Kouji_SanSr. Hινε UÏкεεÏεг - EUPT DeputyThe NetherlandsJoin Date: 2003-05-13Member: 16271Members, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue
edited August 2010
<!--quoteo(post=1795932:date=Aug 23 2010, 07:22 PM:name=MaLaKa)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MaLaKa @ Aug 23 2010, 07:22 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1795932"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Again, three screens, 3x the amount of information to focus on.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Wrong! <b>You don't have to focus on the side monitors</b>, you can use you peripheral vision on them. And now go back one post to see why this is an advantage...
<!--quoteo(post=1795934:date=Aug 23 2010, 06:38 PM:name=Kouji_San)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kouji_San @ Aug 23 2010, 06:38 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1795934"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Wrong! You don't have to focus on the side monitors, you can use you peripheral vision on them. And now go back one post to see why this is an advantage...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I can't realistically see someone sitting with 3 screens and never for a moment taking their focus off the centre and looking at either two at the sides!
I still don't see using eyeinfinity as a huge advantage. Least not to warrant masses of complaints about unfair advantages. I believe that eyeinfinity has its own disadvantages, like the performance lost going from 1920x1080 to 5760.
I think having a decent speaker setup would be more advantageous than 3 screens! But thats me :)
What would be cool to see, speaking on behalf of people with two screens and not 3, is a map overlay like World in Conflict! That'd be cool :D
Kouji_San, you can't change how the brain process the visual information. Once you have learned about it come back and tell again "wrong".
The peripheral vision lets you see movement on the sides, but is not focus, so to be able to aim you have to focus on that particular sector, which means half a second "your dead". If you don't focus on that part you can't aim. Not to mention that on combat all your attention is on what's on front of you, not on any side, just front. That's why on the army teach you to go on teams, and every member focus on a particular sector, and that's why city combat is so hard, you have too much to cover and the brain can't process all.
Kouji_SanSr. Hινε UÏкεεÏεг - EUPT DeputyThe NetherlandsJoin Date: 2003-05-13Member: 16271Members, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue
edited August 2010
<!--quoteo(post=1795942:date=Aug 23 2010, 08:07 PM:name=PaiSand)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (PaiSand @ Aug 23 2010, 08:07 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1795942"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Kouji_San, you can't change how the brain process the visual information. Once you have learned about it come back and tell again "wrong".<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Flamebait much? Puhlease smart-ass...
Your crosshair is on your main monitor... And with a simple flick of the mouse, what was on your side monitor is now in focus. No need to turn your head or move your eyes towards those monitors...It is very easy to see how you can react to things on the side much faster then without this increased FoV...
If you guys keep ignoring that simple fact, I see no point in further discussing this...
Anyway just let people who want to have fun with 3 screen.. have fun with 3 screen. It's the game developper's job to stimulate the use of new technology.
If no game developpers had made directX 10 developpment, there wouldn't be directx 11 now... If no game developpers had made 1680x1024 resolution comptability, we would still playing with 19' screen..
The more the game offer possibility for new technology, the more this technology is used, the cheaper this technology become's and the more people can enjoy it.
when developpers use physiX or "the way it's mean to be played" program, no one say "HEY, it's unfair for all the ATI users !!" Here it's the same. Except that both ATI and Nvidia offer this technology so it don't depend of which graphical card you have.
Everyone can get it, little by little. After all it's like a new computer. If you want to be competitive, you get an new computer to have the more FPS you can. Here, it's the same mentality. Except that instead buying the last 6cores processor at 700$, you get one or two extra screen at 200$
What are people complaining about? Put a vote up for how many people have a three monitor setup, I bet it comes back at 0%.
Also, I think the three monitor setup is more about immersion than anything else. If a three monitor setup is so advantageous, then why are the army not using it in their Apaches?
The argument is correct, your brain can't focus on three monitors at once, especially because of something called tunnel vision. You probably don't realise you are experiencing it when playing games. Go play some paint ball and you'll know all about it. I expect staring down a crosshair has the same effect.
A good example of issues that your brain has: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ahg6qcgoay4" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ahg6qcgoay4</a>
Why do you think your vision blurs when you turn your head, or when you are on a roller coaster. It is not because you are going fast, it is because your brain can't handle the visual information that is flying into your eyeballs.
