Yes?
I don't know if you'd call it motion sickness because I didn't get nauseous, but the 55 degree FOV in BC2 gives me headaches. Thank god there was a way to change it.
Upvote
0
Newest patch: Max FOV is 75. Permanent change?
- Thread starter LogisticEarth
- Start date
Yes?
I don't know if you'd call it motion sickness because I didn't get nauseous, but the 55 degree FOV in BC2 gives me headaches. Thank god there was a way to change it.
75 FOV works for me, but during beta I had mine crank to 80 FOV. Any higher and fish eye starts happening, and at 90 FOV it look just plain ugly.
Upvote
0
The thing is, your brain is inventing a lot of what you think you are seeing. The eye is kind of like a radar, it scans a wedge of space by rapidly moving around, building up a picture of the world that your brain shows to you at around 30 FPS. That is why "persistence of vision" type effects occur.
So the actual field of view of the lens of the eye is not as large. What this means is your peripheral vision, which is made up of brief snatches glimpsed on the edge of the lens' FOV, is arranged as an out of focus blur on the edge of the picture your brain constructs. The peripheral vision is not much more use than as a coarse movement detector because it is made up of very little real information.
So when you use a high FOV on a monitor, the whole field of view is shown to you in full crystal clear detail. You can see just as clearly on the very edges of your FOV as you can in the dead centre. This is totally unrealistic. In reality it is more like having the centre of your screen running at 1680x1050x60FPS but the top, bottom and sides running at 320x240X15FPS or worse.
Even with 70 degrees FOV I feel like I am more able to be aware of the periphery of my vision than when I actually did this sort of thing in the army. In game, even with 70 FOV, I can point my IS at one target and then turn my eyes and watch another, something you couldn't really do. Without even moving my eyes I can focus on much more of the world because it is sitting there right in front of my eyes drawn on a 2D panel.
So I can see why some people would consider it cheating. I'm not bothered by it, but it's certainly unrealistic.
Let me put it this way: You say your eyes can see 170 degrees or so, so you want 170 degrees or so of the game world to be drawn on your screen. Seems fair enough. You can't see any more than your eyes could see if you were really there.
BUT
Are you wrapping your monitor 170 degrees around your eyes? If not, then you are actually compressing 170 degrees of game world into the very centre of your real FOV, which is the part that is updated most often with the most high resolution detail.
That doesn't seem fair.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
I don't know. But portraying the whole charade as a scheme to let people cheat with "ridiculous" FOV is beyond laughable. While he does have a point that it gives you an advantage that might not be fair, and that high values will make the game look disproportionate, he makes such a mockery of it that one really can't take him seriously.
So next on the list should be a cap on the brightness level and prohibition of surround sound which gives gamers a large advantage over the vast majority who use stereo.
Upvote
0
Well, without really getting into it, I prefer having a FOV closer to what it is in real life and that means more than 70 FOV. I feel like I am wearing blinders with lower FOV and while 70 isn't too bad, it is disorienting to me.
Having the ability to bump up to 90 is nothing extreme and certainly doesn't give you that fish eye lens view you say it does. I believe you have to go well over 100 FOV on a widescreen monitor before that starts happening. I know because I played with the FOV in BFBC2 because of their s***ty default FOV. Having used 90 FOV in the beta gave absolutely no distortion and quite honestly is still less than a normal human's FOV.
Upvote
0
Your righteous indignation is just as telling. He hates being seen when he thought he wasn't, you hate being thought of as a cheat for wanting an "advantage" even though that is not your motivation.
Well, the thing is, it may not be the reason you do it, but it still helps you and you 'aren't going to turn down a little help if you weren't actually you know asking for it or anything...' are you?
Well not a cap on brightness as such, but I think it should be considered unfair to turn it up. And I certainly think it would be fair to call someone a cheat who turned up their brightness just so they could see better than reality.
Surround sound is another matter altogether. That is not an UNREALISTIC advantage. Those of us who want the most realistic experience we can have would want to have it. So those of us that don't have it are jealous of you, rather than thinking you are cheating because you are doing something we would never do. I CAN crank my brightness up, but I don't. I think it's unfair, and looks stupid. So if you want to play like that... well go for it. Just don't expect any respect.
