cab view angle change

[geepster775]

Why has there been a change in the default angle of view while looking through the front windshield? None of these have been changed in the local ENG and CVF files. All are "factory default views". Why has the view been changed to a more inward one? Its as if the loco is riding down the rails at an angle or something. Good luck reading wayside signals in the last two locos.


SLI CP 8217 in MSTS




SLI CP 8217 in OR X3132





SLI BN 1724 in OR X3132





MLT SP 3371 in OR X3132

[R. Steele]

I'm not seeing that... V1.0.1.3095 (V1.0 stable)...Although my default setting % cab 2D stretch is 100%, I don't think that should make a difference. Also tried SLI CP8217 in V3132 and do not get the skewed view you show...?? Maybe check settings/options...unless it is a difference between choosing 100 % cab 2D stretch and less than 100%.

Are you running a wide screen monitor...would that make a difference...gotta be something in your system. I seem to remember something about this in earlier threads but thought it was all sorted out. I'll try a search and see what jogs my memory, sorry cannot be of more assistance.
bandicam 2015-06-05 09-08-53-006.jpg
bandicam 2015-06-05 09-10-15-557.jpg
bandicam 2015-06-05 09-13-34-897.jpg

[R. Steele]

Okay, quick search brought this to mind...

If your Options>Video>% cab 2D stretch is set to something other than 100% try using control+8 to reset the view.

I thought this phenom (or is it a "feature") had been fixed, perhaps not...

[baldwin]

The FOV has something to do with the problem IIRC. There is a thread over at Elvas on the problem.

[markus1996]

This problem is indeed related to the FOV settings. There also has been some talk about it at ET (I was one of the thread starters), but with the partial forum lockups we currently have at there, I´m not sure if I (even as an admin) could find the thread, and if I could, if it could be viewed. So, I´ll just repost it here.

In order to get ORTS to look like MSTS, you need to go to ORTS' option window, and on the "Video" tab change the value of "Viewing vertical FOV" (lower third of the window) until the numbers tot the left show about the same horizontal FOW on 4:3 monitor ratio you used in MSTS.

That should cure things.


The "% cab 2D stretch" option is there to compensate for distortions when running 4:3 cabview graphics on 16:9 monitors. On my 16:9 monitor, 65% works acceptably. It does, however, not influence the FOV and also does not turn the cabview horizontally.

Cheers, Markus

[R. Steele]

The "% cab 2D stretch" option is there to compensate for distortions when running 4:3 cabview graphics on 16:9 monitors. On my 16:9 monitor, 65% works acceptably. It does, however, not influence the FOV and also does not turn the cabview horizontally.
Cheers, Markus

Hi Markus, I had set my default % 2D cab stretch to 100% about a year ago and just forgot about it. After reading your post I think I'll have to give it another look. Thanks.

[lateagain]

Why has there been a change in the default angle of view while looking through the front windshield? None of these have been changed in the local ENG and CVF files. All are "factory default views". Why has the view been changed to a more inward one? Its as if the loco is riding down the rails at an angle or something. Good luck reading wayside signals in the last two locos.

MLT SP 3371 in OR X3132

No apologies for dragging this up because I just downloaded the latest "Experimental" version of OR from the web site.

I haven't noticed the effects Geepster posted in the first few screengrabs but I still get, despite following the recommendations in this post, a cab view that is initially looking down to much. I can "level" this using the arrow keys. That's fine ....until I use any other Cam view. After that any return to the "1 key" Cab view and I'm looking down at the trackbed again

Lets set some "Givens" to isolate this problem.


Given 1 : Yes I'm viewing OR in 16x9, why wouldn't you? It's a fundamental improvement for current hardware since MSTS arrived in 2001.

Given 2 : As stated I've tried altering the 2D cab settings as mentioned above. Doesn't change/alter/improve the problem AT ALL.

Given 3 : No custom tweaks on the cab views used and affected.

Given 4 : This is NOT route or model specific

Given 5 : Same effect on two different machines (one with AMD card, other with NVidea)

Additional problems include distortion or misplacement of hood (I think?) detail in front of the windscreen.

I'm not a coder but common sense dictates this must be a programming issue? All other Cam Views seem quite stable and switching between them causes no variation but the issue is constant AND consistent when switching back to the cab view.

The Forward Cab View is SO FUNDAMENTAL to the Sim that IMO this should be THE priority glitch fix?

Happy to try any suggestions, test any solutions and post more cab shots to help with that.

Frankly I'm staggered that it's taken me so long to find a thread on this because I have been looking (apparently in the wrong place ) for solutions to this and I can't believe so few folk have reported it.

I'll try anything and if it's my stupidity I'll put my hand up but frankly until it's fixed it's making OR unusable for me and in all other respects it's my Sim of Choice.