It is not an issue. The perfect FOV is somewhere between 'too much information' for your brain to handle and 'not enough'.
If you think you are going to see a lerk in the corner of the top left screen whilst staring down some crosshairs at a target you are currently firing at, I highly doubt you would see. You are playing a game remember, not watching a movie, which makes the situation even worse.
<!--quoteo(post=1795362:date=Aug 19 2010, 11:35 PM:name=Kardon)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kardon @ Aug 19 2010, 11:35 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1795362"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->... Why dont we cap every one at 5 fps so the game is fair for people playing on intel graphics? ...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I haven't got the alpha, or access to it, but from what I've read haven't they done that?
<!--quoteo(post=1795928:date=Aug 23 2010, 01:04 PM:name=MaLaKa)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MaLaKa @ Aug 23 2010, 01:04 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1795928"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->IMO, It'd say let FOV be adjustable. TF2 has the option between 75-90. Cap it at say, 100-120*
At the end of the day, I cannot see a lot of people playing at 5760x1080 with amazing FPS.
Another idea is to simply add a shader that makes the screen blur out past 90 degrees. Similar to REAL peripheral vision.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I was going to suggest that - maybe not at the 90 degree point, but working with however people's eyes actually do work (with similar limitations for the 3d implementation, if/when it's done). I don't know if being more sensitive to movement from the corner of your eyes is a natural sideeffect, I guess not so adding that (making it higher contrast and/or lower resolution) would be interesting. It'd also stop people with small screens cheating by using a higher FoV than they need (or if they sit with their face in the screen, maybe help their melting eyeballs). I'd personally have been in favour of differing views per species and/or for different view modes (alien torch) sort of like Dungeon Keeper did back in the day. That's sort of a side issue.
If I recall correctly a lot of games trim the screen vertically to fit it on widescreen. The middle ground is to add a little bit at the sides and take a little bit from the top (keeping the area sort of roughly the same).
For the marine's view, it shouldn't go above what a human can realistically see - how that's best handled, I've no idea.
If I did own an eyefinity setup, who are you to say that I can't use what I paid for? I could easily get it for about $450 or so, it's really not that expensive. No more expensive than a top of the line video card, so should UWE ban the use of those too since a higher fps is a huge advantage? (If you deny this you are ignorant) No they shouldn't, if they paid for it good for them.
Also ping still makes a huge difference even with lag compensation. I thought this was common knowledge. A person with 45 ping will have a large advantage against an overseas player with 200+.
Personally I usually lower my resolution down to 800x600 in some games because the 100+ fps results in smoother gameplay than a guy getting a varying 45ish fps. Is it fair? Not at all. But it would be wrong to restrict my resolution, wouldn't it? Life/games aren't fair. Competition isn't meant to be fair. Since when does everything have to be a level playing field? There will always be somebody who has better reflexes, a better mouse, a better fps, more monitors.
I play on PC because I like to customize my experience. I like to re-map keys, I like to change video settings to try to gain the upper hand, I like to edit config files, I like being able to change my dpi to get more precision or faster movement. If I wanted a locked down version of any game I would play on a console where their idea of customization is a sticker on the side of the console.
Nope, sorry w3st420. We apparently have to strive to homogenize how people play games so that no one can have anything to rage over other than their own skill. It's the only way...
So it's like this... People with eyefinity want the extra advantage, so they support the option. People with standard systems believe that players shouldn't get extra advantages, so they don't support the option.
Welcome to the world of PC gaming. Where's we are not all force to run the exact same systems, exact same configurations and be capped the same way.
It will be a massive controversy! 1% of the NS2 population with 3 monitors have an edge on us! Better make the FPS cap @ 30fps, because humans cannot detect more than 30FPS... AMRITE?!?!
By the way, it doesn't cost $450 dollars for eyefinity. It costs $450 + $150+ x 3 (for the monitors)... ($900+)
Plus, who is geeky enough to have three monitors when you can just have a great widescreen one? Seriously, I have a 24" which is great. Anything bigger and my eyes could not take it. Trust me. When I ram up the FOV players become smaller targets, so it becomes harder to aim anyway.
