<!--quoteo(post=1796104:date=Aug 24 2010, 02:04 PM:name=WhiteZero)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (WhiteZero @ Aug 24 2010, 02:04 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1796104"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'm not really sure how you quantify one side of this argument from the other as irrelative. You can't honestly try to justify FPS, Ping, FOV, mouse-tech, etc, etc as being more important than the other in relation to "fairness". That is complete bunk, based on the relative perspective of the player.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> You're still having trouble grasping the "baseline system" concept. laser mice, ping, FPS, these are all attainable by the "baseline system" in desired amounts (even high DPI mice are within average consumer range, as is 100 FPS for Spark's DX9, and decent ping for anyone that doesn't live in a thrid world country); however FOV as given by eyefinity is <b>not</b> attainable by the average consumer and won't be for some time. Please tell me you see the difference and understand what "baseline" means because it is fundamental to the entire argument.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->These topics are a bit more relative. Boosting gamma over a certain amount is crippling other player's ability to hide in shadows, so I can see the logic in that.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Then you see why it and eyefinity will be locked. Boosting FOV has the same effect, crippling players ability to hide in corners. Even with the astute marine who expected hiding skulks it was still a gamble: if he came through the doorway and looked at the wrong corner, you had a chance. But with the eyefinity player, they need only check their peripheral and suddenly the skulk ambush becomes that less effective.
. I don't really get how people can <b>not</b> see why tweaking variables that have <b>historically</b> been locked for these reason, wouldn't convey an advantage. Do you think every part of the engine should be open as license to configure as each player pleases and expect it somehow not to affect gameplay? For those still in doubt, I ask only that you answer the initial question I proposed at the beginning of the topic and you will have your answer:
If tomorrow Spark introduced "translucent texture rendering" for walls that enabled a slight degree of transparency for all walls, but was is so GPU intensive it can only be rendered by a triple SLI CUDA configuration, otherwise the textures default to opaque, do you then deem it "fair "that the very small minority of players who have such a setup be able to see through walls?
Answer this question (or rather answer it as you think any sane developer wanting to protect the balance of gameplay in their game would), and you have your answer to this entire debate.
eyefinity is simple you just need two extra screen. you can have 2 screen for a total of 200$... it's not THAT expansive.
And even if you have three screen, you will only focus on one.
It's like if you say that if you have 12 screen all around you at 360°, you can see in all the direction. That's a nonsense. You have to choose wich screen you'll focus on. And the time you check Left, then Right, and then you move your mouse (with a react time), a good player will check with mouse at left and right side in less than a second without moving his eyes.
So i dont see any advantage here, except a better immersion. and it's just a 120°, not a 180°
And more over most skulks hide on roof, and the top/bottom FOV is the same for both solution.
<!--quoteo(post=1796137:date=Aug 24 2010, 11:49 PM:name=Renegade.)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Renegade. @ Aug 24 2010, 11:49 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1796137"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If tomorrow Spark introduced "translucent texture rendering" for walls that enabled a slight degree of transparency for all walls, but was is so GPU intensive it can only be rendered by a triple SLI CUDA configuration, otherwise the textures default to opaque, do you then deem it "fair "that the very small minority of players who have such a setup be able to see through walls?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's already what physX is... And NS2 has PhysX And i don't see player complaining : Hey why nvidia user will have a smoke with more transparency effect than mine which has a lot of opacity, that's unfair.
<!--quoteo(post=1796141:date=Aug 24 2010, 07:00 PM:name=Tgaud)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tgaud @ Aug 24 2010, 07:00 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1796141"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->eyefinity is simple you just need two extra screen. you can have 2 screen for a total of 200$... it's not THAT expansive.
And even if you have three screen, you will only focus on one.
It's like if you say that if you have 12 screen all around you at 360°, you can see in all the direction. That's a nonsense. You have to choose wich screen you'll focus on. And the time you check Left, then Right, and then you move your mouse (with a react time), a good player will check with mouse at left and right side in less than a second without moving his eyes.
So i dont see any advantage here, except a better immersion. and it's just a 120°, not a 180°
And more over most skulks hide on roof, and the top/bottom FOV is the same for both solution.
So Stop whinning plz.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Delivering the facepalm as usual...
Clearly from someone who not only cannot comprehend or lacks peripheral vision, it's not surprising you also lack any insight on the matter. Furthermore that's precisely why only noobs hide on ceilings, not only because it's more obvious but because good skulks prefer to retain the option of strafe jump ambushing.
Third, did you see me mention PhysX in the question? A technology which most GPUs today (if not CPUs) can handle? No. Read the question and answer as it was asked, otherwise if you want to use PhysX as a strawman then I'll just retort with "eyefinity is already enabled, haven't you heard of resolution scaling?"
<!--quoteo(post=1796146:date=Aug 25 2010, 12:22 AM:name=Renegade.)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Renegade. @ Aug 25 2010, 12:22 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1796146"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Third, did you see me mention PhysX in the question? A technology which most GPUs today (if not CPUs) can handle? No. Read the question and answer as it was asked, otherwise if you want to use PhysX as a strawman then I'll just retort with "eyefinity is already enabled, haven't you heard of resolution scaling?"<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sorry but you're wrong.
PhysX is Nvidia Only. so less than 50% of users have it. (Most GPU are intel motherboard chip, and the others is divided between ATI and Nvidia)
Multi screen, is Both Nvidia (surround) and ATI (Eyefinity)
Learn about what you're speaking before answering..
