FOV at 73.73979529, which is the vertical FOV you get when your horizontal FOV is 90 at 4:3.

There is no mythos here. :D

this is the text above the calculator

What's the deal?
FOV in source engine is "fun", because like almost all engines with Quake heritage, aspect ratio correction is done by scaling the horizontal FOV to keep the vertical FOV intact. This puts people with the same FOV but wider screens than others at an advantage.

this is what i found with my screenshots i took 7 years ago.
verticaly the picture is the same in 4:3 and 16:9. but u have on the left and right more space to see.. simple as that. playing on a 16:9 monitor and using 4:3 give u the black bars and only hide the hfovgain u get from switching to 16:9.

again the link:
http://www.heret2own.de/QuakeLive/16_9_vs_4_3_001.jpg
here both have cg_fov 90

what u are talking about is more like this:
http://www.heret2own.de/QuakeLive/16_9_vs_4_3_002.jpg
but here i only simulate playing 16:9 on a 4:3 monitor.. but here the 4:3 screentshot is cg_fov 106,26 and the 16:9 is still cg_fov 90

here i could do the oposite like the oldshoolplayers an make a black Bar top and bottom. but i could see shit curz the 16:9 picture is much smaler on the 4:3 Monitor.

ur post should be like this:

Those values are correct. They are the values you get for horizontal FOV if you maintain the vertical FOV at 90.

And this is what LOLatRoflexTimers was trying to tell u with his ztn example.

No, what I said was correct, and what you have shown here actually supports what I said.

First, the quote from the calculator is saying that vertical FOV is being maintained across aspect ratio changes, and it implies the FOV value entered into the game is a horizontal value at some specific aspect ratio (4:3 in the case of QL). The implication is obvious because there'd be no need to scale your horizontal FOV if the FOV you entered into the game was your vertical FOV.

Your screenshot proves nothing but what we already know and agree on: that vertical FOV is preserved under aspect ratio changes. Your screenshot does not tell you anything about the meaning of cg_fov.

LOLatRoflexTimers sees more on 16:9 than 4:3 because with the same cg_fov, his vertical FOV stays the same and his horizontal FOV increases. This is not in conflict with what I've said.

Let's do some maths. It is the only way to show you that with cg_fov at 90, the vertical FOV will be 73.7.

First of all, we start with a screen with a width of 4 and height of 3. The scene is one side of the screen, and the "eye" is on the other, located on a line perpendicular to the centre of the screen. A scene object is projected to the eye through the screen and drawn on the screen where that projection intersects the screen.

Given all that, with a horizontal FOV of 90, the eye will be placed a distance from the screen equal to (4/2) / tan(90 / 2) = 2.

Using that information, the vertical FOV must be 2*atan((3/2)/2) = 73.73979529.

Now if I change the dimensions of the screen to width 16 and height 9 while keeping the vertical FOV the same (73.73979529), the distance between the eye and the screen becomes 6 (due to height being scaled by factor of 3 from 3 to 9), and the new horizontal FOV becomes 2*atan((16/2) / 6) = 106.26.

Make sense? This is what your calculator is doing, and if this does not show to you that the vertical FOV being maintained is 73.7 for cg_fov 90, I don't know what will. :D

i tryed to overlay 16:9 and 16:10 like before... this will not match like before 4:3 and 16:9. so what now?

maybe u are faster with ur math than me with testing ;)

I imagine it is a bit fiddly.

How are you setting it up anyway?

I'd probably do something like
r_fullscreen 0
r_mode -1
r_customwidth 1600
r_customheight 1000
r_aspectratio 2

monitor 1080p@100scale in windows

r_fullscreen 0
r_windowedmode 14;cg_fov 90
r_windowedmode 17?.. does it in Gui, cg_fov 96.025575006666
r_windowedmode 9;cg_fov 90

than i open the 16:10;1280:800 shot in Gimp
slide the 16:9;1280:720 over it and set transpareny to 50%
slide 4:3 800:600 overit scale to up to 720.

something like that

To compare the vertical FOVs, you need to get the 16:10 screenshot at 1280x800 and scale it so that it is 720 high. This will make your 16:9 screenshot wider than it, and you can place the 16:10 screenshot centred on top of it.