I want to hear comments from people who 'have eyefinity'... not just a bunch of people raging because they think 'more' is 'better'..
As has been said above, PCs are always going to controversial because they are so customisable. That is what helps to develop the gaming industry.
It is not a console and never will be, so certain restraints are never going to happen.
I've played on a system that had Eyefinity. As awesome as it looks, it does take your attention away from the centre screen. And when you do focus on the centre screen, the other two kind of blur out and you forget they are there. The only time I can see eyefinity giving an amazing advantage if you were a sniper, not moving and surveying across the three screens. Running around and close combat and it kind of becomes redundant, but that only my opinion.
I don't really see it as being a huge advantage. Why I am not fussed about it being added to NS2 (if its added). I may even fork out another £120 for a third screen and try it on my HD5850.
Decent headphones with good positional audio. Now that will give someone the edge ;)
<!--quoteo(post=1795942:date=Aug 23 2010, 02:07 PM:name=PaiSand)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (PaiSand @ Aug 23 2010, 02:07 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1795942"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Kouji_San, you can't change how the brain process the visual information. Once you have learned about it come back and tell again "wrong".<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You don't seem to have a particularly firm grasp of how human vision works yourself. Hold your arm out in front of you and make a "thumbs up" gesture. The size of your thumbnail is about 2 degrees by 2 degrees, approximately the size of your central vision. <b>Everything outside this is peripheral vision</b>. ~50% of optic nerve fibers carry information from this tiny region(fovea). The peripheral vision is much suckier than it appears because the brain is very good at 'flicking' the fovea around rapidly without you noticing(you don't tend to notice that when you meet someone you rapidly alternate between looking at their mouth, nose and eyes do you?).
<!--quoteo(post=1795942:date=Aug 23 2010, 02:07 PM:name=PaiSand)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (PaiSand @ Aug 23 2010, 02:07 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1795942"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The peripheral vision lets you see movement on the sides, but is not focus, so to be able to aim you have to focus on that particular sector, which means half a second "your dead". If you don't focus on that part you can't aim.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So why do you have a display that is larger than your thumbnail?
<!--quoteo(post=1796057:date=Aug 24 2010, 07:35 AM:name=Runteh)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Runteh @ Aug 24 2010, 07:35 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1796057"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Plus, who is geeky enough to have three monitors when you can just have a great widescreen one?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Getting a larger display doesn't work very well because the screen is flat. The ideal is a display that is shaped like the inside of a spherical shell segment; each pixel added contributes as much solid angle as any other pixel.
<b>A developper's answer on this topic would be cool.</b>
Actually the real FOV on an human being is 140° it's what you CAN see while moving your eyes (but not your head). Eyefinity System do the same. So it's just more realistic.. THAT'S the standard
And if a skulk come from behind.. you won't see him anyway. (there is a gap between 120 and 140°)
The standard should be three screen for realism. If you have only one... bad for you.
If everyone has only one.. FOV implementation won't be a problem If everyone has three monitors, FOV implementation won't be a problem.
=> FOV implementation is not a problem. Just accept it.
Others FPS games accept it anyway. It's not new, and even HL1 did. So why not NS ? Why NS2 should be technologically retarded ?
<!--quoteo(post=1796064:date=Aug 24 2010, 01:45 PM:name=Tgaud)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tgaud @ Aug 24 2010, 01:45 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1796064"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The standard should be three screen for realism.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm hoping more screens that are curved and 3:1 start becoming more popular (Like Zalmans one, but not crappy low res/size).
An single LCD panel that's 5970x1080. That would be awesome. Or until LCDs are bezel-less :P
<!--quoteo(post=1796045:date=Aug 24 2010, 05:10 AM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Harimau @ Aug 24 2010, 05:10 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1796045"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->So it's like this... People with eyefinity want the extra advantage, so they support the option. People with standard systems believe that players shouldn't get extra advantages, so they don't support the option.
I'm seeing a trend of bias here...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Great assumption, but you know what assuming does...
I don't have multiple monitors and probably don't plan on having them any time soon.
is human peripheral vision only 140 degrees? I swear if I put my hand up to side of my head move it till it disappears and then bring it back forward till I can see it, THEN move it to the side of my head that it's behind my eyes... (Also done the experiment by looking straight forward and not moving my head and seeing if the object I can see left and right are slightly behind me, and after identifying the object and then turning my head to check, they are, I mean your eyes stick out very slightly from your face this isn't impossible).