<!--quoteo(post=1796137:date=Aug 24 2010, 06:49 PM:name=Renegade.)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Renegade. @ Aug 24 2010, 06:49 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1796137"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You're still having trouble grasping the "baseline system" concept. laser mice, ping, FPS, these are all attainable by the "baseline system" in desired amounts (even high DPI mice are within average consumer range, as is 100 FPS for Spark's DX9, and decent ping for anyone that doesn't live in a thrid world country); however FOV as given by eyefinity is <b>not</b> attainable by the average consumer and won't be for some time. Please tell me you see the difference and understand what "baseline" means because it is fundamental to the entire argument.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes, I'm perfectly well aware what a "baseline" system is. I've watched the Steam Hardware survey since it's inception. I've built consumer level computers for a living. And I do helpdesk for several enterprise-level companies, including hardware support. So I'm very, very well aware the range of hardware out there.
I really don't care about baseline systems. I want to see NS2 and Spark to be viable entities in the far future and it is in my nature to want to foster whatever emerging technologies might be out there that seem viable for gaming. Multiple monitors is one of those technologies and is currently available to whoever wants to make the financial investment needed to use it, which really isn't that much of an investment if you have a GFX card made in the last year and at least one monitor already. Not to mention many people already use dual-monitors on their PC, for various reasons, making it even easier to pick up multi-monitor gaming. Hell, everyone in my helpdesk department at work has at least 3 monitors.
Yeah, it's not something the majority will every have. Yes, it will never be part of a "baseline" system. I don't care about any of that. I'm playing NS2 on a PC, not a console. I'd like to be able to do just about anything I like to suit my gaming environment.
If enough people want to object to this tech to warrant a server-side variable to lock it out, whatever, that is fine. But multi-monitor seems like a super easy tech to implement into a game, just use Hor+ instead of Vert-. And because of that, I see no deniable reason to implement it.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If tomorrow Spark introduced "translucent texture rendering" for walls that enabled a slight degree of transparency for all walls, but was is so GPU intensive it can only be rendered by a triple SLI CUDA configuration, otherwise the textures default to opaque, do you then deem it "fair "that the very small minority of players who have such a setup be able to see through walls?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> That is so far out of whack from the current discussion, it's preposterous to imply that answering is somehow related to this discussion at all.
1.) Seeing through walls is something everyone on the planet can agree is cheating. Unlike a wider-FOV. Read: The entire thread. 2.) Comparing those that run 3xSLI/XFire to those that can run 1 card and 3 monitors is equally ridiculous. The financial investment between the two is large. Irrelevant.
1 Monitor = ~$150, 3x cards to use in SLI (and it be worth it) = ~$750, Motherboard capable of running all 3 at atleast 8x PCIe bandwidth = ~$200. <b>Total Investment = ~$1100</b>
You continuously want to harp on people for not being on the same page as you, while I think it seems more so that you are not on the same page as many of us. You and some of the others in this thread want to hold wide-FOV across multiple monitors in the same regard as overt cheating such as transparent textures and aim-bot when that is quite obviously not the case. It is your right to an opinion that they are alike, or that 3+ monitors is so out there that UWE needs to cold-shoulder all the current users and potential users, but I disagree.
It's very apparent that the 2 sides of this argument are never going to agree and the only solution is to offer a server-side variable to lock the game's FOV at... I don't know, 90 max? Whatever, it's all contrive and relative anyway.
<!--quoteo(post=1796148:date=Aug 25 2010, 02:30 AM:name=Tgaud)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tgaud @ Aug 25 2010, 02:30 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1796148"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Sorry but you're wrong.
PhysX is Nvidia Only.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No.
<!--quoteo(post=1770870:date=May 12 2010, 12:49 AM:name=Max)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Max @ May 12 2010, 12:49 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1770870"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I haven't read all of the posts, but we are not using any hardware acceleration with PhysX at the moment. So it doesn't matter what kind of card you have, it's all running on your CPU.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1796149:date=Aug 24 2010, 07:31 PM:name=WhiteZero)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (WhiteZero @ Aug 24 2010, 07:31 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1796149"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I really don't care about baseline systems. I want to see NS2 and Spark to be viable entities in the far future and it is in my nature to want to foster whatever emerging technologies might be out there that seem viable for gaming.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I stopped reading there, after you committed argument suicide by admitting you are completely off base in a discussion about a game in the present.
Firstly, a game <b>as a piece of software</b> is inherently future-friendly because it can be updated at any time (and unlocking FOV is certainly one of the easier updates), so I'm not sure if it's that you can't or won't understand this point, but I'll headline it one last time in hopes it might sink in: locking FOV is not a permanent decision, it can be revised at any time in the future. without a time machine.
Secondly it is apparent your goal of emerging the cutting edge is at odds with a game like NS2, which UWE has already expressly stated will be of modest requirements (DX9). Such interests are welcome in games like Crysis and SIGGRAPH conventions, but clearly your opinion is out of place for this discussion which is about balancing gameplay for the majority of players, not advantageous advancement for a select minority.
edit: and though I shouldn't have I did and I regret reading your post further but... a) clearly you have never heard of a material called "glass". A strange substance, apparently you can see through it, yet most do not consider the ability out of place. Likewise if a similar material required expensive technology to render it properly, you can bet it would not see much use in-game. b) Yes, because quality 22" IPC panels don't start at $200 a piece, so your eyefinity estimate is closer to ~$1000, but hey let's pretend a difference of $100 or even $300 at that range makes the analogy completely "irrelevant" (groan). Regardless of the price it is only attainable by a minority of players as evidenced by the survey I posted earlier. So the question remains: are you going to implement translucent walls if only 1% of the playerbase will be able to see through them? (again, answered by a game designer, not some cutting-edge tech fanatic)
PhysX is a Nvidia owned physics library. Runs on CPUs fine. All the advanced physics will take advantage of CUDA, which for the most part is Nvidia only.
IMO just leave NS2 as is with single screen for now. If it becomes more of a demand, simply just patch it in, in the future.
