FOV Configuration?
flintlock
Join Date: 2004-06-15 Member: 29320Members
Join Date: 2004-06-15 Member: 29320Members
Hey guys.
I've got a buddy who won't play the copy of NS2 I bought him since he's having trouble getting it to work with Eyefinity. The resolution works, but since the FOV is locked to whatever it starts as, its kind of unplayable.
Or so I hear. I know, I'm tearing up for him too.
Anyway, I was wondering if you guys knew if a console command exists for that, or if theres a config he could edit, and more generally, if theres a console command dump somewhere with everything I could look at.
Thanks a ton, enjoying the Alpha.
I've got a buddy who won't play the copy of NS2 I bought him since he's having trouble getting it to work with Eyefinity. The resolution works, but since the FOV is locked to whatever it starts as, its kind of unplayable.
Or so I hear. I know, I'm tearing up for him too.
Anyway, I was wondering if you guys knew if a console command exists for that, or if theres a config he could edit, and more generally, if theres a console command dump somewhere with everything I could look at.
Thanks a ton, enjoying the Alpha.
Comments
Thanks for any help guys.
Should it be capped? Yes.
Should it be locked? No.
Not sure on the number conversions for eyefinity but using a single monitor it should be able to go to at least 90.
How wide your viewing angle is, so you can see more on the screen at once.
Whilst a high FOV helps to see more of what is going on infront of you, the higher it gets, the more 'zoomed out' the players become infront of you.
Too high and it is harder to aim, too low and you can't see enough of what is going on.
Too high and it is harder to aim, too low and you can't see enough of what is going on.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not quite, you only get the zoomed-out or "fisheye" effect if you are on a normal resolution:
<img src="http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/159/fovk.jpg" border="0" class="linked-image" />
The green line represents the default FOV on default resolution (i.e. you can see the marine). Attempting to up the FOV (the red line) results in seeing more (the two skulks), but with a "fisheye" effect on the same resolution. However, the multi-monitor ultra-wide resolution user will be able to view it across 3 monitors, so it will appear normal and undistorted.
As above, this means that normal users must choose between seeing less, or seeing more distorted. This may have been only a debatable advantage back in the days of pro Q3 players who used 120+ FOV since only one monitor was available and everyone was faced with the same choice (distortion or FOV). However now that three monitors are possible, the triple-monitor gamer gains the extra viewing information while not suffering any distortion; an unquestionable and unfair advantage that will remain so until these setups become common enough for the vast majority.
Resolution or monitor size doesn't have that much to do with it. Monitor size does to some extent because it's uncomfortable to sit too close to the display. The fish-eye effect is primarily caused by the mismatch between the solid angle subtended by the displays in your field of view and the solid angle they represent ingame.
E.g. if you sit with your face planted 10 centimeters from a small monitor a FOV of 120 degrees looks about right and a FOV of 90 degrees looks too small.
With only a single flat monitor there are strong diminishing returns to making it wider or taller(each additional line of pixels contributes less solid angle than the last because of increasingly off-normal view angle and increasing distance to the viewer).
Multiple displays allows you to put your displays as if on the circumference of a circle, with the viewer in the middle. This is pretty good; at every point the normal of the display is pointing approximately towards the viewer. The ideal solution is a curved display; probably cylindrical at first but for gaming purposes the nicest would be a hemispherical display.
ETA: actually, the best solution is ultimately to skip the display altoghether and directly project the image onto the retina. A virtual retinal display has the potential to use very little power(because there are no wasted photons), be small and portable(like a pair of slightly bulky sunglasses), be dirt cheap(cost dominated by development cost, not materials costs), allow viewing of private materials in any location(business e-mails, family photos, porn, whatever), use any arbitrary aspect ratio without wasting pixels(because there are no pixels, only little optical elements that rapidly deflect lasers).
e.g. sv_max_fov 120
The client could then choose anywhere from 1-120 degree FOV.