I have never noticed anyone that did this sort of thing being that much better than me. I can still kill them even if they can see more than they should.
Upvote
0
Did you play Borderlands!? It was a co-op game which when released, had the FOV of 50 or 60 (can't rememember which). Everyone was getting headaches and feeling sick then going to the game's forums to complain about their eyes hurting from only 10 minutes play! And this was a co-op, non-competetive game where lots of people played with their friends for fun.
Upvote
0
I never said I wanted to have a FOV of around 170. My issue is that when you restrict your FOV to 70 it might more accurately represent what I'm able to see crystal clear, but it also cuts off the things I'm able to detect but not see clearly outside of that field.
To me a game will probably never really be able to replicate this properly on a standard monitor, because blurring 3/4 of the screen at a higher FOV is not an option for me. Instead we have to look at what is pleasant to look at while it doesn't show you more than you really should be able to.
That's why a FOV between 80-100 strikes the perfect balance on my 16:10 1920x1200 screen.
I'll say this once more, "fair" is when people have equal chances. When you allow everyone to see things at 90 degrees it does not make things less fair. Even people that prefer a lower field of view are not immidiately at a disadvantage, because what they do see will seem more clear and probably bigger on their screen.
Upvote
0
Motion sickness is clearly documented in many places, and it's connection to "first person" views is just as clearly discussed. It has nothing at all to do with "perception" in terms of psychology. It is confusion within the optical, balance and brain systems - confusion at the lowest possible level. I doubt your tutor would be impressed that you're making such assertions/claims in the name of their chosen subject
You seem to be making the classic mistake of assuming that all things lead to a psychological explanation. That's understandable since it's your chosen subject, but a massive failure in terms of scientific practice
It isn't physics, you know?
Upvote
0
I'm trying to understand why people are arguing.
EPISODE 29 FOV in Games part1 - YouTube
There's nothing to argue about.
The stimuli occurring to the left and right most sides of your field of view on a higher field of view will not need to be blurred as you will not be focusing on either sides but the middle, it will be as if the screen is blurred anyway. But it's important that the extra bit of visual content is being shown even if the player won't necessarily be focusing on it.
I get motion sickness at 75 or lower, I don't get it at 90 but feel uncomfortable at 90, I normally play at 100-120, 100 for slow games and 120 for fast paced games. It depends a fair bit on how close you're sitting to the screen though, I sit fairly close.
EPISODE 29 FOV in Games part1 - YouTube
There's nothing to argue about.
The stimuli occurring to the left and right most sides of your field of view on a higher field of view will not need to be blurred as you will not be focusing on either sides but the middle, it will be as if the screen is blurred anyway. But it's important that the extra bit of visual content is being shown even if the player won't necessarily be focusing on it.
I get motion sickness at 75 or lower, I don't get it at 90 but feel uncomfortable at 90, I normally play at 100-120, 100 for slow games and 120 for fast paced games. It depends a fair bit on how close you're sitting to the screen though, I sit fairly close.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
So look around. That's what you really do. If you grab a coin that is around 2 inches diameter and hold it out at arms length, that is how much of the world your eyes actually see clearly. Your brain simply fills in the details by scanning your eyes around, looking at interesting things for better detail, and overlaying them all into a single image that you "see" in your mind.
So at any one moment, you can only see a coins worth of the world. That is what tunnel vision is all about. The brains ability to construct the image is suppressed by approaching unconsciousness and so you are left with only what the eyes are actually seeing.
So when you say you can see things in your peripheral vision, you are actually saying your brain is constructing an image of something it sort of saw but is not sure about, because it didn't look directly at it. The information is simply not there to tell you more than some very subtle things like changes of light or colour. The "movement" you see in your peripheral vision is nothing more than your brain saying "and over here was some light stuff but now its some dark stuff"
In the game though, you can clearly see it is an enemy or a friendly, direction of motion and so on. Stuff your peripheral vision can never tell you.
This is why I am not against being able to do it. Some people really can't adjust to the correct FOV and so need to change it. Just don't try to deny that it is giving you an advantage over anyone who doesn't. Personally, I don't think it is that great of an advantage in this game because it isn't so much of a twitcher.