<!--quoteo(post=1796158:date=Aug 24 2010, 07:34 PM:name=Renegade.)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Renegade. @ Aug 24 2010, 07:34 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1796158"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->edit: and though I shouldn't have I did and I regret reading your post further but... a) clearly you have never heard of a material called "glass". A strange substance, apparently you can see through it, yet most do not consider the ability out of place. Likewise if a similar material required expensive technology to render it properly, you can bet it would not see much use in-game.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wow, good job on the mislead. While several other posts equated wide-FOV to wall hacks, you slip in a very similar comment... but of course you were <b>obviously</b> only referring to glass-like textures. Oh yes, I feel so foolish, however did I confuse the two. Oh me, oh my, what a dunce. Your argument grows strong with every embarrassment you cause, Renegade. Feed on the embarrassment.. feeeeeed!
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->b) Yes, because quality 22" IPC panels don't start at $200 a piece, so your eyefinity estimate is closer to ~$1000, but hey let's pretend a difference of $100 or even $300 at that range makes the analogy completely "irrelevant" (groan). Regardless of the price it is only attainable by a minority of players as evidenced by the survey I posted earlier. So the question remains: are you going to implement translucent walls if only 1% of the playerbase will be able to see through them? (again, answered by a game designer, not some cutting-edge tech fanatic)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> You think you need an IP<b>S</b> panel for your side-view monitors? No. A TN panel is all you really need for a screen your going to be mainly seeing via your peripherals. Significantly cheaper.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I stopped reading there, after you committed argument suicide by admitting you are completely off base in a discussion about a game in the present.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Hint: The underlying subject that you're basing your argument on (baseline, <b>baseline</b>, <b>BASELINE</b>) is <b>not</b> what every single other participant is basing their argument on. Get it through your head man. Some are with you on that. Others are arguing on the principal of the matter. So you can drop the attitude that your argument is to be held in so much higher regard because that is your subject matter. Honestly, I don't think the majority here care about what a baseline system is, either.
I know that seems preposterous to you and your going to feel the urge to insult my and everyone else's intelligence on that matter. So save yourself the time and don't bother. We know your attitude on the subject. It really doesn't help you convince the rest of us. Though I don't think that is even your aim at this point. It seems more like you need to put yourself on-high, upon the pillar of undeniable knowledge and logic and forsake all others opinions. Really, that is great. I'm happy for you.
Ya know, Flayra or Max could very easily put an end to this squabbling if they just commented on what they plan to do. Maybe the enjoy watching?
<!--quoteo(post=1796167:date=Aug 24 2010, 09:03 PM:name=WhiteZero)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (WhiteZero @ Aug 24 2010, 09:03 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1796167"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Wow, good job on the mislead. While several other posts equated wide-FOV to wall hacks, you slip in a very similar comment... but of course you were <b>obviously</b> only referring to glass-like textures.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Again, next time READ, as my example of translucent walls was the very first analogy in this thread and never implied translucency as a result of hacks, but rather an aesthetic preference that only a minority could attain (much like eyefinity).
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You think you need an IP<b>S</b> panel for your side-view monitors? No. A TN panel is all you really need for a screen your going to be mainly seeing via your peripherals. Significantly cheaper.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Because of course if you were to choose two monitor to view from an angle/peripheral it would be a TN since we all know how good TNs are with angles. But hey, let's use 15" for my triple SLI example since we're arbitrarily making it cheaper. Obviously what you don't get Bob Barker is that this isn't The Price Is Right, the SLI example was arbitrary, used to convey exclusivity to a minority. Anything that get's you within the 1% mark will do (eyefinity, triple SLI, liquid nitrogen cooling, what have you).
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Hint: The underlying subject that your basing your argument on (baseline, <b>baseline</b>, <b>BASELINE</b>) is <b>not</b> what every single other participant is basing their argument on. Get it through your head man.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Here's the magical thing between those opinions which are for baseline, and those for beyond it: one belongs in a DX9 game targeted at a modest rig, the other belongs in a DX11 rig showcased at a convention. I wonder which "opinion" could be more accurate in the context of NS2?...
<!--quoteo(post=1796171:date=Aug 24 2010, 08:36 PM:name=Renegade.)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Renegade. @ Aug 24 2010, 08:36 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1796171"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Because of course if you were to choose two monitor to view from an angle/peripheral it would be a TN since we all know how good TNs are with angles.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Getting the dimming/negative effect from a TN panel is dependent on what angle the panel is at to your head, not the eye. As long as the screen is oriented at an angle (sort of "pointing" at your head), and not directly parallel to the main monitor (which is how multi-monitors should be situated), then you won't have that problem. You can test this by staying centered to your monitor and turning your head about 30°. This is how the side monitors should be oriented in a multi-monitor setup. Not all in a straight line, which would cause the cursed TN quality issues, since the panels are then at an angle to your head, instead of "pointing" at it.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Here's the magical thing between those opinions which are for baseline, and those for beyond it: one belongs in a DX9 game targeted at a modest rig, the other belongs in a DX11 rig showcased at a convention. I wonder which "opinion" could be more accurate in the context of NS2?...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Indeed, quite magical. Except for that FOV has no direct relation to the DX level or overall graphical level of the game. E.g.: You can use Eyefinity in HL2 (a DX9 game) with little effort.
Renegade, I understand your logic/reasoning and I can respect it. But I do not agree with it. We're on two sides of the same coin, but I believe that never the two shall meet.
I don't expect or even want to sway your or anyone else's opinion on this matter. But I would, in kind, like to be understood and respected in my own view, as I'm sure everyone else would; not constantly browbeat for having an <i>inferior</i> or <i>ignorant</i> stance on the subject.
