Hm, why is there no FOV over 100?

[Crotale]

Ffs people, 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.

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).

People need to stop assuming that if you lock the vertical FOV, you have to start cropping the horizontal FOV on other aspect ratios. That is wrong.

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?

What chaps me most about this argument is that otherwise I would be in direct support for these changes (not that I'm not for some reasonable compensation). 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. Either way it goes, no option really is a "fits all sizes" deal.

[shombowhore]

How does having extra viewing area on the sides not bring an unfair advantage?

The simple fact is that in a game such as UT3, that extra 25-30% horizontal information we are discussing can make a difference in competitive gameplay.

Ffs people, 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.

People need to stop assuming that if you lock the vertical FOV, you have to start cropping the horizontal FOV on other aspect ratios. That is wrong.

[bclagge]

I have a P4 and some people have i7s. It's an unfair advantage, and I DEMAND that all people with powerful CPUs be gimped to level the playing field.

[Xyx]

How does having extra viewing area on the sides not bring an unfair advantage?

[brbl8ter]

Wide screens should have more viewing area, not less. What are wide screens but elongated standard screens, so you should get more to your sides. Just like with movies, you lose some stuff on the side to fit your screen.

Not to mention the fact that it is typical that wide screen see more, why the **** change it now?

[Crotale]

The Steam survey stats show more widescreen users than 4:3 or 5:4 users, but it's not 70%. Steam peaks close to 2 million players per day. When they do the hardware survey, it's as simple as a box popping up that you click a button to have it send the information. You don't fill anything out so there's no lying or faking information. It's the most accurate and complete set of stats gathered to date.

Since the March 2009 stats seem to be down, I'll base these numbers on February 2009 stats:
4:3 - 30.11%
5:4 - 23.87%
WS - 42.58%

Widescreen users make up the largest portion, followed by 4:3 and then 5:4.

Incorrect assessment. You cannot put 5:4 and 4:3 in two different categories and yet have ALL widescreens in a single category. The more correct presentation is:

Non WS- 53.97%
WS - 42.58%

Even if you give it a +/- 5 point error, you are bouncing right around the 50% marker for either, so there really isn't a clear majority at this point.

Nobody cares that there is an advantage on the sides. They just want a vertically correct view.

Upgrading to widescreen and getting more on the sides is not going to make you a better player. If you were a terrible player before, you're still going to be a terrible player after. If you were an awesome player before, you're still going to be an awesome player after. It's not going to change anything other than correcting the vertical view and fill in some peripheral viewing. It's not like Jesus just flipped a switch and you become the #1 player in the game.

Crikey, I have not seen anyone state that the extra wide view would make a person a godlike player. Way to take it to the extreme to make someone with an opposing view look stupid.

The simple fact is that in a game such as UT3, that extra 25-30% horizontal information we are discussing can make a difference in competitive gameplay. I know this is a bit OT,but do you remember the brighstkins issue in the UT2004 days? It wasn't that the brightskins themselves made anyone a "better" player, but they allowed a player to more quickly recognize an opposing player. This was considered to be having an upper hand in competition and most players used it due to the fact that they didn't want to be lesser advantaged. It all comes down to opportunity. To say that widescreen players who might end up with an additional 25 percent of horizontal view would not have a greater opportunity over those who would have 25 percent less horizontal view has yet to be proven.

About that locking to the vertical thingy, what would be a correct FOV setting for non-widescreen users to get the same horizontal info as the WSers?

Edit:/ Here is recap of the thread's original post...

This gives people with 4:3 screens an advantage. To the people that say making FOV go up higher gives an advantage to widescreen gamers, it does not, because as the FOV increases, more accurate aiming is required to shoot (because the characters are slightly smaller on the screen).

Please don't hijack this thread like the last one.