<!--quoteo(post=1796081:date=Aug 24 2010, 03:10 PM:name=Delphic)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Delphic @ Aug 24 2010, 03:10 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1796081"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->is human peripheral vision only 140 degrees? I swear if I put my hand up to side of my head move it till it disappears and then bring it back forward till I can see it<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It is 140* if you move your eyes without moving your head. If you focus on a point its a lot lot lot less.
<!--quoteo(post=1795921:date=Aug 23 2010, 11:42 AM:name=WhiteZero)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (WhiteZero @ Aug 23 2010, 11:42 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1795921"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Good of you to rejoin the discussion Renegade. But I think you might have confused some things in your skimming over of the topic. I was also never addressing you directly, so I don't know where you anti-rage rage is coming from specifically aimed at me. Anyway, I never once tried to argue anything against what <b>baseline</b> systems are. In the end, it's going to be up to UWE what they want to do. "Please check your 10-year-old tech RAGE", seriously, you want to make this that kind of thread? Spare me.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Throwing around red-herring counter-arguments based on out-dated tech (i.e. "everyone should play 800x600") <b>is</b> addressing everyone, or rather insulting everyone and displaying you do not know the meaning of "baseline system". If it were not, I would not have felt the need to address your arguments directly.
Should we also include support for touch technology if and when it becomes common, simply because it may happen in the future? Your arguments defy logic and numb the mind: "I fight for the future". Look here Captain Power, you and your Soldiers of the Future can gladly have Eyefinity <u>when we get there</u>. No one is saying to disbar it forever, but you need to realize that the reasonable choice is to implement it if and when it becomes an established technology, and not just a handful of users and a chance it might be.
Indeed it is UWE's choice and I am confident they're not going to risk gameplay and balancing issues simply to appease a 1% minority. FOV along with other graphical tweaks such as gamma and viewmodels have been notoriously locked in NS, not as a result of whim, but heated community debate as to the advantages they confer. I don't see them undoing this anytime soon.
As an aside, your last petty quip makes it painfully obvious that you did not realize that the "10-year-old tech" I was referring to was none other than ATI's RAGE Pro in reference to your "everyone should play on 800x600", and not in fact the insult you seem to believe it was that is clearly beneath me. Next time <i>spare yourself</i> the embarrassment, and perhaps take your own advice to not skim.
<!--quoteo(post=1796045:date=Aug 24 2010, 11:10 AM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Harimau @ Aug 24 2010, 11:10 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1796045"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->So it's like this... People with eyefinity want the extra advantage, so they support the option. People with standard systems believe that players shouldn't get extra advantages, so they don't support the option.
I'm seeing a trend of bias here...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't have eyefinity, It'd be interesting to use it but I really want a good crt again.
kwil - It worries me that you/anyone could make the comparrison of this topic to having trasparent geometry. Its so far outside the box that the box is a spec on the horizon.
Is that what people actually think? That variable settings are comparrible to cheating? Why would people think like that? Is there any reason to believe that it is the same thing?
FOV is one of those settings which like mouse sensitivity, mouse smoothing, volume, brightness, contrast and key configuration are user dependent, and since we are not all clones of eachother, a setting of FOV which is comfortable for one person, can make another get headaches or be sick etc. I also believe if someone was to set the FOV too high that the same effects would be true.
As I said what I would like to see is a widescreen method that does not reduce vertical viewable area because of the narrow mindedness of people to see that the same FOV cannot be viable for 4:3, 16:9 and 16:10. As it stands today the vast majority of games use a reduced vertical area, for the same amount of horizontal as a standard 4:3. I don't mean they squash it up, I mean its litterarly removed completely.
Is it right to do that? Think how much would be removed for a (for want of a better term) 24:5 ratio screen. Thats a potential outcome of a low FOV limit restriction. Although unrealistic.
Thats all beside the point, because unless you are all the reddest of red, then you know that money matters, and to deny a person the advantage of what he paid for is wrong.