Been watching this thread. Have to admit, this is starting to get way out there. I see both sides of the coin, but I will still be buying an Eyefinity setup in the next weeks because I see it becoming common in the years to come. Like I said before, this is an "ZOMG scripts!" thread. So solve it like one. Do mp_widefov 1 or whatever.
Playing a pub game, you are going to be more concerned with having fun than wondering if the guy who killed you had a surround/eyefinity setup. Have a problem with a wide fov in a pub game? Create your own server and disable mp_widefov. Fairness is only needed in league matches, so let the leagues determine what is fair and what isn't. Don't agree with their stance on the subject? Goto a different league.
when will you understand that even if you have multi screen you can focus on only a little part of one ? if something is on the left or right, you'll be aware of it with a 5.1 systeme/headset anyway. Each game is more/less competitive. So stop denying the new technology just because you don't have it ! It's selfish You want better advantage ? Get better hardware (perf, mouse, OS, 300$ 5.1 headset, whatever). Thats how PC world works since the beginning of time.
and renegarde you're definitvely wrong : A screen is always perpendicular to the head. It's how it has to work. so it doesn't matter if the sreen is a TN or IPS...
And seriously a IPS Screen with the response time of it and input lag ? let me laugh. It seems that you're ready to find anything to make your point right.
<!--quoteo(post=1796176:date=Aug 25 2010, 04:25 AM:name=TheDestroyer)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TheDestroyer @ Aug 25 2010, 04:25 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1796176"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Been watching this thread. Have to admit, this is starting to get way out there. I see both sides of the coin, but I will still be buying an Eyefinity setup in the next weeks because I see it becoming common in the years to come. Like I said before, this is an "ZOMG scripts!" thread. So solve it like one. Do mp_widefov 1 or whatever.
Playing a pub game, you are going to be more concerned with having fun than wondering if the guy who killed you had a surround/eyefinity setup. Have a problem with a wide fov in a pub game? Create your own server and disable mp_widefov. Fairness is only needed in league matches, so let the leagues determine what is fair and what isn't. Don't agree with their stance on the subject? Goto a different league.
Simple.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is the voice of reason.
Does eyefinity give users an advantage? Yes. Is this advantage big enouth to matter in anything other than top level competiton? No.
As has been started several times the answer is simple, a server var to resctict FOV. leages can then choose to restrict or not, simple.
Every game these days is Hor+(Meaning: wider resolution will expand FOV), even highly competetive games like Quake I/II/III/IV, HL2(CS:S), UT99/2k3/2k4/3, BF2, CoD. It's kind of out of question whether it should be implemented or not.
If you want to make your game look like something from the last millenium, when widescreen monitors were more rare than anything else, then go ahead.
I have been using a widescreen monitor for over 3 years now and I raged so hard when crappy coded games cut off the top and bottom of the FOV when choosing a widescreen resolution.(If they supprted it at all) (NS1 being a HL1 mod which allows only for VERT-) So in the end, instead of 1680x1050, I had to run it with black bars on the sides on 4:3 1400x1050 because in an shooter where lots of stuff is hanging on the ceiling or small things biting your legs off, vert- is really not the way to go.
Btw: the FOV of ONE! human eye is about 140°. However since our vision consists of 2 images "brained" together, its more close to 180-190°(some people can reach a peripheral vision of over 200°)
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->just face it allready: a competitive game (like NS2) is not suitable for such an incredible advantage just for those that can afford it.
maybe sometime in the future when full HD gaming monitors can be mass produced on a big roll of 2mm thick substrate and thus making a super widescreen monitor incredibly cheap -> it will be ok to allow such an increased FOV in competitive game.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wrong! Every "other" competetive game these days allows for wider FOV. Plus you don't need FULLHD monitors. 1600x900(~22") is the same FOV as 1920x1080(~24"). I can get a hold of 22" 16:9/16:10 monitors for around 110 bucks.(Thats including 19% sales tax!)
<!--c1--><div class='codetop'>CODE</div><div class='codemain'><!--ec1-->1280 x 720 0.75% 1280 x 800 7.36% 1360 x 768 1.27% 1366 x 768 6.06% 1440 x 900 10.91% 1600 x 900 3.06% 1680 x 1050 16.71% 1920 x 1080 11.84% 1920 x 1200 5.68%
63,64%<!--c2--></div><!--ec2-->
Thats almost 2/3 persons using a widescreen monitor.
Whereas i can kinda understand/agree that Eyefinity is over the top in terms of FOV. The FOV of 4:3 is usually 90°, 16:10 100°, 16:9 ~106°. Allowing atleast to go up to 120° or so sounds reasonable enough for any single monitor situation. (3x 16:9 monitors use an FOV of 152°)
<!--quoteo(post=1796218:date=Aug 25 2010, 01:57 PM:name=Kill0r)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kill0r @ Aug 25 2010, 01:57 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1796218"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I have been using a widescreen monitor for over 3 years now and I raged so hard when crappy coded games cut off the top and bottom of the FOV when choosing a widescreen resolution.(If they supprted it at all) (NS1 being a HL1 mod which allows only for VERT-) So in the end, instead of 1680x1050, I had to run it with black bars on the sides on 4:3 1400x1050 because in an shooter where lots of stuff is hanging on the ceiling or small things biting your legs off, vert- is really not the way to go.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There lies the problem Kill0r, the people advocating some variable to limit the fov are of the impression that the vertical is not reduced. However if the fov was hard limited that is the ONLY possible way for widescreen to function. A 1680x1050 would be trying to display 1680x1260. It would display the horizontal perfectly, but the vertical would be reduced by 20%.
1280 x 720 - 33% 1280 x 800 - 20% 1360 x 768 - 33% 1440 x 900 - 16% 1600 x 900 - 33% 1920 x 1080 - 33% 1920 x 1200 - 20%
Is the reduction of vertical over various resolutions using vert-. In the horizontal fov limiting 'fairness' does any of it take that into consideration, at all?