How does a person with more vertical information have a distinct enough of an advantage to create this thread in the first place, yet, you do not agree that basically the same percentage of horizontal information for widescreen users is NOT an advantage? I look at it this way, and this is my personal view: I would want there to be a more fair solution for as many users as possible. The horizontal view lock does that by ensuring that no player has the horizontal view advantage. Can you prove that a player has a real gameplay advantage by using a 1280x1024 view over a 1280x800 view? Can you disprove that a player using a 1280x1024 versus a 1680x1050 would not be disadvantaged by at least the same percentage if the view was vertically locked? There in lies the heart of the issue for me. And no, I don't mean you personally need to prove or disprove anything, I am merely asking questions.

[shombowhore]

Please get this once and for all: you are wrong here. Some people care, some people want the corrected fov, because they want the advantage. You don't care, but some people do.

Please get this once and for all: the people who actually do care are deluding themselves

If the fov implementation were fixed, no one would lose any screen real estate. And when something is available to everyone, it's not an unfair advantage.

This is ridiculous. People are arguing about fairness when the 'advantage' of a higher fov would be available to anyone, widescreen or not. Sure, it would be slightly more fish-eyed, but that never stopped me from playing with 120 fov on a 4:3 aspect ratio in UT2004.

[Benfica]

Dopefish, that post has nothing to do with you, or anyone for that matter. I just saw a wrong trend there, people don't care or feel the need to be educated.

Nobody cares that there is an advantage on the sides. They just want a vertically correct view.

Please get this once and for all: you are wrong here. Some people care, some people want the corrected fov, because they want the advantage. You don't care, but some people do.

It's not going to change anything other than correcting the vertical view and fill in some peripheral viewing. It's not like Jesus just flipped a switch and you become the #1 player in the game.

No, but we all optimize our rigs to have great games, and I like to win. Let me give an example: my natural keyboard is not that good for gaming, so needed to buy a gaming pad with keys within reach. That keyboard allows macros, press a key and it outputs multiple with programmable intervals, which means I could program whatever I want and artificially improve my "skill". But due to size and layout it's not so convenient for dodge, I don't get it, it doesn't feel right. So I could make a single key dodge macro and get an advantage against other players. But both are unfair, one is a disadvantage being less convenient, the other is a smart *** advantage.

I couldn't play with the WASD on the regular keyboard, but with the gaming one had this dilemma. So I ditched it, I move the regular keyboard a bit to the left and play with Home-End-Delete-PageDown. It solves the problem and I still have enough keys within reach

I couldn't program the entire keyboard with whatever I could imagine, get those advantages that wouldn't make me "#1 in the game" anyway, but then think or claim that it doesn't matter! And there was a FAIR solution, ANOTHER way after all! I mentioned a much higher or unlocked FOV and/or a compromise adjustment, you keep insisting that you should get the adjustment exactly the way you want. It has the side effect of giving a 35% horizontal advantage and then you say that nobody cares, when other people complained about 35% vertical loss!

First of all, there are ways to make it both fair AND improve your situation 10x from what you have now, but you keep insisting. Second: when there is a disadvantage, the ones that have it are the ones that decide if it matters or not!

[Northrawn]

If you were a terrible player before, you're still going to be a terrible player after. If you were an awesome player before, you're still going to be an awesome player after. It's not going to change anything other than correcting the vertical view and fill in some peripheral viewing.

THe part about the **** players is right.

The part about the good players is plainly wrong. FOV makes a very huge difference there (If they fight other good players).


But since the good players are a very, very small minority it really doesn't matter. Games are shifted towards the casuals (see Titan pack implementation), because it is the casuals who buy games in masses.

So give them their FOV. It doesn't matter anyways.

[Dopefish]

What's more Crotale, I suspect the 70% widescreen on Steam is complete bull, I'd like to see them show proof.

I don't think anybody said the Steam stats showed 70% widescreen. That was just someone doing a poll on the forums.

The Steam survey stats show more widescreen users than 4:3 or 5:4 users, but it's not 70%. Steam peaks close to 2 million players per day. When they do the hardware survey, it's as simple as a box popping up that you click a button to have it send the information. You don't fill anything out so there's no lying or faking information. It's the most accurate and complete set of stats gathered to date.