<img src="http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/159/fovk.jpg" border="0" class="linked-image" />
The green line represents the default FOV on default resolution (i.e. you can see the marine). Attempting to up the FOV (the red line) results in seeing more (the two skulks), but with a "fisheye" effect on the same resolution. However, the multi-monitor ultra-wide resolution user will be able to view it across 3 monitors, so it will appear normal and undistorted.
As above, this means that normal users must choose between seeing less, or seeing more distorted. This may have been only a debatable advantage back in the days of pro Q3 players who used 120+ FOV since only one monitor was available and everyone was faced with the same choice (distortion or FOV). However now that three monitors are possible, the triple-monitor gamer gains the extra viewing information while not suffering any distortion; an unquestionable and unfair advantage that will remain so until these setups become common enough for the vast majority.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wow, that is a fairly pedantic reply. Probably less than .001% of gamers have 3 monitors, and even on a large wide screen monitor - mine being a very high quality 24" - player size starts to become very small, and it becomes a lot harder to aim for vital areas.. i.e the head. I think it is something that naturally balances itself out, unless of course you reduce the FOV to below the standard soft of angles.
If you have the money to buy 3 monitors you'll use this and never call it unfair. I wish I can, but I don't think is unfair, is just another way to play, and then if you don't have it you need to find other ways to play and keep being good.
As of my experience most of players don't use headsets, so they can't hear from where the sound comes. Are you going to say that I play unfair because I have an state of the art headset and can hear from where you come? (you know, steps, glass breaking, shoots, etc.-).
It is an advantage? Yes
It is unfair? definitely NO
If you have a better FOV is an advantage, but not unfair. On my POV is a way to learn new strategies. And if I can have it I will use it, it looks amazing.
... And your experience ends there. Most gamers do use headsets.
Excess amounts of money should not gain you access to critical information above and beyond the majority of other players, otherwise let's also have UWE sell wall hacks to the highest bidder shall we? Before you create the game, you establish a baseline system for which you target "fairness". It is no more fair to give 30% extra screen realestate to select users than it is to allow triple SLI-GTX500 CUDA users to be able to render transparent walls that all other players will see as opaque. For a game-altering change such as this, if only a small minority of the userbase can/will support it, then it is unfair.
I'd take my sennheiser over surround sound anytime!
Besides, sounds are vastly inferior to visual conformation. Sure you can hear them, but that doesn't give you a 100% coordinate, just a direction... With three monitors, it will show you incoming enemies which you normally wouldn't see. Not to mention the fact that during heavy combat, the noise can overpower the incoming footsteps, while you would still see them coming from the sides on your monitors...
Unfair is the correct and only word to be used here, you guys disappoint me...
Get over it guys, it's a viable option for playing games.
This is like saying having a laser/optical mouse is unfair against those who use ball mice. Or having 5.1 sound is unfair over the people who have stereo sound. Or those with a widescreen monitor have an unfair advantage of those with a 4:3 monitor. Or those with better computers and higher FPS have an advantage over lower FPS players. Or lower ping players have unfair advantages over laggy players. Etc, etc, etc, etc.
It is <b>your</b> choice not to invest in a better setup. Those who apply the effort and cash to enhance their experience deserve it. As long as your "enhancements" are with in the realm of human ability, it's fair game.
And no, I don't use more than one monitor. And no, I don't feel cheated by those who would.
/argument
Just like MAC v Marine building, co_, and such, this is just potentially another "ZOMG scripts are cheating"-like topic that can divide the community. The games not even in beta yet.
If they use headsets then all of them are deaf. I'm tired too see people, even camping players, that looks to the other side when you clearly heard steps coming, lets say, from the right. I see this in all games, all the time, and there was not huge combat at the moment. And only me and 2 or 3 more can hear from where they come (full servers with at least 10 people each side).
I think you should take more attention on how others play before say that most gamers use headsets. Of course they could have a headset but for experience they just don't use it. Just hear when they talk, all the game sound getting in the mic.
Back on topic.
There is nothing unfair on a 3 monitor system. You are not seeing anything that is not allowed/intended. If the game allows the use of this then is a game feature, not an unfair advantage. And remember that the game has to be enhanced to support this technology.