(please don't come back with "but you can by *this* and it does *this* which is criminal" there area enough rediculous things in this thread already D:)
<!--quoteo(post=1796097:date=Aug 24 2010, 01:11 PM:name=Renegade.)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Renegade. @ Aug 24 2010, 01:11 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1796097"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Throwing around red-herring counter-arguments based on out-dated tech (i.e. "everyone should play 800x600") <b>is</b> addressing everyone, or rather insulting everyone and displaying you do not know the meaning of "baseline system". If it were not, I would not have felt the need to address your arguments directly.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
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.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->FOV along with other graphical tweaks such as gamma and viewmodels<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> 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.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Next time spare yourself the embarrassment, and perhaps take your own advice to not skim.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes, I'm a total hypocrite in regards to that. :D
dudes, allowing people to see 140 degrees while others only see 90 or 70 degrees is a bit too much to ask.
just face it allready: a <b>competitive</b> 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 <b>competitive</b> game.
games like morrowind and fallout 3 and race games for example are currently perfectly suited for 3-monitor setups.
Lets do something. Record yourself playing, with a camera in front of you and your 1 monitor (I have only 1 monitor). Then look what you do when playing. Did you only move your eyes? Did you move your head? Did you move your hole body too?
On large wide-screen monitors (18'' and up) most probably you move your head to the sides. If you don't move your head, then you are a robot with no movement on the head. Go and record yourself. Why you move your head? Is what you normally do all the time but you don't notice it. I don't know the exact why, but I know we all do this.
On an eyfinity system this get worst, because you have a wider angle to look at. Of course, if you regularly play this way your brain get used to and then you start noticing more events at a time. Is a fact that some people can focus on more things at a time than others, but you need to teach yourself to do that. When you repeat a task constantly your brain remembers the positions of your hands, fingers and other parts and perform the action without the need to look at it, like playing guitar, piano or other music instruments. It's the same with games, you don't look your keyboard. But with the image is different, because new information is added constantly and the brain process it as new, not repetitive.
With relative old games you can remember from where an enemy comes (single player) so you are ready for it and your focus can be adapted rapidly. On multiplayer games this is not the case because it always change and your focus is always on a point at a certain time.
Go and record yourself playing and see what you do.
I don't even have 3-monitor setup but I am definitely for the people that do have it. This is what PC gaming is about. You can play at whatever resolution you like, use any mouse, keyboard, monitor, hardware, etc... Being able to use the most advanced hardware and software. This how the technology progresses, the more support game developers have for things like eyeinfinity the more people are going to use it. Claiming it's unfair is just stupid, that how PC gaming is, everyone uses different monitors, graphics settings, resolution, FOV, mouse, keyboards, speakers, etc... If you want "fair" then play on a console where everyone has to use a crap controller, with the same hardware, resolution, FPS, and low FOV.
yeah and if there is so little player using it how can it make the game unfair? only 1% won't change much. Even if actually, we all use only focus on 30° of our own FOV. Multi screen is the same, whatever the screen you look at, you will only focus on a 30° angle.
Comments
Wrong! <b>You don't have to focus on the side monitors</b>, you can use you peripheral vision on them. And now go back one post to see why this is an advantage...
I can't realistically see someone sitting with 3 screens and never for a moment taking their focus off the centre and looking at either two at the sides!
I still don't see using eyeinfinity as a huge advantage. Least not to warrant masses of complaints about unfair advantages. I believe that eyeinfinity has its own disadvantages, like the performance lost going from 1920x1080 to 5760.
I think having a decent speaker setup would be more advantageous than 3 screens! But thats me :)
What would be cool to see, speaking on behalf of people with two screens and not 3, is a map overlay like World in Conflict! That'd be cool :D
The peripheral vision lets you see movement on the sides, but is not focus, so to be able to aim you have to focus on that particular sector, which means half a second "your dead". If you don't focus on that part you can't aim.
Not to mention that on combat all your attention is on what's on front of you, not on any side, just front. That's why on the army teach you to go on teams, and every member focus on a particular sector, and that's why city combat is so hard, you have too much to cover and the brain can't process all.
It's human nature. Half a second, dead.
Flamebait much? Puhlease smart-ass...
