Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Hm, why is there no FOV over 100?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • replied
    Originally posted by shombowhore View Post
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Originally posted by Crotale View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Actually Benfica is right. This thread is pointless and doesn't teach Epic anything they don't already know. Thread should be locked.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Do you play UT2004 confortably, does anyone have any problem with it?

    I'm asking this because Epic doesn't tend to change stuff that creates heated discussions, and you may not get anywhere if you don't take baby steps regardless of who is right or wrong. We don't have cross-platform, that thread about tweaking movement didn't get anywhere either, and a few more ...

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    I thought it was a standard in the games industry that widescreen gave you extra viewing area. That's the way it should be to be honest. There wouldn't be a point in buying a widescreen if not for that.

    Anyway I'm a 17", 4:3 user, but Epic should really step up and fix this issue for the widescreen people out there.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Wide screen is just that, wider than standard. It is not called "short screen", it is WIDE screen. Wider...can you people understand that?

    A wide screen is about the same price as a standard screen, in fact when I bought my Dell XPS, it would have cost about an extra $100 to go to a similar sized standard, so I went with a wide screen.

    Another thing, many people buy WIDE screens to give extra room on the sides of there screen w/o sacrificing drawing space, in my case Solid Works and AutoCAD. It goes to the concept of adding space on the side so it is WIDER.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Originally posted by Crotale View Post
    I grow weary of the elitist attitudes here..

    ..I am speaking out because of some tools here feel that those who have not purchased widescreens must sacrifice and that those who have spent the money should get all their whims catered to..
    This has nothing to do with elitist attitudes, and those who have not purchased widescreens doesn't have to sacrifice anything. The only ones suffering here is the wide screen users because the cap only works one way.

    Having low or high FOV is just a personal preference and doesn't give any real advantage in any way, look at the top tier players and you will se that they vary in FOV just as much as newbies, most playing on low FOV actually. Would they do that if they were at a disadvantage?

    The argument that the cap is needed "because someone might not get it" is just laughable. Really. Then just set one setting for all and watch the game die faster then you can say "cheat".

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Originally posted by Xyx View Post
    Oookay... so, if it worked like that and I had a 4:3 screen, I would be forced to choose http://forums.epicgames.com/images/e...pop.gifbetween the following:
    1. Live with a messed up fisheyed FOV that looks like **** and reduces my horizontal aiming precision.
    2. Reduce my FOV to cut off the sides, sacrificing viewing area and giving myself a clear disadvantage.
    3. Set my monitor to "fake widescreen" resolution, displaying black bars at the top and bottom, throwing away part of my screen real estate.


    The last option is the only option that would not disadvantage me. However, all these options are also available to widescreen users. The question should not be "why is there no FOV over 100" but "should widescreen users be treated better than non-widescreen users".
    Widescreen users are not being treated better by anyone but themselves. In games, it provides a more natural perspective - allowing up to 110 or 120 fov without significant fisheye. Yes, this gives a slight advantage in horizontal aiming precision, but what of it?

    Limiting the fov simply eliminates the reasoning for having a widescreen in the first place, essentially ******* off those who bought one for gaming. For the majority of widescreen users, it is a matter of preference, not a matter of advantage.

    The answer to the original question "why is there no FOV over 100" is very simple: because it would give people with more money to spare yet another advantage.

    And for the record... I'm using a 22" widescreen with FOV 80...
    So instead, we should screw the widescreen users out of their hard earned money? By your logic, we should be capping the game to 40fps to make it more fair for the low-end PC users out there.

    It's cool that you can play at 80 fov, but that gives me a headache. Honestly, all we really want is an horizontally uncapped and correct vertical fov implementation, like so many other games (including UT2004) have. I don't see those communities complaining about their developers giving a marginal advantage to widescreen users.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Originally posted by RoadKillGrill View Post
    It does not give wide screen any more horizontal vision than standard screens, its fair.
    What of vertical view?

    PS you can get a wide screen monitor for the same price as a standard ratio monitor.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    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...

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Originally posted by brbl8ter
    all of you are that think it is ok to take away from the viewing field of a person that has a wide screen monitor.
    It does not give wide screen any more horizontal vision than standard screens, its fair.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Originally posted by shombowhore View Post
    widescreen would NOT have extra viewing area with a correct implementation. Both WS and non-WS would have THE SAME VIEWING AREA, except non-WS users would have theirs horizontally compressed, resulting in a fish-eyed view.
    Oookay... so, if it worked like that and I had a 4:3 screen, I would be forced to choose between the following:
    1. Live with a messed up fisheyed FOV that looks like **** and reduces my horizontal aiming precision.
    2. Reduce my FOV to cut off the sides, sacrificing viewing area and giving myself a clear disadvantage.
    3. Set my monitor to "fake widescreen" resolution, displaying black bars at the top and bottom, throwing away part of my screen real estate.