If someone can see you coming from the side, then don't do that, approach from the back and you'll fine, stab the nag.
And yes, I still remember people saying how unfair was that some guys use a big widescreen monitor with the FOV at max and that is like cheating. Guess what, is the same argument you bring here. Now the majority of players have a widescreen monitor and found that the problem is that they suck at games, and most probably at life, nothing related to the screen size or how many monitors you use.
This is nice to have for singleplayer and should be inengine, but in multiplayer it is unfair and will get a lot of rage or cheat accusations... Being able to see things others can't reminds me of wallhack. Money has nothing to do with this either and all you guys making it look like it is similar to the widescreen discussion or having a better mouse, sound or FPSpowerhouse system... Those things all increase performance of a certain part of the game... This just blatantly put things in plain view that are normally not even visible...
Seriously, you guys? /poke /poke
A game has to be fun for everyone, if this means limiting the multiplayer aspect of the engine. Then yes, by all means do it by having an option on the severside. Of course Spark should support the feature (for other games in the future as well, again singleplayer), but let the servers decide if they want this or not...
Is it an advantage? sure.
Is it any less fair than how all of you have an advantage over some one playing on an ati 9800pro and athlon xp? No
Why dont we cap every one at 5 fps so the game is fair for people playing on intel graphics?
I disagree thats its not the same as having a power house rig. We dont limit their fps because other people can't afford a good pc. So why are we crippling my pc cause other people cant afford a few monitors. I would say it's the exact same thing.
I can't threaten to not buy the game since I already have but I thought investing in a game that was built from the ground up to push the boundaries of modern gaming would be a safe bet. Im surprised to see this kind of rallying against supporting it and trying to hold all of pc gaming back.
I have $4000 invested into a nice gaming setup that gives me a more immersive gaming experience. Why should I be punished? Eyefinity and nvidia surround are really gaining popularity fast and can be had for pretty cheap. I dont think them being the norm is very far off.
I'm not even good enough at gaming anymore to care if it gives me an uperhand. I'm still going to get owned lol. I just want to have fun and trust me you havent gamed untill you game 3 monitors wide.
And whats all this about competitive? How many of you make a living playing NS? None? Yet some of the most competitive games on the planet like CS Source do indeed support eyefinity.
Server side support is fine by me I have no desire to cheat or have an advantage I just want to have fun :) . I'll run my own server on one of my folding@home rigs if that's what it takes.
So does regular old widescreen, relative to those with 4:3!
If you are anti-Eyefinity, then by principal you have to be anti-widescreen in general.
I guess if we had it your way, in multiplayer, I'd have my game screen space cut by 30% to match the people out there that are still on 4:3, because obviously I have an unfair advantage.
Here is another direct analogy for you Kouji: Since some people are going to be running the game at lower resolution, lets say 800x600, then according to your logic, everyone should obviously be limited to 800x600 because you can pick out finer detail at higher resolutions. Such as structures in the distance or bullet holes on the walls where there was a recent battle that you should avoid. Or being able to make out if a rine has a GL or a normal rifle. That is <b>obviously</b> a <b>totally</b> unfair advantage over those with lower resolution screens. We need to consider <b>their</b> needs and <b>their</b> fun, first. Right? Screw people with a better setup, they shouldn't have been such elitist priks and blew a few extra hundred dollars on a better screen setup.
I mean, that is just <b>blatantly</b> putting detail that isn't normally visible*!
(*relative to those with inferior setups)
Oh man, the guy I'm playing against has 60FPS and I only have 20... I can barley follow him as a skulk circle-strafing around me. If only I had better performance, I could totally own him! UWE should make a server side setting to limit peoples FPS, because <b>I</b> feel cheated by not having what someone else has!
*pout pout*
Seriously man, give it up. Your argument holds no water.
EDIT: Oh man, I forgot, NS2 is going to be totally MODable. So don't worry, if UWE do have Eyefinity support in multiplayer, you can just make your own "NS2 - No Eyefinity Edition". ;)
I will also say that when I switched to an eyefinity setup, I didn't get any better at TF2.. It just added much to the experience. Though I will say that likely competative play wouldn't allow such a setup, but I've given up on that a while ago.
