Hm, why is there no FOV over 100?

[shombowhore]

Speaking of what is at stake if we go to a vertically locked view, I have not seen one person here supporting this move that hasn't failed to acknowledge the aiming effect this will place upon those who use a 4:3 or 5:4 monitor with a FOV higher enough to offset the lack of horizontal information. Not only will this strange effect be way more noticeable than on its widescreen counterpart, it also directly affects one's aim.

See my last post, where I do acknowledge this.

Why would you want the developer to correct one issue for a group of users by inducing a worse issue for everyone else?

That's the thing; it doesn't induce a worse issue at all. The fisheye effect will appear at high fov for everyone regardless of whether the vertical fov is locked. This is the natural result of increasing your fov, whereas losing vertical information is most definitely not.

Sure, there is no simple one-size-fits-all answer here, but let's be reasonable about it. Is an open and non-hostile dialogue really too much to ask for?

There is a one size fits all answer, and it's the one I've been advocating. 90% of other games on the market have a correct implementation, as has already been established, and it has never been a problem (including with UT2004.) And I didn't think I was being hostile, so I apologize if I was.

[Crotale]

See my last post, where I do acknowledge this.

I saw that, but it appears that you are willing to impart an aiming disadvantage, albeit a slight one, onto those who do not use widescreens. I just do not agree with that kind of fix, in all due respect.

That's the thing; it doesn't induce a worse issue at all. The fisheye effect will appear at high fov for everyone regardless of whether the vertical fov is locked. This is the natural result of increasing your fov, whereas losing vertical information is most definitely not.

Nobody is arguing that widescreen is getting their vertical information limited and thus, affects how the see what they see. What is up for discussion is the "fix." In a 5:4 screen, the fisheye effect will be noticeably more pronounced and the induced aiming error will be greater than on a widescreen, if my information is correct.

There is a one size fits all answer, and it's the one I've been advocating. 90% of other games on the market have a correct implementation, as has already been established, and it has never been a problem (including with UT2004.) And I didn't think I was being hostile, so I apologize if I was.

No, you haven't been hostile, as far I know. So, if I'm reading you correctly, you are advocating a vertical lock and allow folks for change their FOV to whatever makes them happy? Okay, that I understand, however, what about the effect this has on 4:3 and 5:4 users? Will they not experience a rather unpleasant view of the game with pretty much any FOV setting they use? And again, what about the aiming error issue? Do you know what other fast action FPS games employ this same technique and do the non-widescreen players claim to have a bad experience because of it?

[shombowhore]

Okay, that I understand, however, what about the effect this has on 4:3 and 5:4 users? Will they not experience a rather unpleasant view of the game with pretty much any FOV setting they use?

It doesn't even start to get noticeable until 95 to 100 fov. It wouldn't start to get unpleasant until 110 to 120, and that really is a matter of preference. As I said, I played and aimed quite well with 120 in UT2004 for a good period of time.

And again, what about the aiming error issue? Do you know what other fast action FPS games employ this same technique and do the non-widescreen players claim to have a bad experience because of it?

I take it you haven't met the Quake 3 community.

[3leggedFreak]

Yes, folks are going to set their FOV to what makes them "comfortable" for their own personal reasons, but that isn't the issue.

Funny how I'm attacked for not "getting it." I do get it. I just do not subscribe to the claim that just because a person buys widescreen that they should demand a widescreen gameplay experience at the expense of others. The idea that you purchase a widescreen and would like to use it to full advantage in a game, re:widescreen gaming, is quite understandable. What is not understandable is all the hatemongering against those of us who disagree that the view should be vertically locked, regardless of whether we fully understand and comprehend what may be at stake.

Speaking of what is at stake if we go to a vertically locked view, I have not seen one person here supporting this move that hasn't failed to acknowledge the aiming effect this will place upon those who use a 4:3 or 5:4 monitor with a FOV higher enough to offset the lack of horizontal information. Not only will this strange effect be way more noticeable than on its widescreen counterpart, it also directly affects one's aim. Why would you want the developer to correct one issue for a group of users by inducing a worse issue for everyone else?