    The last option is the only option that would not disadvantage me. However, all these options are also available to widescreen users. The question should not be "why is there no FOV over 100" but "should widescreen users be treated better than non-widescreen users".

    The answer to the original question "why is there no FOV over 100" is very simple: because it would give people with more money to spare yet another advantage.

    And for the record... I'm using a 22" widescreen with FOV 80...

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Originally posted by shombowhore
    The only disadvantage is that 4:3 users will have more of the fish-eye effect
    Yes, that effect seems to start sooner on 4:3. I tested with UT2004, it has unlocked fov offline.

    If I got it right, WS wouldn't deal with "zoomed in", 4:3 would have to deal with that fish-eye effect or distorted "zoom out". That's just trying to solve a problem creating another, . Let's assume that Epic does what is requested and the fov is unlocked. Now, 16:10 players set it to max and have it all, set it to 120 or even 130. 4:3 players need to stop at 110 and have gameplay disadvantage, or if they want to keep up they have to deal with an effect as bad or worse that the "zoomed in" that WS players complain about.
    , and that is simply a disadvantage of hardware. Nothing can be done to even out the playing field except to buy new hardware
    I played UT3 1680x1050 for a few minutes and I can understand why you may find it annoying, but one-sided solutions that don't consider everybody equal don't cut it. Yes, who invests more on gaming hardware has in practice advantages and others have to deal with lower fps. But Epic has nothing to do with it, their obligations are the same for everyone that has a legal copy, so I expect that unbalances are just bugs, game limitations or compromises. If we go that road, WS are 95% TFT, while most 4:3 are CRT. This is how crappy some TFTs are, problems that my gaming CRT doesn't have:
    - Black is dark gray
    - Limited color, brightness and contrast ranges
    - Color balance problems or hard to calibrate
    - Ghosting
    - Output lag
    - Only one native resolution
    - Some models have really bad image at non-native resolution, I can play with sharp graphics from 640x480 up to 1800x1350.
    - Fixed refresh rate, I play at 100Hz
    - Limited view angle
    It can be said that today's monitors are much better and it's almost irrelevant, but how do I have an hardware disadvantage if a CRT supersedes a TFT? If you say your monitor is wider I can go and connect the PC to a 37'' Sony Trinitron TV or I can say that they chopped top and bottom, kept using the diagonal as metric to save panel area and sold you as widescreen I can play at any resolution, ratio, with horizontal bars of any size or stretched if I want, either by monitor adjustment or creating a custom resolution on the NVidia control panel.


    About "nothing can be done", I remember or can come up with:
    - small hor/vert black bars,
    - a FOV correction according to ratio where WS would get a bit more horiz but still keeping less vert, for balance reasons
    - server side setting that automatically corrects on the client,
    - FOV capped at 110 or where where the distorsion effect on 4:3 is not noticeable, and the patch sets the default to max to keep it even
    - unlocked FOV offline

    Correct me if I'm wrong but all those are better than we have now. The last 2 describe UT2004 very well btw.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Originally posted by Crotale View Post
    They would only have the fisheye view if they adjust their FOV settings. And if they do not know to do that, they are at a disadvantage when playing online. Oh, but I bet someone is this thread will say that is their problem and if they are that lame that they cannot figure it out on their own, then those players should be disadvantaged. I grow weary of the elitist attitudes here (not necessarily directed at you,shombo).
    Err, not sure what you're saying. It's right there in the settings. It is available to everyone - someone who chooses not to experiment with the fov setting is making their own decision. The point is that it's not an 'unfair' advantage. And I appreciate that you don't consider me elitest.

    Again, this is only true if the user ups his FOV setting. Or, are you saying that the game will automagically adjust it for him?
    No, not that the game will automatically adjust for him. But the entire discussion is about how the game behaves at high fov. With a correct implementation, everyone sees the same horizontally and vertically, regardless of aspect ratio. The only disadvantage is that 4:3 users will have more of the fish-eye effect, and that is simply a disadvantage of hardware. Nothing can be done to even out the playing field except to buy new hardware, in the same sense that someone with a P4 and a Geforce 6800 would be disadvantaged with low fps, but not to that extent.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X