[R. Steele]

Hello Geoff, I do not know how much this will help, but here's some screenshots: cabview (same loco as in geepster quote), the cvf file I'm using, and my OR video settings. Perhaps these will provide a clue to identifying a solution. As you can see from the cabview screenshot my view is quite different the downward views. Currently using OR testing versions X3445 and higher. I checked cabview using other versions of OR (including stable ver 1) - cabview remains the same, forward looking from engineers side.
Good Luck.


bandicam 2016-03-16 09-46-00-273.jpg bandicam 2016-03-16 09-47-44-885.jpg bandicam 2016-03-16 09-49-45-990.jpg


Tr_CabViewFile (
CabViewType ( 2 )
CabViewFile ( "..\\..\\MLT_REQUIRED\\MLT_CABS\\SP_Std\\GP9Front. ace" )
CabViewWindow ( 0 25 611 310 )
CabViewWindowFile ( "" )
Position ( 1.1 3.5 6.8 )
Direction ( 10 -15 0 )
CabViewFile ( "..\\..\\MLT_REQUIRED\\MLT_CABS\\SP_Std\\GP9Left.a ce" )
CabViewWindow ( 20 50 620 300 )
CabViewWindowFile ( "" )
Position ( 1.1 3.5 6.8 )
Direction ( 8 -65 0 )
CabViewFile ( "..\\..\\MLT_REQUIRED\\MLT_CABS\\SP_Std\\sd40Right .ace" )
CabViewWindow ( 0 0 640 480 )
CabViewWindowFile ( "" )
Position ( 1.1 3.5 6.8 )
Direction ( 8 65 0 )
EngineData ( EMD GP9 )
CabViewControls ( 19

[lateagain]

Thanks Guys,

That hasn't fixed everything but you've given me a way forward on the issue.

To try and help others I'll do some structured experiments and try and post my results here.

Some of the above has rectified the "Examining the Ballast" Front view issue but there are still some major issues with external parts of the cab views. W

hat I need to do now is play with settings until the "Examining the Ballast" Front view issue returns, to work out which combo of settings effects this, and then look at what's affecting the exterior cab parts. F.O.V. is the logical culprit but without trying these out methodically I'll be chasing my tail.

At the moment I have no Photo Software on my Sim machine. Which isn't at the moment networked to other machines either. To do this task justice I need to install the software or set up the network.

Once that's done I'll use some BLW cab views, SLI, MLT (Norfolk and Southern Pack is all I have right now) and some DW cabs.

I'll try various settings and post the screengrabs and a grab of my settings panel for each.

Obviously this will take some time and the BOSS has other priorities ....and she cooks ...Nuff said?


BTW I've mentioned this before. Why on earth does the programme save screenshots as .PNG's PLEASE don't trot out the usual waffle about .jpeg compression/quality loss. That argument is as geeky as the idiots who used to waffle on about Hi Fi Amplifiers reproduction of frequencies that were actually only heard by bats and dogs . NO ONE is going to be doing fine art photography with screengrabs and all sites need .jpegs to upload. WHY oh WHY complicate things by making an extra task in converting them? It's pointless.

Also is there a built in "Select Screenshot Folder" dialogue? If not why not? Saving things by default to a folder in the user profile on the C drive is very poor practice IMO. Anyone who's been there knows you always save data to any other drive other than the one with the OS on. That way if the OS goes down you still have your data safe on A N OTHER drive.

[lateagain]

OK A quick feedback on my findings so far. No time to sort out the screenshots yet but the result of my experiments is that Gerry's setting of 40 in the FOV box fixes a lot of issues.

The 2D screen stretch setting however may also have some effect on the exterior items not showing correctly. I need to examine my screenshot evidence more closely on that.

To test this out I used BLW CabViews from the BN Freight set. Namely an F7A and a GP7. The grab irons on the nose and the nose itself is the issue here. On the GP7 some settings have the rail that should be seen through the front window appear in the side window.

I also used the SLI GP38-2 cab, few issues there.

Finally the DW BN GP30 cabview. Now this had all the issues Geepster posted above.

However a zero 2D Widescreen stretch setting together with a FOV of 40 (as Gerry recommends) makes this cab view work pretty much as in MSTS.

HOWEVER.... I have to stress that frankly I drive with the keyboard. For me the View is all important and the controls (animated or not) are irrelevant. You don't look at the controls when you drive your car now do you?

I'll do some more testing but so far the loss of some areas of the view with 0 2D screen stretch is more than compensated for by the better track view. The FOV 40 stability seems to work too ......BUT

....and this is a whole new topic.... IS THAT the best FOV for a driving view?

In photography an 85mm lens was always considered the optimum portrait lens because is rendered the face in the perspective that the human eye sees it (about 29 degrees). NOW ...it ain't that simple of course? Why? because we also have peripheral vision which is a wider FOV than the area we focus on. However the wider FOV makes things look further away in a landscape format like a simulator. Therefore it's difficult to anticipate signals, switches, curves or other hazards as quickly as we'd see them in reality.

So an easy fix in MSTS was that you could assign FOV's to individual cameras.