Sure, there is no simple one-size-fits-all answer here, but let's be reasonable about it. Is an open and non-hostile dialogue really too much to ask for?

Ok sorry, wasn't aware that the discussion was specifically about vertical or horisontal lock. Still this discussion is even worse, why the heck do we have to lock it at all, it doesn't benefit anyone. The only reasonable conclusion is that locking FOV is retarded. Uncap the FOV and let it work like it has always done in FPS games, don't fix something that isn't broken etc. This kind of shyte is killing games.

[Xyx]

I don't play online, but if I did, and I were free to set whatever FOV I wanted, I would set my FOV to something ridiculous like 120 and bind a key to reduce it to 40 or so while I hold that key down. Insta-zoom, the best of both worlds! Major disadvantage to any player that does not use said exploit.

That is one of the reasons Epic has locked FOV online.

So instead, we should screw the widescreen users out of their hard earned money?

Your suggested "correct implementation" forces a choice between the three evils I already listed on 4:3 screen users.

This issue cannot be resolved unless it is at the expense of someone. You're just making a fuss because you wanted it to be someone else.

It is not called "short screen", it is WIDE screen.

Same difference. It's just marketing speak; when "widescreen" TVs first appeared on the market they were in fact not wider than regular TVs... just shorter. By your definition that would have made them "short screen". Of course, nobody would have bought 'em if they were called that.

There is a one size fits all answer, and it's the one I've been advocating.

Your suggested "correct" implementation forces a choice between the three evils I already listed on 4:3 screen users. Somewhere, someone is going to get screwed somehow, either by losing screen area, losing viewing area or having a messed up fisheyed view. There is no other way.

You just want that someone to be someone else, and apparently you feel entitled to that because you paid for widescreen (which, as said, was probably no more expensive anyway than a 4:3 screen with roughly the same number of pixels).

[3leggedFreak]

I don't play online, but if I did, and I were free to set whatever FOV I wanted, I would set my FOV to something ridiculous like 120 and bind a key to reduce it to 40 or so while I hold that key down. Insta-zoom, the best of both worlds! Major disadvantage to any player that does not use said exploit.

That is one of the reasons Epic has locked FOV online.

Locked yes, capped no. The "mini-zoom" bind was never a problem in 2k4 so why would it be in UT3. I don't care if I can't change FOV on the fly online, I just want to be able to use the FOV I feel comfortable with.

Somewhere, someone is going to get screwed somehow, either by losing screen area, losing viewing area or having a messed up fisheyed view. There is no other way.

Yes there is. The good thing with removing the FOV cap is that nobody suffers from it. This is so elementary its amazing people seem to have such a hard time getting it.

[Dopefish]

I suggest that for next patch, at least bring back what I believe are the UT2004 settings:
- FOV capped online at 110, and the patch changes the default setting regardless of the monitor and resolution. This keeps it fair even for those players that don't know about the change. Who knows better or cares about it, can adjust back to any other value
- unlocked FOV offline

Then we'll see about the rest...

The problem with capping it at all is that one way or another, you're giving someone a disadvantage. If you cap it at 110, now 4:3 users can see even more than the widescreen users, both vertically and horizontally.

Just fix it so that the weapons and such in first-person view do not get cut off, and then make the FOV completely unlocked for online and offline play. It's really the only solution that will work for both sides.

Speaking of what is at stake if we go to a vertically locked view, I have not seen one person here supporting this move that hasn't failed to acknowledge the aiming effect this will place upon those who use a 4:3 or 5:4 monitor with a FOV higher enough to offset the lack of horizontal information. Not only will this strange effect be way more noticeable than on its widescreen counterpart, it also directly affects one's aim. Why would you want the developer to correct one issue for a group of users by inducing a worse issue for everyone else?

?