In theory 3 screens of 1920x1080 would be trying to display an area of 5760x4320 with a fixed horizontal fov but its maximum vertical pixels is limited to 1080, a massive 75% reduction is viewable vertical screen.
Some older engine do indeed cut off the vertical resolution, but most modern engines just increase the visible area drastically. With a few exceptions that either cut off vertically or use a zoom effect, while still increasing the visible area (maybe half of the engines that do it correctly)
Source does put the HUD in an odd position though (far left and far right <img src="http://members.home.nl/m.borgman/ns-forum/smileys/shifty.gif" border="0" class="linked-image" />)
We know how its supposed to work, if its supported.
I meant that if it wasn't supported, combined with a fixed horizontal, it would theoretically reduce the vertical by 75%.
This isn't something that should be a server variable. I'm not convinced it should be a client variable either, but I think the game should support eyefinity and widescreen properly, and automatically when the resolution is selected.
wsgf isn't the best resource either, alot of the widescreen methods there are .ini changes or 3rd party apps that "patch" the engine of the game.
<!--quoteo(post=1795921:date=Aug 23 2010, 05:42 PM:name=WhiteZero)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (WhiteZero @ Aug 23 2010, 05:42 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1795921"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Locking FOV on purpose is just turning a blind-eye to the possible future.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't see the average player having 3 monitors any time soon. Allowing optimal FoV for up to something like 16:9 would be sufficient in my opinion, as monitors like that will probably become quite common.. having three screens is just gamey for a multiplayer shooter which is supposed to be competitive.
<!--quoteo(post=1795197:date=Aug 19 2010, 02:18 PM:name=ssjyoda)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ssjyoda @ Aug 19 2010, 02:18 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1795197"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->everything can be an unfair advantage... if you're so worried about that you may as well eliminate surround sound also and force everyone to deal with headphones.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
absolutely true. I don't have eyefiniti and probably don't make enough money to justify it but it ABSOLUTELY must be supported. You are going to have a lot of people saying "What the hell? They created their own engine and didn't add EF support??? What maroons!!"
Comments
You're still having trouble grasping the "baseline system" concept. laser mice, ping, FPS, these are all attainable by the "baseline system" in desired amounts (even high DPI mice are within average consumer range, as is 100 FPS for Spark's DX9, and decent ping for anyone that doesn't live in a thrid world country); however FOV as given by eyefinity is <b>not</b> attainable by the average consumer and won't be for some time. Please tell me you see the difference and understand what "baseline" means because it is fundamental to the entire argument.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->These topics are a bit more relative. Boosting gamma over a certain amount is crippling other player's ability to hide in shadows, so I can see the logic in that.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Then you see why it and eyefinity will be locked. Boosting FOV has the same effect, crippling players ability to hide in corners. Even with the astute marine who expected hiding skulks it was still a gamble: if he came through the doorway and looked at the wrong corner, you had a chance. But with the eyefinity player, they need only check their peripheral and suddenly the skulk ambush becomes that less effective.
.
I don't really get how people can <b>not</b> see why tweaking variables that have <b>historically</b> been locked for these reason, wouldn't convey an advantage. Do you think every part of the engine should be open as license to configure as each player pleases and expect it somehow not to affect gameplay? For those still in doubt, I ask only that you answer the initial question I proposed at the beginning of the topic and you will have your answer:
If tomorrow Spark introduced "translucent texture rendering" for walls that enabled a slight degree of transparency for all walls, but was is so GPU intensive it can only be rendered by a triple SLI CUDA configuration, otherwise the textures default to opaque, do you then deem it "fair "that the very small minority of players who have such a setup be able to see through walls?
Answer this question (or rather answer it as you think any sane developer wanting to protect the balance of gameplay in their game would), and you have your answer to this entire debate.
you can have 2 screen for a total of 200$... it's not THAT expansive.
And even if you have three screen, you will only focus on one.
It's like if you say that if you have 12 screen all around you at 360°, you can see in all the direction. That's a nonsense.
You have to choose wich screen you'll focus on. And the time you check Left, then Right, and then you move your mouse (with a react time), a good player will check with mouse at left and right side in less than a second without moving his eyes.
So i dont see any advantage here, except a better immersion.
and it's just a 120°, not a 180°
And more over most skulks hide on roof, and the top/bottom FOV is the same for both solution.
So Stop whinning plz.
That's already what physX is...
And NS2 has PhysX
And i don't see player complaining : Hey why nvidia user will have a smoke with more transparency effect than mine which has a lot of opacity, that's unfair.
QUESTION ANSWERED
you can have 2 screen for a total of 200$... it's not THAT expansive.
And even if you have three screen, you will only focus on one.
It's like if you say that if you have 12 screen all around you at 360°, you can see in all the direction. That's a nonsense.
You have to choose wich screen you'll focus on. And the time you check Left, then Right, and then you move your mouse (with a react time), a good player will check with mouse at left and right side in less than a second without moving his eyes.
So i dont see any advantage here, except a better immersion.
and it's just a 120°, not a 180°
And more over most skulks hide on roof, and the top/bottom FOV is the same for both solution.
So Stop whinning plz.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Delivering the facepalm as usual...
Clearly from someone who not only cannot comprehend or lacks peripheral vision, it's not surprising you also lack any insight on the matter. Furthermore that's precisely why only noobs hide on ceilings, not only because it's more obvious but because good skulks prefer to retain the option of strafe jump ambushing.
Third, did you see me mention PhysX in the question? A technology which most GPUs today (if not CPUs) can handle? No. Read the question and answer as it was asked, otherwise if you want to use PhysX as a strawman then I'll just retort with "eyefinity is already enabled, haven't you heard of resolution scaling?"