Your crosshair is on your main monitor... And with a simple flick of the mouse, what was on your side monitor is now in focus. No need to turn your head or move your eyes towards those monitors...It is very easy to see how you can react to things on the side much faster then without this increased FoV...
If you guys keep ignoring that simple fact, I see no point in further discussing this...
It's the game developper's job to stimulate the use of new technology.
If no game developpers had made directX 10 developpment, there wouldn't be directx 11 now...
If no game developpers had made 1680x1024 resolution comptability, we would still playing with 19' screen..
The more the game offer possibility for new technology, the more this technology is used, the cheaper this technology become's and the more people can enjoy it.
when developpers use physiX or "the way it's mean to be played" program, no one say "HEY, it's unfair for all the ATI users !!"
Here it's the same. Except that both ATI and Nvidia offer this technology so it don't depend of which graphical card you have.
Everyone can get it, little by little.
After all it's like a new computer. If you want to be competitive, you get an new computer to have the more FPS you can.
Here, it's the same mentality. Except that instead buying the last 6cores processor at 700$, you get one or two extra screen at 200$
Also, I think the three monitor setup is more about immersion than anything else. If a three monitor setup is so advantageous, then why are the army not using it in their Apaches?
The argument is correct, your brain can't focus on three monitors at once, especially because of something called tunnel vision. You probably don't realise you are experiencing it when playing games. Go play some paint ball and you'll know all about it. I expect staring down a crosshair has the same effect.
A good example of issues that your brain has: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ahg6qcgoay4" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ahg6qcgoay4</a>
Why do you think your vision blurs when you turn your head, or when you are on a roller coaster. It is not because you are going fast, it is because your brain can't handle the visual information that is flying into your eyeballs.
It is not an issue. The perfect FOV is somewhere between 'too much information' for your brain to handle and 'not enough'.
If you think you are going to see a lerk in the corner of the top left screen whilst staring down some crosshairs at a target you are currently firing at, I highly doubt you would see. You are playing a game remember, not watching a movie, which makes the situation even worse.
Why dont we cap every one at 5 fps so the game is fair for people playing on intel graphics?
...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I haven't got the alpha, or access to it, but from what I've read haven't they done that?
<!--quoteo(post=1795928:date=Aug 23 2010, 01:04 PM:name=MaLaKa)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MaLaKa @ Aug 23 2010, 01:04 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1795928"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->IMO, It'd say let FOV be adjustable. TF2 has the option between 75-90. Cap it at say, 100-120*
At the end of the day, I cannot see a lot of people playing at 5760x1080 with amazing FPS.
Another idea is to simply add a shader that makes the screen blur out past 90 degrees. Similar to REAL peripheral vision.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I was going to suggest that - maybe not at the 90 degree point, but working with however people's eyes actually do work (with similar limitations for the 3d implementation, if/when it's done). I don't know if being more sensitive to movement from the corner of your eyes is a natural sideeffect, I guess not so adding that (making it higher contrast and/or lower resolution) would be interesting. It'd also stop people with small screens cheating by using a higher FoV than they need (or if they sit with their face in the screen, maybe help their melting eyeballs).
I'd personally have been in favour of differing views per species and/or for different view modes (alien torch) sort of like Dungeon Keeper did back in the day. That's sort of a side issue.
If I recall correctly a lot of games trim the screen vertically to fit it on widescreen. The middle ground is to add a little bit at the sides and take a little bit from the top (keeping the area sort of roughly the same).
For the marine's view, it shouldn't go above what a human can realistically see - how that's best handled, I've no idea.
Also ping still makes a huge difference even with lag compensation. I thought this was common knowledge. A person with 45 ping will have a large advantage against an overseas player with 200+.
Personally I usually lower my resolution down to 800x600 in some games because the 100+ fps results in smoother gameplay than a guy getting a varying 45ish fps. Is it fair? Not at all. But it would be wrong to restrict my resolution, wouldn't it? Life/games aren't fair. Competition isn't meant to be fair. Since when does everything have to be a level playing field? There will always be somebody who has better reflexes, a better mouse, a better fps, more monitors.
I play on PC because I like to customize my experience. I like to re-map keys, I like to change video settings to try to gain the upper hand, I like to edit config files, I like being able to change my dpi to get more precision or faster movement. If I wanted a locked down version of any game I would play on a console where their idea of customization is a sticker on the side of the console.
