[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 92 KB, 951x777, Quake fov.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12244808 No.12244808 [Reply] [Original]

Hello, /v/ here
I have no fucking idea how to use the formula to calculate quake fov for 3440x1440 21:9

atan(tan(120*pi/360)*0.75*resolution_x/resolution_y)*360/pi

Just give me the exact value for 90 and 100 fov you nerds.
Thanks.

>> No.12244821

>>12244808
>atan(tan())
God fucking damn, /v/ is nigger tier

>> No.12244829

>>12244821
Hurry the fuck up and calculate that shit nigga, this board is giving me the creeps!

>> No.12244841

>>12244829
hint: that """formula""" simplifies to [math] 120\times0.75\times\text{x resolution}/\text{y resolution} [/math]. I don't know if it's right or wrong, whoever prepared that .png is a certified retard. You know your monitor's resolution and know how to use a calculator, right?

>> No.12244856

>>12244841
And your """"""""""""formula"""""""""""" simplifies to [math]90 \cdot \frac{x\text{-resolution}}{y\text{-resolution}}[/math]. Sad!

>> No.12244863

>>12244856
what's the point of this thread

>> No.12244865

>>12244863
I have no idea.

>> No.12244875

>>12244808
You need to use the atan2 function to remove sign ambiguity

>> No.12244876

>>12244863
either we're supposed to be trolled or op just discovered that he's been trolled

finding an actual equivalent-FOV formula given a standard FOV being set at 4:3 resolution is left as an exercise for the reader.

>> No.12244885
File: 483 KB, 591x567, lmao k.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12244885

>>12244875
What the fuck is the atan2 function, sig ambiguity? you know what, I don't fucking care. Just give me the fucking numbers. Hurry!!!

>> No.12244925

>>12244885
Chomp

>> No.12244932

>>12244925
fuck off retard

>> No.12244940
File: 13 KB, 1055x544, fov.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12244940

>>12244876
Neat.

Just move the viewer closer, and you have the answer for all other degree-angles. Probably should've gone in the sqt thread. The first step was recognizing that the given formula was fake.

>> No.12244945

>>12244841
Maybe you should look at those brackets again

>> No.12244950

>>12244940
>148.11 for 21:9 90°
>153.03 for 21:9 100°

In case OP is too dense to use this.

>> No.12244967
File: 3.51 MB, 3440x1440, spasm0000.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12244967

>>12244940
>>12244950
Are you fucking kidding me, this looks hideous. This doesn't look 90 fov to me. y'r'll fucking retarded.

>> No.12244982

>>12244940
>formula form
2*atan( .75 * R * tan(A°/2) )

Where R is the aspect ratio and A° is the 4:3-equivalent viewing angle in degrees. OP's image just put in 120° as A° and made it out like that was the general formula.

>>12244967
user error kek

>> No.12244986

>>12244967
wait, nope, that's gonna be 120.51 and 128.77

>> No.12244997
File: 127 KB, 750x400, Spoon-Feeding.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12244997

>>12244986
>giving him the right answer

And this had troll potential, too.

>> No.12245020
File: 3.76 MB, 3440x1440, spasm0003.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12245020

>>12244986
Yep, this one looks good enough. Took longer than I thought. After all your stupid board catalog is filled with wojak and pepe shit too, didn't expect much for you nerds.
Bye forever!

>> No.12246041

>>12244808
It should be between 110 and 125 degrees