Sorry but you're wrong.
PhysX is Nvidia Only. so less than 50% of users have it. (Most GPU are intel motherboard chip, and the others is divided between ATI and Nvidia)
Multi screen, is Both Nvidia (surround) and ATI (Eyefinity)
Learn about what you're speaking before answering..
Yes, I'm perfectly well aware what a "baseline" system is. I've watched the Steam Hardware survey since it's inception. I've built consumer level computers for a living. And I do helpdesk for several enterprise-level companies, including hardware support. So I'm very, very well aware the range of hardware out there.
I really don't care about baseline systems. I want to see NS2 and Spark to be viable entities in the far future and it is in my nature to want to foster whatever emerging technologies might be out there that seem viable for gaming. Multiple monitors is one of those technologies and is currently available to whoever wants to make the financial investment needed to use it, which really isn't that much of an investment if you have a GFX card made in the last year and at least one monitor already.
Not to mention many people already use dual-monitors on their PC, for various reasons, making it even easier to pick up multi-monitor gaming. Hell, everyone in my helpdesk department at work has at least 3 monitors.
Yeah, it's not something the majority will every have. Yes, it will never be part of a "baseline" system. I don't care about any of that. I'm playing NS2 on a PC, not a console. I'd like to be able to do just about anything I like to suit my gaming environment.
If enough people want to object to this tech to warrant a server-side variable to lock it out, whatever, that is fine. But multi-monitor seems like a super easy tech to implement into a game, just use Hor+ instead of Vert-. And because of that, I see no deniable reason to implement it.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If tomorrow Spark introduced "translucent texture rendering" for walls that enabled a slight degree of transparency for all walls, but was is so GPU intensive it can only be rendered by a triple SLI CUDA configuration, otherwise the textures default to opaque, do you then deem it "fair "that the very small minority of players who have such a setup be able to see through walls?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That is so far out of whack from the current discussion, it's preposterous to imply that answering is somehow related to this discussion at all.
1.) Seeing through walls is something everyone on the planet can agree is cheating. Unlike a wider-FOV. Read: The entire thread.
2.) Comparing those that run 3xSLI/XFire to those that can run 1 card and 3 monitors is equally ridiculous. The financial investment between the two is large. Irrelevant.
3 Monitors = ~$450, Eyefinity capable GFX card = ~$250, Motherboard capable of running that 1 card = ~$80 - $100. <b>Total Investment = ~$800</b>
1 Monitor = ~$150, 3x cards to use in SLI (and it be worth it) = ~$750, Motherboard capable of running all 3 at atleast 8x PCIe bandwidth = ~$200. <b>Total Investment = ~$1100</b>
You continuously want to harp on people for not being on the same page as you, while I think it seems more so that you are not on the same page as many of us. You and some of the others in this thread want to hold wide-FOV across multiple monitors in the same regard as overt cheating such as transparent textures and aim-bot when that is quite obviously not the case. It is your right to an opinion that they are alike, or that 3+ monitors is so out there that UWE needs to cold-shoulder all the current users and potential users, but I disagree.
It's very apparent that the 2 sides of this argument are never going to agree and the only solution is to offer a server-side variable to lock the game's FOV at... I don't know, 90 max? Whatever, it's all contrive and relative anyway.
PhysX is Nvidia Only.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No.
<!--quoteo(post=1770870:date=May 12 2010, 12:49 AM:name=Max)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Max @ May 12 2010, 12:49 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1770870"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I haven't read all of the posts, but we are not using any hardware acceleration with PhysX at the moment. So it doesn't matter what kind of card you have, it's all running on your CPU.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I stopped reading there, after you committed argument suicide by admitting you are completely off base in a discussion about a game in the present.
Firstly, a game <b>as a piece of software</b> is inherently future-friendly because it can be updated at any time (and unlocking FOV is certainly one of the easier updates), so I'm not sure if it's that you can't or won't understand this point, but I'll headline it one last time in hopes it might sink in: locking FOV is not a permanent decision, it can be revised at any time in the future. without a time machine.
Secondly it is apparent your goal of emerging the cutting edge is at odds with a game like NS2, which UWE has already expressly stated will be of modest requirements (DX9). Such interests are welcome in games like Crysis and SIGGRAPH conventions, but clearly your opinion is out of place for this discussion which is about balancing gameplay for the majority of players, not advantageous advancement for a select minority.
edit: and though I shouldn't have I did and I regret reading your post further but...
a) clearly you have never heard of a material called "glass". A strange substance, apparently you can see through it, yet most do not consider the ability out of place. Likewise if a similar material required expensive technology to render it properly, you can bet it would not see much use in-game.
b) Yes, because quality 22" IPC panels don't start at $200 a piece, so your eyefinity estimate is closer to ~$1000, but hey let's pretend a difference of $100 or even $300 at that range makes the analogy completely "irrelevant" (groan). Regardless of the price it is only attainable by a minority of players as evidenced by the survey I posted earlier. So the question remains: are you going to implement translucent walls if only 1% of the playerbase will be able to see through them? (again, answered by a game designer, not some cutting-edge tech fanatic)
PhysX is a Nvidia owned physics library. Runs on CPUs fine. All the advanced physics will take advantage of CUDA, which for the most part is Nvidia only.
IMO just leave NS2 as is with single screen for now. If it becomes more of a demand, simply just patch it in, in the future.
a) clearly you have never heard of a material called "glass". A strange substance, apparently you can see through it, yet most do not consider the ability out of place. Likewise if a similar material required expensive technology to render it properly, you can bet it would not see much use in-game.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wow, good job on the mislead. While several other posts equated wide-FOV to wall hacks, you slip in a very similar comment... but of course you were <b>obviously</b> only referring to glass-like textures.