Since the March 2009 stats seem to be down, I'll base these numbers on February 2009 stats:
4:3 - 30.11%
5:4 - 23.87%
WS - 42.58%

Widescreen users make up the largest portion, followed by 4:3 and then 5:4.

And the reasons why it should change just crack me up: "because we say so", "because you 4:3 guys don't understand and need to be educated", "ws is the future" and the killer "we demand an advantage because we upgraded" (even if it has a sh1tty image locked at 60Hz with poor contrast, ghosting and output lag).

You've made no good points on your own yet.

As for the LCDs, it's all in what you buy. There are LCDs that have a refresh rate as high as 120Hz. You can find plenty of 75Hz LCDs, too. Contrast really depends on the panel-type and you can get some excellent contrast (enough not to notice/be bothered). Ghosting also depends on panel-type and other factors. There are plenty of LCDs that have eliminated any ghosting that you can see with your eyes. And the correct term for lag would be "input" lag, not output lag. Since the lag happens at the LCDs input before it gets output. And input lag is reduced to being almost completely unnoticeable. They have to use cameras with a fast shutter speed and clocks that go to the thousandth to capture input lag.

The WS lobby is screwing it up for themselves and for most widescreen players that aren't participating. I bet that the latter don't want advantage, they just want a more pleasant experience, getting rid of the fov limit, zoom in effect and a tad less vertical crop. I bet that all them, the smart asses AND the more respectable players will have a great chance if the lobby doesn't pollute the thread with all this ****.

Nobody cares that there is an advantage on the sides. They just want a vertically correct view.

Upgrading to widescreen and getting more on the sides is not going to make you a better player. If you were a terrible player before, you're still going to be a terrible player after. If you were an awesome player before, you're still going to be an awesome player after. It's not going to change anything other than correcting the vertical view and fill in some peripheral viewing. It's not like Jesus just flipped a switch and you become the #1 player in the game.

[Dopefish]

I have my application almost ready for release. It will correct the FOV for various widescreen resolutions.

There are some bugs to work out first. Using the primary fire on the Dark Walker with the fix enabled will cause views to get mixed up. Using the second Dark Walker seat, the zoom on the cannons will reset; you need to hold the button down for a longer time to have the zoom stick. The zoom on the sniper rifle/vehicles will use the zoom that's default to the game engine.

Once I get these issues worked out I'll probably release it.

[Benfica]

Crotale, who cares anymore?? The ball is on their side and I don't feel the need to justify myself or be educated with all this BS about something that I don't or shouldn't even give a **** about. Some people want unlocked fov and some sort of balanced solution, others want to do it in such a way to get an advantage. Some people deserve better, others don't, </thread>

Demanding a gameplay advantage is selfish, believing that you know it all is delusional, and hacking to get that advantage is sometimes cheating!

What's more Crotale, I suspect the 70% widescreen on Steam is complete bull, I'd like to see them show proof. And the reasons why it should change just crack me up: "because we say so", "because you 4:3 guys don't understand and need to be educated", "ws is the future" and the killer "we demand an advantage because we upgraded" (even if it has a sh1tty image locked at 60Hz with poor contrast, ghosting and output lag).

The WS lobby is screwing it up for themselves and for most widescreen players that aren't participating. I bet that the latter don't want advantage, they just want a more pleasant experience, getting rid of the fov limit, zoom in effect and a tad less vertical crop. I bet that all them, the smart asses AND the more respectable players will have a great chance if the lobby doesn't pollute the thread with all this ****.

[Crotale]

I do not know how much nicer I can be about this, but it should not matter if I "get it" or not. It is Epic that "needs" convincing. My only reason for participation is that somehow many of you feel that because you have gone out and spent hard-earned cash on a widescreen monitor that you are owed a widescreen experience, regardless of the fact it will an adverse effect on other gamers who do not own a widescreen monitor.