Who said PC gaming was fair?
It's the only way...
-headdesk-
People with eyefinity want the extra advantage, so they support the option.
People with standard systems believe that players shouldn't get extra advantages, so they don't support the option.
I'm seeing a trend of bias here...
It will be a massive controversy! 1% of the NS2 population with 3 monitors have an edge on us! Better make the FPS cap @ 30fps, because humans cannot detect more than 30FPS... AMRITE?!?!
*face palm*
Plus, who is geeky enough to have three monitors when you can just have a great widescreen one? Seriously, I have a 24" which is great. Anything bigger and my eyes could not take it. Trust me. When I ram up the FOV players become smaller targets, so it becomes harder to aim anyway.
I want to hear comments from people who 'have eyefinity'... not just a bunch of people raging because they think 'more' is 'better'..
As has been said above, PCs are always going to controversial because they are so customisable. That is what helps to develop the gaming industry.
It is not a console and never will be, so certain restraints are never going to happen.
I don't really see it as being a huge advantage. Why I am not fussed about it being added to NS2 (if its added). I may even fork out another £120 for a third screen and try it on my HD5850.
Decent headphones with good positional audio. Now that will give someone the edge ;)
You don't seem to have a particularly firm grasp of how human vision works yourself. Hold your arm out in front of you and make a "thumbs up" gesture. The size of your thumbnail is about 2 degrees by 2 degrees, approximately the size of your central vision. <b>Everything outside this is peripheral vision</b>. ~50% of optic nerve fibers carry information from this tiny region(fovea). The peripheral vision is much suckier than it appears because the brain is very good at 'flicking' the fovea around rapidly without you noticing(you don't tend to notice that when you meet someone you rapidly alternate between looking at their mouth, nose and eyes do you?).
<!--quoteo(post=1795942:date=Aug 23 2010, 02:07 PM:name=PaiSand)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (PaiSand @ Aug 23 2010, 02:07 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1795942"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The peripheral vision lets you see movement on the sides, but is not focus, so to be able to aim you have to focus on that particular sector, which means half a second "your dead". If you don't focus on that part you can't aim.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So why do you have a display that is larger than your thumbnail?
Getting a larger display doesn't work very well because the screen is flat. The ideal is a display that is shaped like the inside of a spherical shell segment; each pixel added contributes as much solid angle as any other pixel.
Actually the real FOV on an human being is 140° it's what you CAN see while moving your eyes (but not your head).
Eyefinity System do the same.
So it's just more realistic.. THAT'S the standard
And if a skulk come from behind.. you won't see him anyway. (there is a gap between 120 and 140°)
The standard should be three screen for realism.
If you have only one... bad for you.
If everyone has only one.. FOV implementation won't be a problem
If everyone has three monitors, FOV implementation won't be a problem.
=> FOV implementation is not a problem. Just accept it.
Others FPS games accept it anyway. It's not new, and even HL1 did. So why not NS ?
Why NS2 should be technologically retarded ?
I'm hoping more screens that are curved and 3:1 start becoming more popular (Like Zalmans one, but not crappy low res/size).
An single LCD panel that's 5970x1080. That would be awesome. Or until LCDs are bezel-less :P
People with eyefinity want the extra advantage, so they support the option.
People with standard systems believe that players shouldn't get extra advantages, so they don't support the option.
I'm seeing a trend of bias here...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Great assumption, but you know what assuming does...
I don't have multiple monitors and probably don't plan on having them any time soon.
It is 140* if you move your eyes without moving your head. If you focus on a point its a lot lot lot less.
Anyway, I never once tried to argue anything against what <b>baseline</b> systems are.
In the end, it's going to be up to UWE what they want to do.
"Please check your 10-year-old tech RAGE", seriously, you want to make this that kind of thread? Spare me.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Throwing around red-herring counter-arguments based on out-dated tech (i.e. "everyone should play 800x600") <b>is</b> addressing everyone, or rather insulting everyone and displaying you do not know the meaning of "baseline system". If it were not, I would not have felt the need to address your arguments directly.