All screenshots need to be taken at cg_fov 90 though.

no! the goal is to have the best view on nme in fight without zoom! and no stretching!

I thought the goal was to figure out how the FOV system worked in QL. :P

i think i have done this 7 years ago ;)

its CG_fov 96.02557500836666 thats fits perfectly the 16:10 image compared to the cg_fov 90 in 16:10

cg_fov 96.02557500836666;16:10 = 106.26020470831195

i think i prove my point.

16:10=1280 : 800
16: 9 = 1280 : 720

It looks like you are trying to make horizontal FOVs the same rather than vertical FOVs the same.

cg_fov 90 will give you 106.2 horizontal FOV at 16:9 and 100.4 horizontal FOV at 16:10.

cg_fov 96 will give you 106.2 horizontal FOV at 16:10.

exactly.. curz the 16:10 image is more space to fill than a 16:9 image.. so i have to higher the cg_fov to not have distortion... if i am an hardcore 16:9 player i would do black bars top and bottom.. thats remind me to something??

u got it?

If you want to compare vertical FOVs, you need to scale down that 16:10 screenshot to fit inside the 16:9 screenshot.

Anyway, I'm not sure why you're doing this. Do you not believe that vertical FOV is maintained across aspect ratios?

i dont believe that anymore.. that was realy new to me! but the screenshot shows it.

I think you might have made a mistake in your test. :(
See my comment #45.

All the screenshots need to be the same height to compare vertical FOVs.

To compare the vertical FOVs, you need to get the 16:10 screenshot at 1280x800 and scale it so that it is 720 high. This will make your 16:9 screenshot wider than it, and you can place the 16:10 screenshot centred on top of it.

i can do that... but its dont prove my point.

curz in the first method. the 16:10 monitor with the same 1280px width is higher than a 16:9 screen. and to fill that space with gamecontent i have to take the hfov and calculate the "actual" vfov. that proves that if i do the math like that, that cg_fov = vfov!

cg_fov 90 all the way :p

Your screenshot shows the vertical FOV being maintained regardless of aspect ratio. So you believe it now?

As for cg_fov being your vertical FOV, I have no idea how you got to that conclusion.

u can call 4:3 = 12:9 right? right!

so 16:9 and 12:9 share the same height.. right? right!

setting cg_fov 90 in 12:9 (4:3)means vFov, hfov = 90 right, right!
curz cg_Fov 90 in 16:9 means vfov 90, hfov 106.26... right?,right!
curz monitor is wider, right? right?

now 16:9vs 16:10

setting cg_fov 90 in 16:9 means vFov 90; hfov 106.26 right? right!
16:10 means now hfov stays same, curz the screen goes not wider.. it goes higher.. so vFov has to go up! Right, right!

now we agree!

if not.. i cant help u

"setting cg_fov 90 in 12:9 (4:3)means vFov, hfov = 90 right, right!"

No. At cg_fov 90 in 4:3 (or 12:9 if you want to call it that), the horizontal and vertical FOVs will not be equal.

Why would they be? The screen is wider than it is tall, so without doing any calculation, it is obvious the horizontal FOV should be greater than the vertical FOV.

"16:10 means now hfov stays same, curz the screen goes not wider.. it goes higher.. so vFov has to go up! Right, right!"