Fact is that the eye sees information at a wider horizontal vision than vertical. That is fact. And in a game such as UT3, a player may be experience the same basic quality of gameplay with less vertical information. But remove that same percentage in horizontal info, and now you have created an issue of restricted horizontal vision. Why this is said over and over in this thread, yet some of you refuse to listen, is just as frustrating for some of us as this issue is for those of you widescreen players.

Widescreen movies and television shows generally do not have much happening in the extreme left and right edges of the viewing area, and because the cameras do not normally scan after a moving object in a consistent fashion the likes of which our in-game camera does in UT3, those viewers who have a standard definition TV miss very little information. This is the reason it may not be a good idea to change to a vertical lock.

Why is a FOV limit of 110-120 not sufficient until a better option can be provided for a greater majority of players? Considering that some here say that Steam shows a 70% utilization of widescreen, that only shows the online gamers. What about offline Steam enabled gamers? Are their setups counted as well?

Edit:/

just because you have multiple monitors you should see more vertical information

I meant to say horizontal. Because I misspoke I'm an idiot? Honestly, why all the hostility and tantrum throwing when someone has a differing opinion?

[Paddywak]

I get what the difference is. (No you don't.) I have played UT3 on a 16:10, 4:3 and 5:4. The loss in vertical information on a 16:10 was not enough to notice other than the sort of zoomed in feel some of you are concerned about.

What I do not understand is how many of you feel that it is perfectly acceptable for a FPS such as UT3 to lose a third of horizontal information for 5:4 gamers if the view becomes vertically locked. Horizontal information is waaaaay more important than vertical information. I'll tell ya what, how's about some of you who claim this loss of information will not adversely affect 4:3 or 5:4 gamers tape up black paper over your the left and right portions of your screen to remove 33 percent from view. I'd be curious to know if it has any affect at all and how much.

And the dudes that keep posting stuff about multiple screen users, that truly is not a legitimate argument that just because you have multiple monitors you should see more vertical information in the game. If it was so, you'd have a close to 180 degree view with a triplehead setup, and that would give you an extreme advantage compared to those with a single screen, regardless of the aspect ratio. The view should be locked to one monitor.

As I have stated numerous times in this thread alone, if Epic raises the FOV cap to 110 or even 120, that should more than compensate for the vertically challenged view for widescreen gamers. I fail to see why a higher limit is needed when the data provided in this thread lends itself to my deduction.

I have highlighted your ignorance ... you clearly have no clue (180 degrees ... lol) and clearly you either haven't read or you haven't understood a thing I said so there is no point continuing.

I really have now stopped watching this thread ... good bye.

[Crotale]

I get what the difference is. I have played UT3 on a 16:10, 4:3 and 5:4. The loss in vertical information on a 16:10 was not enough to notice other than the sort of zoomed in feel some of you are concerned about.

What I do not understand is how many of you feel that it is perfectly acceptable for a FPS such as UT3 to lose a third of horizontal information for 5:4 gamers if the view becomes vertically locked. Horizontal information is waaaaay more important than vertical information. I'll tell ya what, how's about some of you who claim this loss of information will not adversely affect 4:3 or 5:4 gamers tape up black paper over your the left and right portions of your screen to remove 33 percent from view. I'd be curious to know if it has any affect at all and how much.

And the dudes that keep posting stuff about multiple screen users, that truly is not a legitimate argument that just because you have multiple monitors you should see more vertical information in the game. If it was so, you'd have a close to 180 degree view with a triplehead setup, and that would give you an extreme advantage compared to those with a single screen, regardless of the aspect ratio. The view should be locked to one monitor.

As I have stated numerous times in this thread alone, if Epic raises the FOV cap to 110 or even 120, that should more than compensate for the vertically challenged view for widescreen gamers. I fail to see why a higher limit is needed when the data provided in this thread lends itself to my deduction.