I'm still learning about OR so with a 244page manual (and yes I downloaded the latest one too) I've yet to check that out.

Right now the Dog needs walking...

[lateagain]

Update.

Additional Test on MLT Low Nose GP/SD cab.

Nope... There's no setting that shows this in an acceptable way IMO. However the issue I feel is with the MLT cabview ...NOT with OR.

The Eye Level for the driver in the MLT cabview is WAY too low. Of course I'm sure all US roads are equal ops employers now but anyone of average height would not be looking at the view from the level of the controls?!

Eye level in the cabview can be adjusted so that part is solved but there's also a perspective issue. In OR on 16x9 screens the cabview is looking slightly above the horizon. Initially this can be adjusted with the down arrow but even then the uprights in the cab don't match the uprights of the buildings outside.

With sufficient editing I'm sure the MLT cabs can be made to work but if (like me) you're not overwhelmed by MLT's cabs then it's probably just as easy to alias your MLT loco's to a cab of your choice? Cabviews are plentiful. Perhaps we should ask the cab builders to look at customising their work for use on OR's 16x9 aspect ratio? After all squashed dials and stretched windows do look pretty naff?

[farrmp]

I have noticed on a new Win7-64 computer that when I first enter a Cabview on starting OR, I have to Reset the Forward View ( CTRL 8 ) before I can see anything reasonable out of the Cab Window. I believe the Forward View used to be Initialized every time OR was started. This may be part of the reason that people are now having difficulties with Cabviews again after some time. If I can I will go back to earlier versions and see if something was changed by accident. I am running x3470 right now.

Paul

[lateagain]

I have noticed on a new Win7-64 computer that when I first enter a Cabview on starting OR, I have to Reset the Forward View ( CTRL 8 ) before I can see anything reasonable out of the Cab Window. I believe the Forward View used to be Initialized every time OR was started. This may be part of the reason that people are now having difficulties with Cabviews again after some time. If I can I will go back to earlier versions and see if something was changed by accident. I am running x3470 right now.

Paul

It seems odd that it's only the Cab Key Cam (1, Left arrow, Right Arrow) that are affected. It obviously has something to do with the use of a view designed for 4x3 aspect ratio being used in 16x9 ....but then the "FIX" outlined above copes quite well with some cabs but not with others. Not stretching the cabview has the same effect as watching a 4x3 screen TV broadcast on a 16x9 set. If you fill the width you lose some of the picture top and bottom. What I can't figure out yet is why this is OK with some cabviews but doesn't work with others?

My guess is that we need to compare the different MSTS cabview files and compare the Camview settings. Head height or the Drivers Eye Line obviously has some bearing on this but is the ORIGINAL MSTS FOV different too?

BTW I followed OR right from the start but didn't install a copy till a few years back when things were getting more stable. I've had a few versions and this cabview issue has been there as long as I have used it. I stand to be corrected but unless any of the development team can identify an update that would specifically affect CAM views I think the issue lies with the original MSTS cabs.

Having said that, I refer anyone reading to my point about FOV's and customising individual CAM views in my post above.


PS UPDATE. Just before I turned in last night I looked at the SD40 cabview in the MLT NS loco pack and that seems much better than the other EMD low nose GP/SD cabs in the pack I tried previously. Yet to work out why

[lateagain]

OK so now I'm completely baffled!

After last nights "success" with settings to make the "MLT NS Loco Pack" cabviews display acceptably I went back to get a screengrab.

Sure enough the SD40-2 displayed reasonably well ...and was stable. i.e. if you changed cam when you returned to the "1key" Cam it hadn't suddenly nosedived to examine the ballast.

I checked the cvf file in the CABVIEW Folder.



THEN I double checked my VIDEO settings in OR. NO 2D screen stretch and FOV 40.

So I rechecked using the C39-8. This ALSO uses the sd40 cvf. I opened the cvf's from each loco in Wordpad and compared the Frnt Cam positions. They were identical. I then changed loco and restarted OR exactly as in the shot above using the C39-8 instead of the SD40-2 and this is what I got.........





...and yes of course I double checked that EVERYTHING was the same in Video Settings in OR.

NOW: How on Earth does the same cabview display completely differently.

Any suggestions diligently explored..... but right now I'm stumped

PS I've now installed Photoshop and ConTEXT on my Sim machine so I'm better placed to diagnose and record issues. I'll check my entire TRAINSET folder in my Horseshoe Curve Mini Route install to check there's no conflict in Common Cab View naming and compare the cvf files in ConTEXT to check that I didn't miss any discrepancies.

PPS I'll upload the views from other sources that I think are reasonable so you can judge for yourself.

[crstagg]

"They use the same CabView" But do they use the same CVF file? If not use a program like Context to compare the CVF files. Is Position ( 1 3.7 6 ) in the SD40-2 the same location in the cab of the C39-8?

BTW disregard the ##s in Position ( 1 3.7 6 ). Different loco.

Also I seem to remember some complaints of some loco modelers products being slightly out of scale.