That will depend on whether the game is preserving vertical FOV or horizontal FOV under aspect ratio changes. I'm pretty sure it preserves vertical FOV. Games do that because for most real-world screens the apparent height of your screen doesn't change very much. Vertical FOV is also the lower of the two, so it is not the one people want to be made smaller.

i dont care anymore what u think or not. i gave u alot of infos and screenshot and u still dont get the point out of it. i made some screenshoots for the "timers"guy here:
http://esreality.com/post/2869443/#pid2869433

for some ppl the fov is a value that u put in cg_fov, the next guy think it is some mystic shit like u, and for me its only the Field of View that i want to archiv to give me the best overall results.

i dont need to be a mechanic to drive a car from a-b, get over it!

the reason behind 4:3 hfov 90, vfov90 can be the mousemovement!

4times the 800pxh and 4times 600pixv can be a 360.. something like that. only an idea

You seem upset.

Your info does not prove what you think it proves.

"i dont need to be a mechanic to drive a car from a-b, get over it!"

So you admit you don't understand how this works?

"the reason behind 4:3 hfov 90, vfov90 can be the mousemovement!"

4:3 is not 90:90 FOV. It never has been, and it never will be. If it were, your image would be stretched.

cg_fov is not your vertical FOV.
All you are saying is the value of cg_fov is the value of cg_fov.
That thinking might be sufficient if you just want to play one game (you set it to whatever looks nice, and you're done), but it does not tell you what it does, and it does not enable you to get the same effect in another game without using a converter made by someone who does understand it.

for u again: cg_fov is the value for the vertical Fov

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_of_view_i...ng_methods

i am pretty sure QL use Hor+ scaling... so eat or die!

The other aspect is the cinema situation, there u have a screensize with an movie at an given FoV. some ppl like to sit directly in front of the screen, some like the middle and ohters like sitting far away.

thats the importet thing for me at least. playing on a 14inch 16:9 screen is not fun and u cant hit shit with cg_fov 120 there curz everything is so smal that u have to constant zoom. That can u archiv if u lower Fov. i was going as low as Fov 86.4 and this was my best setting for the little screen and come with disadventures in vertical fights and CA-roundstarts. Now i buyed and 24inch 16:9 so i could higher the cg_fov Value to 90. so i have a litte trade done. Much bigger Imagesize vs Lowering the Enemysize, and getting a little + in h and v Fov. CA starting and closecombat is still little tricky but my overall elo is going up from around 1350 zu 1500.

so i know exactly what i need to know to manage traffic while driving! I dont need to know what to do if the Car get broken.

For you again: cg_fov is not the vertical FOV. :P

We can do this all day.

There is nothing in your Wikipedia article that says cg_fov in QL is the vertical FOV. In fact, it is confirming what I already know.

If QL is using Hor+ scaling, which I believe it is and have been saying so for a while now, then it just means the vertical FOV is maintained when you change aspect ratio. It does not mean that cg_fov is the vertical FOV.

If what you say is true, please tell me why they changed cg_fov from horizontal FOV in every other Quake game to vertical FOV in QL while everyone continued to use the same values.

Yeah, screen size and distance from the screen are important in choosing your FOV.

The thing is when you go from QL to QC, you will have to change your FOV setting from 90 to 106.2 to get the same effect. That's an example of when you have to have some clue about what these settings mean.

Firsst things first, do u believe the 106 is the true real hfov in QC?

QC looks like vertical+ scaling so yes. To convert my 16:9 cg_fov 90 to QC i need to set 106.26.

Now plz do the math for 4:3!

What u have to set if u are a 4:3 cg_ fov 90 player? I should be 90!

And now u will tell me over and over again 90 is 74.. and 106.26 is some sort of holy real hfov... lol

If what your earlier link says is true about QC, then it uses a 16:9 baseline FOV, so therefore, if you are running at 16:9, and you set the setting to 106 in QC, your horizontal FOV will be 106. If you ran at 4:3, it would be 90.

In QL, to get the same horizontal FOV, you need cg_fov at 90.

I have no clue why you are fixated on the idea that cg_fov must be the vertical FOV. It isn't.