No offense guys but seriously.
No offense guys but seriously.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Seriously what?
This whole argument is a farce, because it's based on the relative level of tech at the time and the subsequent sentiments of inadequacy of a small percentage of players that they feel "cheated" by those advantages.
Monitors are getting cheaper and cheaper. Every graphics card made in the last year supports some from of multi-monitor gaming. Whose to say the majority of PC gamers won't have 3 or more monitors in the near future? Who are you to judge that?
(You meaning everyone, in this case. Not you specifically, bOb)
You don't progress by catering to the inferior, as superficial as the other's advantage might be.
And multi-monitor gaming <b>is</b> superficial. Someone with 3 monitors is not going to win against someone with more experience and only 1 monitor.
And widescreen is as I... <b>Hell, I'm not going to repeat myself!</b>*
And quoting things out of context is pointless as well WhiteZero!
<i>*
This is what this forum has turned int a constantly repeating of the same points that were negated earlier... Most discussion or suggestion thread stoops to that level... WAAAI!</i> <img src="http://members.home.nl/m.borgman/ns-forum/smileys/wtf.gif" border="0" class="linked-image" />
You're not applying logic to your point of view; you are only seeing what is right in front of you instead of the bigger picture.
I think you need to take a moment to step back, take the blinders off and see this situation from a historical point of view.
In my last post I was not talking about performance enchantments at all. With lower FPS your are missing frames, you are missing <b>information</b> that other have with higher FPS.
With higher resolution you are missing pixels; again, missing <b>information</b> that others with higher resolution do have.
With widescreen or multiple monitors, you have a wider field of vision, you are getting more information than those without what you have.
You think you have to keep repeating yourself because you don't think we understand what you are saying. We <b>do</b> understand what you are saying. <b>You</b> are the one that does not see the <b>relative</b> nature of this subject. Do you understand what that means?
By increasing the FoV from the default 90 (I think it is) to about 120 or 160, you get to see a lot more on the sides of you... If you use this on a single monitor setup, you get the dreaded blurry zoom effect. But apply this to a three monitor eyefinity setup, the effect turns a much clearer and recognizable view of what is incoming on your flanks. While on a sinlge monitor the zoom effect affects your aiming and actual clear view of your surroundings, even in the middle of the screen(crosshair). Negating much of the advantage of a large FoV (on a single monitor setup)
<b>This</b> is a very large advantage, compared to better FPS, mouse, sound, or simply more pixels onscreen. And yes even widescreen, because widescreen is only a small amount larger then 4:3, when compared to two frigging monitors doing this for!
<img src="http://members.home.nl/m.borgman/ns-forum/smileys/rolleyes.gif" border="0" class="linked-image" />
The default FOV for a 4:3 resolution is 75, BTW. The default for 16:10 is 90.
So right there is a 20% increase in viewable area. From 90 to 120 is 33% and so on.
How can you possibly <b>only</b> be against 120+ FOV and <b>not</b> be against anything over 75 FOV?
I'll tell you why: Because <b>you</b> are the one running 90 FOV, not 75 FOV.
I'll say it this one last time: Your argument is relative. It has no logical basis in reality because everyone has different monitor setups, and thus everyone is going to have a different point of view on what is "fair".
In the end, there is no way you can predict what gamers are going to be using in the future and the only logical "unfairness" here is to those future players who may be running an FOV over 90.
And no, having monitors to either side of your head is not inherently more valuable, because then you are relying on your peripheral vision or turning your head/eyes, either way you are not magically seeing more than someone with 1 monitor running 120 or 160 FOV, because either way you are going to have to sacrifice your attention to make out what is going on.
I'm done here. If you want to choose to ignore the facts and the logic behind what is going on here, that is up to you; there is nothing I can do to change that if all you can be is stubborn. In the end, UWE will make a choice and I trust them to make the intelligent one.