Oh yes, I feel so foolish, however did I confuse the two. Oh me, oh my, what a dunce.
Your argument grows strong with every embarrassment you cause, Renegade. Feed on the embarrassment.. feeeeeed!
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->b) Yes, because quality 22" IPC panels don't start at $200 a piece, so your eyefinity estimate is closer to ~$1000, but hey let's pretend a difference of $100 or even $300 at that range makes the analogy completely "irrelevant" (groan). Regardless of the price it is only attainable by a minority of players as evidenced by the survey I posted earlier. So the question remains: are you going to implement translucent walls if only 1% of the playerbase will be able to see through them? (again, answered by a game designer, not some cutting-edge tech fanatic)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You think you need an IP<b>S</b> panel for your side-view monitors? No. A TN panel is all you really need for a screen your going to be mainly seeing via your peripherals. Significantly cheaper.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I stopped reading there, after you committed argument suicide by admitting you are completely off base in a discussion about a game in the present.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hint: The underlying subject that you're basing your argument on (baseline, <b>baseline</b>, <b>BASELINE</b>) is <b>not</b> what every single other participant is basing their argument on. Get it through your head man.
Some are with you on that. Others are arguing on the principal of the matter. So you can drop the attitude that your argument is to be held in so much higher regard because that is your subject matter. Honestly, I don't think the majority here care about what a baseline system is, either.
I know that seems preposterous to you and your going to feel the urge to insult my and everyone else's intelligence on that matter. So save yourself the time and don't bother. We know your attitude on the subject. It really doesn't help you convince the rest of us. Though I don't think that is even your aim at this point. It seems more like you need to put yourself on-high, upon the pillar of undeniable knowledge and logic and forsake all others opinions.
Really, that is great. I'm happy for you.
Ya know, Flayra or Max could very easily put an end to this squabbling if they just commented on what they plan to do. Maybe the enjoy watching?
Again, next time READ, as my example of translucent walls was the very first analogy in this thread and never implied translucency as a result of hacks, but rather an aesthetic preference that only a minority could attain (much like eyefinity).
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You think you need an IP<b>S</b> panel for your side-view monitors? No. A TN panel is all you really need for a screen your going to be mainly seeing via your peripherals. Significantly cheaper.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Because of course if you were to choose two monitor to view from an angle/peripheral it would be a TN since we all know how good TNs are with angles. But hey, let's use 15" for my triple SLI example since we're arbitrarily making it cheaper. Obviously what you don't get Bob Barker is that this isn't The Price Is Right, the SLI example was arbitrary, used to convey exclusivity to a minority. Anything that get's you within the 1% mark will do (eyefinity, triple SLI, liquid nitrogen cooling, what have you).
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Hint: The underlying subject that your basing your argument on (baseline, <b>baseline</b>, <b>BASELINE</b>) is <b>not</b> what every single other participant is basing their argument on. Get it through your head man.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Here's the magical thing between those opinions which are for baseline, and those for beyond it: one belongs in a DX9 game targeted at a modest rig, the other belongs in a DX11 rig showcased at a convention. I wonder which "opinion" could be more accurate in the context of NS2?...
Getting the dimming/negative effect from a TN panel is dependent on what angle the panel is at to your head, not the eye. As long as the screen is oriented at an angle (sort of "pointing" at your head), and not directly parallel to the main monitor (which is how multi-monitors should be situated), then you won't have that problem.
You can test this by staying centered to your monitor and turning your head about 30°. This is how the side monitors should be oriented in a multi-monitor setup. Not all in a straight line, which would cause the cursed TN quality issues, since the panels are then at an angle to your head, instead of "pointing" at it.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Here's the magical thing between those opinions which are for baseline, and those for beyond it: one belongs in a DX9 game targeted at a modest rig, the other belongs in a DX11 rig showcased at a convention. I wonder which "opinion" could be more accurate in the context of NS2?...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Indeed, quite magical. Except for that FOV has no direct relation to the DX level or overall graphical level of the game.
E.g.: You can use Eyefinity in HL2 (a DX9 game) with little effort.
Renegade, I understand your logic/reasoning and I can respect it. But I do not agree with it.
We're on two sides of the same coin, but I believe that never the two shall meet.
I don't expect or even want to sway your or anyone else's opinion on this matter. But I would, in kind, like to be understood and respected in my own view, as I'm sure everyone else would; not constantly browbeat for having an <i>inferior</i> or <i>ignorant</i> stance on the subject.
Playing a pub game, you are going to be more concerned with having fun than wondering if the guy who killed you had a surround/eyefinity setup. Have a problem with a wide fov in a pub game? Create your own server and disable mp_widefov. Fairness is only needed in league matches, so let the leagues determine what is fair and what isn't. Don't agree with their stance on the subject? Goto a different league.
Simple.
if something is on the left or right, you'll be aware of it with a 5.1 systeme/headset anyway.
Each game is more/less competitive. So stop denying the new technology just because you don't have it ! It's selfish
You want better advantage ? Get better hardware (perf, mouse, OS, 300$ 5.1 headset, whatever). Thats how PC world works since the beginning of time.
and renegarde you're definitvely wrong :
A screen is always perpendicular to the head. It's how it has to work.
so it doesn't matter if the sreen is a TN or IPS...
And seriously a IPS Screen with the response time of it and input lag ? let me laugh.
It seems that you're ready to find anything to make your point right.
Playing a pub game, you are going to be more concerned with having fun than wondering if the guy who killed you had a surround/eyefinity setup. Have a problem with a wide fov in a pub game? Create your own server and disable mp_widefov. Fairness is only needed in league matches, so let the leagues determine what is fair and what isn't. Don't agree with their stance on the subject? Goto a different league.