This wouldn't affect anything with 4:3 or 5:4. By vertical lock, I mean that the FOV adjustment will adjust the vertical FOV, not the horizontal FOV. You're not actually "locking" it to a specific value. You simply adjust the FOV vertically instead. The horizontal FOV will automatically be adjusted based on the vertical FOV and the aspect-ratio. So when you drop the console and type "fov 100," you will be increasing the vertical FOV to 100, which in turn will increase the horizontal FOV, too.

[Crotale]

Just fix it so that the weapons and such in first-person view do not get cut off, and then make the FOV completely unlocked for online and offline play. It's really the only solution that will work for both sides.

This is a reasonable request.

This wouldn't affect anything with 4:3 or 5:4. By vertical lock, I mean that the FOV adjustment will adjust the vertical FOV, not the horizontal FOV. You're not actually "locking" it to a specific value. You simply adjust the FOV vertically instead. The horizontal FOV will automatically be adjusted based on the vertical FOV and the aspect-ratio. So when you drop the console and type "fov 100," you will be increasing the vertical FOV to 100, which in turn will increase the horizontal FOV, too.

Use of the term "lock" is relative, not actual. You are describing exactly what I'm referring to. However, instead of widescreen users having to adjust their FOV, now everyone else has to adjust theirs if they want to have the "correct" view. I have asked this question numerous times in this thread, why is a simple unlocking of the online cap or raising the cap to say, 120, not an equitable solution? Why the need to make other changes in the game's code?

[Benfica]

The problem with capping it at all is that one way or another, you're giving someone a disadvantage. If you cap it at 110, now 4:3 users can see even more than the widescreen users, both vertically and horizontally.

Just fix it so that the weapons and such in first-person view do not get cut off, and then make the FOV completely unlocked for online and offline play. It's really the only solution that will work for both sides.

It's refreshing to see you concerned about fairness after this screenshot:
[shot]http://imk.cx/pc/widescreenfixer/comparison.jpg[/shot]
If you want it to be fair, then come up with a solution that is in fact fair! Oh wait, scrap that, I can figure out one myself:
[shot]http://turtlegt.planetaclix.pt/ut3/fairfov6.jpg[/shot]

This is the problem I see or just read about uncapping: the fishbowl effect is an awful distorsion, affects your perception, aiming and creates more dizziness than "zoomed in". 16:10 starts to have fishbowl effect at 120, while 4:3 have it at 110. There are no exact values of course, because it's gradual and everyone is different. If you uncap, WS will set to 120 and 4:3 either plays with less horizontal at 110 or suffer that unpleasant effect if they want to see the same horizontal which is much more important than vertical.

There's something else you miss IMHO: some WS users are the ones that are creating this "mess". Because on one post someone says that he should see more, others say that it should be fair, others complain that it's unfair and they are the ones that should get the advantage because they upgraded, other say that it's awful to play with FOV 100 regardless of anyone else. Please leave other players out of this

Some people's concern is that the game is unpleasant, that's what is more urgent, and that's the 1st issue to be solved here IMO. 110 is better than 100, uncapped offline is better than nothing, getting what you had on UT2004 is better than what you have now, and the situation on the 2nd screenshot is more fair than the 1st. If I'm right that the uncapping creates a distorsion and fairness is a concern, this is the best I can come up with.

[Dopefish]

Well, if the FOV gets unlocked entirely, then there's no reason to go in and change the FOV adjustment from horizontal to vertical. If they want to change it where there is still a 80-100 cap, but make the FOV adjustment vertical, then 4:3 will need no adjustment. 5:4 will have a minor amount cropped from the sides, so they would need to set the FOV higher to have the horizontal match up with 4:3, and widescreen users can rejoice.


Anyway, when I release my updated WSF with support for UT3 v2.0, there will be a drop-down box to select 11 pre-defined aspect-ratios (5:4, 4:3, 16:10, 15:9, 17:10, 16:9, 3x5:4, 3x4:3, 3x16:10, 3x15:9, 3x:16:9). While they are meant to match up the FOV vertically for any aspect-ratio, you can still choose a different target aspect-ratio and have the view adjusted to it. So 5:4/4:3 users can always set the aspect-ratio to 16:10 if they want the FOV to be 100.38, or any of the higher aspect-ratios.