"holy real hfov" matters because it is what you actually see, and what you see is what matters, not the value of some setting.

i dont trust what the link say.. only what i can test!


this game should be saberengine too like QC
http://www.wsgf.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=64&t=31974
in one post someone say the apsectvalue is 0.75 (3/4 is 0.75) this can be a "baseline"

9/16 is 0.56625 this can be the "new baseline" dont know what this value means or do anyway.. just an idea

this lead me to an idea that in QC vfov is set fix to 90 and u have to put in the right value for the hfov to not get an streched image. dont know some vid in QC looking strange anyway.. like fov is still an issue.

but again.. i can run QC yet so its all speculation

Well, unless you have QC, you can't test it, and it will be exceedingly difficult to determine from screenshots anyway.

Why no trust?
It's not like what he said is so hard to believe.

Vertical FOV and horizontal FOV are tied together. Like you said, you'll get stretched images if you change one without the other being changed. I doubt the QC devs are so stupid not to realize this.

its not difficult to see what scales. and i think first time u start QC und put fov 90 in it u will feel that there is something not the same as in QL so u will go up intil u find ur sweetspot. if u make a screenshot in 4:3 and 16:9 and overlay them u see what fov stays and wich one change. so no prob and proving there something.

Yeah, you'll know it is wrong, and you can get it back approximately by trial and error. I think some people will just want to know the right setting to make it exactly the same though, especially for mouse sens reasons. So they will use a converter or calculate it themselves.

Screenshots will tell you the FOV hasn't changed, but it won't tell you whether the setting is vertical FOV, 4:3 baseline horizontal FOV, 16:9 baseline horizontal FOV, or whatever.

It is technically possible to measure the FOV using screenshots, but it is so difficult that I'd just trust whatever information leaks out about the meaning of the setting and roll with that.

lol.. a screenshot in pixelsize 800:600 is 4:3 baseline, 1280:720px is ofc 16:9 baseline and 1280:800is 16:10!

than the screenshot tells me wich fov has changed and wich one scaled. so i know all the time what happen curz i set a know value in game that i dont changed.

if i am set fov 90 in QC or QL i exspect it is real 90°late i have to see what it is, vertical or horizontal.

u dont prove ur point since two days that the value isnt the actual ° inGame.

do u even looked at the 4 ztn screenshots?

None of your screenshots tell you the FOVs involved. They only show the FOVs are being scaled or not being scaled.

So if we are going to ignore everything except your screenshots, we do not know the meaning of cg_fov other than the basic notion that a bigger value lets you see more.

The same goes for the FOV setting in any other game, so you will not be able to convert between them except by trial and error, which you're unlikely to get exact because the maps are different.

To do conversion properly, you need to know the meaning of the FOV setting in both games. Your screenshots don't tell you that meaning.

omg!

i set the cg_fov for the screenshots so i know wich screenshot has wich fov. the picures from ztn show u 3 transparent screenshots overlayed! this not 1screenshot that i outlined or something.

realy, take screenshots and do it ur self... than u will see and hopefully know how to unterstand whats going on.

for me cg_fov 90 set a vertical 90° angle and a 90° horizontal angle in 4:3

in 16:9 cg_fov 90 does set a vertical 90° and the hfov is scaled to 106.26 wich i see in the overlayed screenshots. true i dont see the 106.26°number in the screenshot but i can calculate it with the tools.

and since the formula behind these tools is universal for FOV in the field, in Movies and so on, i can expect it gives me Real ° values.

"i set the cg_fov for the screenshots so i know wich screenshot has wich fov."

No, you don't know which screenshot has which FOV; you know which screenshot has which cg_fov value. These are not the same things.

"for me cg_fov 90 set a vertical 90° angle and a 90° horizontal angle in 4:3"

How do you know this? How did you measure the vertical FOV in your screenshot?

It is not possible for the horizontal FOV and the vertical FOV to be the same in 4:3 without the image being stretched.

"in 16:9 cg_fov 90 does set a vertical 90° and the hfov is scaled to 106.26 wich i see in the overlayed screenshots. true i dont see the 106.26°number in the screenshot but i can calculate it with the tools."