Simple.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is the voice of reason.
Does eyefinity give users an advantage? Yes.
Is this advantage big enouth to matter in anything other than top level competiton? No.
As has been started several times the answer is simple, a server var to resctict FOV. leages can then choose to restrict or not, simple.
Every game these days is Hor+(Meaning: wider resolution will expand FOV), even highly competetive games like Quake I/II/III/IV, HL2(CS:S), UT99/2k3/2k4/3, BF2, CoD.
It's kind of out of question whether it should be implemented or not.
If you want to make your game look like something from the last millenium, when widescreen monitors were more rare than anything else, then go ahead.
I have been using a widescreen monitor for over 3 years now and I raged so hard when crappy coded games cut off the top and bottom of the FOV when choosing a widescreen resolution.(If they supprted it at all)
(NS1 being a HL1 mod which allows only for VERT-)
So in the end, instead of 1680x1050, I had to run it with black bars on the sides on 4:3 1400x1050 because in an shooter
where lots of stuff is hanging on the ceiling or small things biting your legs off, vert- is really not the way to go.
Btw: the FOV of ONE! human eye is about 140°. However since our vision consists of 2 images "brained" together, its more close to 180-190°(some people can reach a peripheral vision of over 200°)
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->just face it allready: a competitive game (like NS2) is not suitable for such an incredible advantage just for those that can afford it.
maybe sometime in the future when full HD gaming monitors can be mass produced on a big roll of 2mm thick substrate and thus making a super widescreen monitor incredibly cheap -> it will be ok to allow such an increased FOV in competitive game.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wrong! Every "other" competetive game these days allows for wider FOV. Plus you don't need FULLHD monitors.
1600x900(~22") is the same FOV as 1920x1080(~24"). I can get a hold of 22" 16:9/16:10 monitors for around 110 bucks.(Thats including 19% sales tax!)
Steam hardware survey:
<a href="http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey" target="_blank">http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey</a>
<!--c1--><div class='codetop'>CODE</div><div class='codemain'><!--ec1-->1280 x 720 0.75%
1280 x 800 7.36%
1360 x 768 1.27%
1366 x 768 6.06%
1440 x 900 10.91%
1600 x 900 3.06%
1680 x 1050 16.71%
1920 x 1080 11.84%
1920 x 1200 5.68%
63,64%<!--c2--></div><!--ec2-->
Thats almost 2/3 persons using a widescreen monitor.
Whereas i can kinda understand/agree that Eyefinity is over the top in terms of FOV.
The FOV of 4:3 is usually 90°, 16:10 100°, 16:9 ~106°. Allowing atleast to go up to 120° or so sounds reasonable enough for any single monitor situation.
(3x 16:9 monitors use an FOV of 152°)
(NS1 being a HL1 mod which allows only for VERT-)
So in the end, instead of 1680x1050, I had to run it with black bars on the sides on 4:3 1400x1050 because in an shooter
where lots of stuff is hanging on the ceiling or small things biting your legs off, vert- is really not the way to go.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There lies the problem Kill0r, the people advocating some variable to limit the fov are of the impression that the vertical is not reduced. However if the fov was hard limited that is the ONLY possible way for widescreen to function. A 1680x1050 would be trying to display 1680x1260. It would display the horizontal perfectly, but the vertical would be reduced by 20%.
1280 x 720 - 33%
1280 x 800 - 20%
1360 x 768 - 33%
1440 x 900 - 16%
1600 x 900 - 33%
1920 x 1080 - 33%
1920 x 1200 - 20%
Is the reduction of vertical over various resolutions using vert-. In the horizontal fov limiting 'fairness' does any of it take that into consideration, at all?
In theory 3 screens of 1920x1080 would be trying to display an area of 5760x4320 with a fixed horizontal fov but its maximum vertical pixels is limited to 1080, a massive 75% reduction is viewable vertical screen.
<a href="http://support.amd.com/us/eyefinity/Pages/eyefinity-soft-reqs-2010apr1.aspx" target="_blank">http://support.amd.com/us/eyefinity/Pages/...s-2010apr1.aspx</a> <i>Field of View (FOV) part</i>
[edit]
That is also if the game engine in question handles FoV like this.
[edit]
play around with this one (surround view) to see it in action (I chose HL2:Lost Coast as an example)
<a href="http://www.widescreengamingforum.com/screenshots/hl2-lc-th2go.php" target="_blank">http://www.widescreengamingforum.com/scree...l2-lc-th2go.php</a>
Some older engine do indeed cut off the vertical resolution, but most modern engines just increase the visible area drastically. With a few exceptions that either cut off vertically or use a zoom effect, while still increasing the visible area (maybe half of the engines that do it correctly)
Source does put the HUD in an odd position though (far left and far right <img src="http://members.home.nl/m.borgman/ns-forum/smileys/shifty.gif" border="0" class="linked-image" />)
I meant that if it wasn't supported, combined with a fixed horizontal, it would theoretically reduce the vertical by 75%.
This isn't something that should be a server variable. I'm not convinced it should be a client variable either, but I think the game should support eyefinity and widescreen properly, and automatically when the resolution is selected.
wsgf isn't the best resource either, alot of the widescreen methods there are .ini changes or 3rd party apps that "patch" the engine of the game.
I don't see the average player having 3 monitors any time soon. Allowing optimal FoV for up to something like 16:9 would be sufficient in my opinion, as monitors like that will probably become quite common.. having three screens is just gamey for a multiplayer shooter which is supposed to be competitive.
absolutely true. I don't have eyefiniti and probably don't make enough money to justify it but it ABSOLUTELY must be supported. You are going to have a lot of people saying "What the hell? They created their own engine and didn't add EF support??? What maroons!!"