Even if you do see me and turn to take a shot, I'm still probably going to have the advantage at that moment because the rest of the game mechanics don't allow you to really use your early warning. Taking that spinning snap shot is not as easy as in most games.
Fair enough. If your monitor is that resolution it is probably pretty big and so much of that peripheral area will be in your real peripheral vision for most of the time, so not much of an advantage. But 80-100 on a 20 inch 4:3 monitor is cheating. Maybe not ban worthy, but definitely not cricket. What you are doing is not in that league, IMHO.
Not really. You're missing the point of the game. This isn't meant to be a death match kill-fest where being the quickest and best is all that matters. Part of the point of a game like RO2 is to play it as realistically as possible. You are trying to feel what it was like to be there, not trying to turn it into some Tron-like video game world so that you can get max points.
So in that sense, when everyone else is trying to stick to realism, intentionally breaking that realism barrier is essentially unfair and cheating. I'm not saying this at you personally, but if that's all you are interested in you may as well play CoD, it's more fun for that kind of play and the other players want to play like that too.
Actually, in most games I want to set my FOV as low as possible. It's the same thing as having a scope in most games because their field of view is so wide that everything looks three times further away than in reality.
I make up for low peripheral vision by seeing further (realistically) and looking around. That latter bit helps with the situational awareness and terrain reading too.
As I said, it's no skin off my nose, but I can see why some people are bothered by it, and would like to restrict it.
Upvote
0
Don't get me wrong, you've responded in clear and comprehensable language in which you've clearly shown that you can write properly in both grammar and spelling. And the arguments you write make a lot of sense too.
It's just that to me atleast, it doesn't seem like your replies are going anywhere. You understand both sides of the conversation yet you seem reluctant to actually pick a side as both sides have valid arguments.
There's just no discussion if there's no real opposition.
It's just that to me atleast, it doesn't seem like your replies are going anywhere. You understand both sides of the conversation yet you seem reluctant to actually pick a side as both sides have valid arguments.
There's just no discussion if there's no real opposition.
Upvote
0
I see your point. I didn't make myself quite clear. I was not responding to the accusations as such, but to the idea expressed that to think of it as cheating was too much.
I personally don't care, but I do think of it as cheating. It's just not the same as an actual wallhack or aimbot in that as you said, I can easily level the playing field if needed, and I haven't felt the need.
My point is, and I used a term that you may not be familiar with depending on your nationality, but by "it's just not Cricket", I am saying that while something may be within the rules of the game it is not within the spirit of the game and as such "gentlemen" would avoid doing it.
If you do it for a reason other than to gain an advantage, that's why it isn't against the rules (or shouldn't be), but if you ARE just being underhanded and trying to get an advantage by using an unrealistic feature that you know everyone else is avoiding, then you can't complain about people calling you a cheat.
If all you are doing is compensating for different hardware, then while it is unfair that you have that advantage and I don't, life isn't meant to be fair. But if you are using the same kind and size of monitor as me (a 22" widescreen about 2 foot from my face) and running 90 degrees... then you are cheating, I don't care whether you are saying you feel sick or not. Even 70 is wider than I would like. I'd like to push it down to 60.
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Perception of individual itself and anecdote that follows? Unless you're willing to argue that specific subjective matters are incorrect and not valid or comparable points just because your own anecdote example is more holier than the others. You can claim it looks like crap but someone can claim it doesn't -> *****fight. (Take pictures.)
Protip: 3x monitors with correspondingly wide fov is still cheating with your original argument. Besides there are many other cues to tell if there's someone around, like audio or so. Hearing extra footsteps in direction that resulted to say, MP40 being the last weapon fired before someone died so what are the odds someone moving in that direction is a german player, presuming you're on the russian side yourself? Is audio and common sense cheating in that case then?
I recommend putting on eyeglasses that are made at completely opposite eyesight than you are and tell it's not making you sick after you wear them for some time. Preferably reading glasses if you don't need them.
Upvote
0
Well tell that to my brains then so that my stupid brains would know motion sickness isnt real and stop making me sick after playing with a cramped FOV
Upvote
0
Upvote
0