You have the horizontal FOV correct there, but not the vertical FOV. Too bad the tool you are using is not telling you the vertical FOV.

I know the method your tool is using to calculate the horizontal FOV (I explained it earlier), and using that method, your vertical FOV will be 73.7.

last try:

https://ibb.co/nEXY1Q

Here with corrections in green:

http://i.imgur.com/LAok6NO.jpg

My shitting Paint drawing illustrating how it is:

http://i.imgur.com/KMBg0AV.png

i am over it...

found on the QC setting screenshot that 110 is the lowest value. so i was thinking to prepare for that i have to change my cg_fov 93.932923476892 . sensi slider seems strange too so i tryed to check for that as well. going to my normal sensi cal tool shows me they have some interessting infos there.

https://www.mouse-sensitivity.com/

they added QC but it dont realy works for me right now so i switched to ut4

http://imgur.com/zqm3jmC

this gives all the infos and shows the other tool i linked is good for accucy but dont gives out vFovs

QL Horizontal Degree | 4:3 Base Fov (i think it means cg_fov set Hfov for 4:3 and adds hfov if the aspect is not 4:3)

QC Horizontal Degree | Resolution Base (u set the hFov directly)
since QC is 110-130 u get in trouble with 3 monitor setups. this should mean that u have in 16:10 more vFov than in 4:3 or 16:9 but maybe not curz the "aspect Value"

so i think we both lerned something new ;)

I think QC sens is just your QL sens divided by 5, if you're using m_yaw 0.022 (default) and m_cpi 0. It seems to work for me anyway.

No tool really tells you the vertical FOV because you don't need to know it.

I don't use these tools anyway. I work it out myself with a spreadsheet. I like to know what is going on. :D

"QL Horizontal Degree | 4:3 Base Fov (i think it means cg_fov set Hfov for 4:3 and adds hfov if the aspect is not 4:3)"

Yep, sounds about right.

You have a three monitor setup? I'm not sure how nice it would be even to play on that. Even if QC was unrestricted, the projection can only go up to 180 degrees (with a lot of distortion), so it'd probably just be putting a lot of stuff into your peripheral vision.

Since QC is hdegree | res base. So max fov sould be 130. vfov varies with aspect so 4:3 should give u max vfov for hfov.

I have no way to confirm that at this point, but thanks. :D

good!

curz its maybe 16:9 base..we will see ;)

That's what your previous link said. It seems likely. 16:9 is now the de-facto standard in the way that 4:3 used to be, so it makes sense to use it as the base.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAuUJAK82Ak
looks like Hor+ too and he sets vfov 90 and this looks for me like real 90°

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXPBkSRitv4
here is Halo 5 wich should have saberengine too and he set hfov there..

download both screenshot and load them in windows photoviewer.. and klick back and forward some times. maybe u will notice something.

still rocking 800x600

Looks like dogshit on non CRTs.

just do it (change it)

it will feel weird for some time, but will get used to it

play 16:9, no real need to hold back

4:3 all games on big ass monitor

REALLY TL;DR

How do y'all do that? I'm forced to play on 16:9 because any 4:3 resolution makes the game crash once in a while.

Apparently it's quite a common problem, there are a lot of forum posts of people asking about it, but the solutions are all different and most seems more about magic rituals than anything else.

Tried all the other things like reinstalling, checking the integrity, disabling beta partecipation and all that stuff.

since u cant buy "big ass" 4:3 monitors u have to play on a 16:9 modern screen. If u force with a 16:9 screen a pillarbox (black bars on the side) u wasting screenspace. in 16:9 u gain extra horizontal field of view. for me it makes me lasy on dodeging so i use the gained horizontal fov to lower my overall fov. so i play more "zoomed in". means i lose litte vertical fov but gain litte horizontal fov.

4:3 God res

are you nuts?
-Of course you are.
Now get rid of that lcd nonsense and get a proper CRT monitor and keep playing on 4:3.