Edit:

If you want it to be fair, then come up with a solution that is in fact fair! Oh wait, scrap that, I can figure out one myself:

This is hardly an ideal solution. You're still cropping it vertically and still creating a zoomed-in effect. I'm not speaking for anyone else when it comes to reasons, but my reasons are that the vertical FOV needs to be matched up to remove any form of a zoomed-in feeling and to give the "natural" game feel that 4:3 users have. Older games primarily use the cropped, horizontal FOV adjustment method. Although most of the older FPS games that did this still gave you complete control over the FOV so you can always correct it yourself. Almost all newer games are based on the vertical FOV. Some new games also force anamorphic behavior so 4:3 users actually see a 16:9 picture with black bars. And with consoles being the main platform of development nowadays, 16:9 is pretty much the target aspect-ratio.

This is the problem I see or just read about uncapping: the fishbowl effect is an awful distorsion, affects your perception, aiming and creates more dizziness than "zoomed in". 16:10 starts to have fishbowl effect at 120, while 4:3 have it at 110. There are no exact values of course, because it's gradual and everyone is different. If you uncap, WS will set to 120 and 4:3 either plays with less horizontal at 110 or suffer that unpleasant effect if they want to see the same horizontal which is much more important than vertical.

It kind of goes both ways. Like I said earlier, capping it is just going to create an advantage/disadvantage for one or the other. Uncapping it is the only way to really satisfy everyone. Yes, the fishbowl effect will be a higher FOV for widescreen users. 4:3 users can set theirs higher if they want, too. Sure, it may be more extreme, but they have that choice.

[brbl8ter]

Same difference. It's just marketing speak; when "widescreen" TVs first appeared on the market they were in fact not wider than regular TVs... just shorter. By your definition that would have made them "short screen". Of course, nobody would have bought 'em if they were called that.

They where called wide screen because they allowed for better viewing of movies because they had more width. THe norm for movies has always been to chop off some side view, it should be the same here

[shombowhore]

Tropic uses a 4:3 ratio and 120 fov in this video: http://www.own-age.com/vids/6459

Enough said.

[Benfica]

This is hardly an ideal solution.

Ok then. I just hope that the "perfect" one is found AND Epic actually accepts it. Good luck!

[Xyx]

The good thing with removing the FOV cap is that nobody suffers from it.

Semantics. Not getting an advantage that someone else is getting is equivalent to suffering a disadvantage.

Somewhere, someone is going to either not see something that someone else is seeing or suffer fishbowl distortion.

The only way to make this "fair" is to distribute the problem "evenly"... but of course then everyone would complain that it wasn't distributed "evenly enough".

They where called wide screen because they allowed for better viewing of movies because they had more width.

I bought a 4:3 TV somewhere in the 90s when widescreen just hit the market. My 4:3 TV has the same width as any so-called widescreen TV at the time. In those early years, the only thing that set widescreen apart was that they were shorter (which is why I didn't get one).

Tropic uses a 4:3 ratio and 120 fov in this video: http://www.own-age.com/vids/6459

Enough said.

Enough what said? That a skilled player chose to trade some of his accuracy, of which he has plenty to spare, for a larger viewing area? Do you think his underlying reasoning would have been different if he had been using 16:9?

[3leggedFreak]

Semantics. Not getting an advantage that someone else is getting is equivalent to suffering a disadvantage.

Somewhere, someone is going to either not see something that someone else is seeing or suffer fishbowl distortion.

The only way to make this "fair" is to distribute the problem "evenly"... but of course then everyone would complain that it wasn't distributed "evenly enough".

Rhetorics. There is no advantage so how can there be a disadvantage? The only disadvantage is if someone can't use the settings that they feel comfortable with, the cap limits the WS users so they are the ones suffering now. "WS users can see a few pixels more omg", that would matter if we were talking about viewing stills, but this is a game, you have a mouse, figure out the rest. There are no sane reasons to why the cap should be there no matter how you twist it.