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 Crotale View Post
    Will a FOV of 110 truly have a dramatic impact on accuracy when compared to 80?
    I found it easyer to aim at 110 than at 80. At 80, its so zoomed in I get nauseous and its too easy for opponents to leave your field of vision.

    Originally posted by Crotale View Post
    Regarding the FOV binds, I think it's reasonable to assume most players would consider that to be a cheap move, and possibly borderline cheating.
    I briefly tried fov toggles in ut2004 and found it ineffective. I found it harder to aim while toggling and other than very far distances was not needed. It was usually not enough zoom to be practical in combat.

    I rarely ever scope in UT3 or Ut2004, there is no stock maps that really require zooming at all.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Originally posted by Crotale View Post
    Will a FOV of 110 truly have a dramatic impact on accuracy when compared to 80?
    Just give it a try.

    Originally posted by Crotale View Post
    Regarding the FOV binds, I think it's reasonable to assume most players would consider that to be a cheap move, and possibly borderline cheating.
    But who's gonna stop 'em?

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Okay, but who in their right minds would play that way? Still, I thought were originally discussing the finer points of a FOV more like 100-120 for 16:10 players. Will a FOV of 110 truly have a dramatic impact on accuracy when compared to 80? If so, again, why would anyone want to play that way?

    Regarding the FOV binds, I think it's reasonable to assume most players would consider that to be a cheap move, and possibly borderline cheating.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    What, halved accuracy? Yes, I'd say that makes a real difference. Remember that that same FOV difference also turns a 100-pixel deviation into a 200-pixel deviation, which is the difference between a direct hit and a clear miss.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Originally posted by Xyx View Post
    Only for aimbots. FOV 160 instead of FOV 80 turns a 1-pixel deviation into a 2-pixel deviation.

    The problem lies in keybinds. You can easily make a keybind that sets your FOV. With unrestricted FOV you can make keybinds that zoom in, providing you the best of both worlds.
    Is that a big enough deviation to make a real world difference to most players? Or, shall I rephrase that to, the average player?

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    FOV 100 is more than ok for a 19 inch 5/4 display.
    Me for example shoot better at a field of view of 100 degrees than at 80 if the enemy is moving, over 105 degress there is a hit-scan penality, that i have tested in UT99.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Originally posted by Crotale View Post
    in the hands of a highly skilled player, there is little to no loss in accuracy
    Only for aimbots. FOV 160 instead of FOV 80 turns a 1-pixel deviation into a 2-pixel deviation.

    The problem lies in keybinds. You can easily make a keybind that sets your FOV. With unrestricted FOV you can make keybinds that zoom in, providing you the best of both worlds.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Originally posted by Rancur3p1c View Post
    It needs to go up to 130/140 for people that do tri-displays. Nobody likes it at 120 for a 4:3 screen because you get the fishbowl effect.
    Actually, you are incorrect. Back in the day, this very issue was discussed as nauseam by both UT2003 and UT2004 players when literally everyone played on 4:3 monitors (5:4 was just becoming popular at that time). It was discussed as to whether using a FOV greater than 90-100 was considered a form of cheating, as it gave the player who used it a greater ability to view more horizontal information. Sure, it lowers the accuracy, but in the hands of a highly skilled player, there is little to no loss in accuracy as compared to the distinct advantage of using this higher FOV setting.

    Considering the normal setting for the game, I do not see why a FOV limit of 100 isn't reasonable even for 16:10 players. The game was not designed to be played on a dual or tri-screen setup. Most players I know of only use one monitor if they have a multi-monitor setup.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Originally posted by pan1978108 View Post
    I need 360 fov, give me Epic!!!!
    i think i typed FOV 360 in UT2k4 & the view went LOL

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Originally posted by FragTastic View Post
    except that the trend in computing, as well as television, is tending more and more towards widescreen. The difference being that although your 10 yr old tv still does the job fine, your 4yr old computer is a doorstop. So how many people really have 4:3 monitors these days?......... *thinks about starting a poll.....


    umm me

    im still using my old 15" CRT from a old IBM system

    still works like a charm

    will get a good 22" 2ms LCD when prices drop

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    clearly you hax then

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Originally posted by Rancur3p1c View Post
    You know I don't think I've ever seen anybody on the internet contradict more people, for no reason, in the history of their posting than you do. The fishbowl effect is clearly visible in the ramp on the left of that image you linked. It looks horrible. Nobody plays with a FOV like that; this is common knowledge. Sorry.
    Umm... excuse me? I just said I have played competitively at 120 on a 4:3. No where do I deny there is a fishbowl effect by doing so.

    What are you reading? (I have new sig, Thank you)

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Originally posted by RoadKillGrill View Post
    That's not true, I played iCTF at 120 for a while. I shifted it down to 110 now but to say that 4:3 players don't like higher FOVs is ignorant.

    [shot]http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i103/rahkogen/Screenshots/FovCompare.jpg[/shot]
    You know I don't think I've ever seen anybody on the internet contradict more people, for no reason, in the history of their posting than you do. The fishbowl effect is clearly visible in the ramp on the left of that image you linked. It looks horrible. Nobody plays with a FOV like that; this is common knowledge. Sorry.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Originally posted by Nuppi View Post
    Uhm.. that was a joke i suppose :P

    120 is more than enough.
    He wasn't joking, 180 degree fov is the limit using traditional methods of calculation.

    [shot]http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/images/fov-diagram.png[/shot]

    I am horrible at trig so I didn't bother to verify the calculations, but it seems sound.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Originally posted by RoadKillGrill View Post
    That is imposable, using a traditional projection you are limited to less than 180 as tan(180) = 0.
    Uhm.. that was a joke i suppose :P

    120 is more than enough.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X