Should we also include support for touch technology if and when it becomes common, simply because it may happen in the future? Your arguments defy logic and numb the mind: "I fight for the future". Look here Captain Power, you and your Soldiers of the Future can gladly have Eyefinity <u>when we get there</u>. No one is saying to disbar it forever, but you need to realize that the reasonable choice is to implement it if and when it becomes an established technology, and not just a handful of users and a chance it might be.
Indeed it is UWE's choice and I am confident they're not going to risk gameplay and balancing issues simply to appease a 1% minority. FOV along with other graphical tweaks such as gamma and viewmodels have been notoriously locked in NS, not as a result of whim, but heated community debate as to the advantages they confer. I don't see them undoing this anytime soon.
As an aside, your last petty quip makes it painfully obvious that you did not realize that the "10-year-old tech" I was referring to was none other than ATI's RAGE Pro in reference to your "everyone should play on 800x600", and not in fact the insult you seem to believe it was that is clearly beneath me. Next time <i>spare yourself</i> the embarrassment, and perhaps take your own advice to not skim.
People with eyefinity want the extra advantage, so they support the option.
People with standard systems believe that players shouldn't get extra advantages, so they don't support the option.
I'm seeing a trend of bias here...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't have eyefinity, It'd be interesting to use it but I really want a good crt again.
kwil - It worries me that you/anyone could make the comparrison of this topic to having trasparent geometry. Its so far outside the box that the box is a spec on the horizon.
Is that what people actually think? That variable settings are comparrible to cheating? Why would people think like that? Is there any reason to believe that it is the same thing?
FOV is one of those settings which like mouse sensitivity, mouse smoothing, volume, brightness, contrast and key configuration are user dependent, and since we are not all clones of eachother, a setting of FOV which is comfortable for one person, can make another get headaches or be sick etc.
I also believe if someone was to set the FOV too high that the same effects would be true.
As I said what I would like to see is a widescreen method that does not reduce vertical viewable area because of the narrow mindedness of people to see that the same FOV cannot be viable for 4:3, 16:9 and 16:10. As it stands today the vast majority of games use a reduced vertical area, for the same amount of horizontal as a standard 4:3. I don't mean they squash it up, I mean its litterarly removed completely.
Is it right to do that? Think how much would be removed for a (for want of a better term) 24:5 ratio screen. Thats a potential outcome of a low FOV limit restriction. Although unrealistic.
Thats all beside the point, because unless you are all the reddest of red, then you know that money matters, and to deny a person the advantage of what he paid for is wrong.
(please don't come back with "but you can by *this* and it does *this* which is criminal" there area enough rediculous things in this thread already D:)
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.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->FOV along with other graphical tweaks such as gamma and viewmodels<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
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.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Next time spare yourself the embarrassment, and perhaps take your own advice to not skim.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, I'm a total hypocrite in regards to that. :D
just face it allready: a <b>competitive</b> 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 <b>competitive</b> game.
games like morrowind and fallout 3 and race games for example are currently perfectly suited for 3-monitor setups.
NOT NS2
geez.
get over it
But for the general engine, you might as well support it.
Then look what you do when playing. Did you only move your eyes? Did you move your head? Did you move your hole body too?
On large wide-screen monitors (18'' and up) most probably you move your head to the sides. If you don't move your head, then you are a robot with no movement on the head. Go and record yourself.
Why you move your head? Is what you normally do all the time but you don't notice it. I don't know the exact why, but I know we all do this.
On an eyfinity system this get worst, because you have a wider angle to look at. Of course, if you regularly play this way your brain get used to and then you start noticing more events at a time. Is a fact that some people can focus on more things at a time than others, but you need to teach yourself to do that. When you repeat a task constantly your brain remembers the positions of your hands, fingers and other parts and perform the action without the need to look at it, like playing guitar, piano or other music instruments. It's the same with games, you don't look your keyboard. But with the image is different, because new information is added constantly and the brain process it as new, not repetitive.
With relative old games you can remember from where an enemy comes (single player) so you are ready for it and your focus can be adapted rapidly. On multiplayer games this is not the case because it always change and your focus is always on a point at a certain time.
Go and record yourself playing and see what you do.
Even if actually, we all use only focus on 30° of our own FOV.
Multi screen is the same, whatever the screen you look at, you will only focus on a 30° angle.