• Please make sure you are familiar with the forum rules. You can find them here: https://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/index.php?threads/forum-rules.2334636/

Iron Sight Blur (merged 5 times!)

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
#161
Oh they will fix it up, no question about that. As a matter of fact, most all bugs RO has now were in the first AAO versions as well. Be it the "Getting killed when standing on a prone soldier when he gets up" Bug, the "Runbug" where you start sprinting as soon as you spawn w/ weapon in normal position (gives you a slight headstart), the Sticky Nades, Clipping issues, Lowering Weapon when close to a wall, code optimizations and whatnot, I'm sure.
 
Upvote 0
#162
1.AR[GSC]=[ENIGMA]= said:
Oh they will fix it up, no question about that. As a matter of fact, most all bugs RO has now were in the first AAO versions as well. Be it the "Getting killed when standing on a prone soldier when he gets up" Bug, the "Runbug" where you start sprinting as soon as you spawn w/ weapon in normal position (gives you a slight headstart), the Sticky Nades, Clipping issues, Lowering Weapon when close to a wall, code optimizations and whatnot, I'm sure.
Click to expand...

oooo you have no idea how much that statement made me happy :D
 
Upvote 0
#164
takadi said:
http://www.americasarmy.com/gallery/index.php?id=5

I like it!

This is what i was talking about, the blurred gunsight, the "zoom" FOV effect. I can even imagine the gun shaking from nervous hands as an extra option. There's just something about the RO IS that seems really plastic and dated. I can't explain it.
Click to expand...
AAO also uses sprite-based ironsights for many of its weapons, including the M16 in the screenshot (sprites lend themselves to blurring much easier than 3D models), and there's an obvious transition (obvious to me, anyways) when the normal gun models swap out with the sprite gunsight. The few guns that have true 3D sights (just the Special Forces weapons, IIRC) don't have any blur on their sights.
 
Upvote 0
#168
Bartender, I understand your arguement, but I don't agree with it. I find the zoom w/IS to be horribly annoying. It destroys the immersion for me. I don't look at the games world as the real world, only an emulation of it that's bound by the software/hardware limitations we all face. I'm willing to play within those bounds and not kill my gaming experience with a imparted telescopic view of what the games world looks like every time I go to IS mode. I, for one, am VERY glad they DIDN'T implement any zoom in RO:O. It makes the game that much better IMHO.;)

*shrugs*

 
Upvote 0
#170
|MP44|FritZFretZ said:
Bartender, I understand your arguement, but I don't agree with it. I find the zoom w/IS to be horribly annoying. It destroys the immersion for me. I don't look at the games world as the real world, only an emulation of it that's bound by the software/hardware limitations we all face. I'm willing to play within those bounds and not kill my gaming experience with a imparted telescopic view of what the games world looks like every time I go to IS mode. I, for one, am VERY glad they DIDN'T implement any zoom in RO:O. It makes the game that much better IMHO.;)

*shrugs*
Click to expand...

I don't think you read correctly, and that's why alot of people are disagreeing with what's being asked. Go on youtube and look up some WWII online vids and try to find a clip of them going into IS. I think the way they implement it, except with some more detail and improvements, is the way I like it.
 
Upvote 0
#171
tadaki i think he knows exactly what i mean.

Another thing, the game requires you to run a 1152x864 minimum to be able to see the text, let alone a helmet peaking over a sandbag, which somehow magically shoots you.

In most games, lower resolution makes things bigger. Another reason the Unreal engine is unoptimized and worthless for gaming. I'd almost rather have seen this game on the Quake 3 engine. You can make it support as high of resolution of textures as you want, because it's open source now.

I wouldn't even be argueing for this "zoom" if it was on the quake engine, just because that engine looks THAT much better, which is a sad thing to say about UT2.5.

I'm done complaining about the engine, the zoom is a requirement on this engine because of the poor visibility that only this engine manages to provide.
 
Upvote 0
#174
That's ZOOM, not lower resolution. RO doesn't do that intentionally, it has absolutely nothing to do with the resolution or the engine used.

Boot COD. Start at 1600x1200, then go to 640x480. You'll be able to pick out a lot more detail in the former. A solider at long range who's 20 pixels high in the first screen will be only 8 in the second..

EDIT: I just made a comparison screenshot, though I don't have a place to put it. On the high-res soldier, you can make out the shape of his helmet and how he's holding his rifle. On the low-res shot, you can't even tell what he's carrying and his head is is a square blob that goes from skin color to gray.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#175
Let me give a quick rundown on changing FOV in gave VS changing it IRL.

When you change FOV in game it makes things appear closer since you are rendering the world over a static area which cannot change in size and must therefore change in depth, making distances appear farther away or closer depeding on which way you change the FOV. There is no way to get around this without changing the size of your screen (among other things) the fundamental code in the render package simply cant do it (and no code can for that matter).

IRL your FOV can change without making things appear closer or farther away because our brain is very good at interpreting the world around us and will simply "black out" part of our FOV. Basically what this translates to in game is making a protion of the screen black. I think it makes more sense to just leave the FOV the same since IRL when you look down a sight with 1 or 2 eyes open the target appears to be the same size thanks to our handy brain. Therefore it makes more sense to keep the size of things the same even though IRL the FOV is decreased since you cannot simulate a decrease in FOV accurately (or at least in a manner that is sensible).

(I didnt read the rest of the thread).
 
Upvote 0
#178
Bartender said:
To prove my point yet again, behold:

This is all my first post talks about, and this short paragraph proves it with impenetrable truth and logic.
Click to expand...
That might be a fact, but I guess another fact is that if this will be implemented, that Ostfront will loose players seeking for non-zoomed ironsights... ;)

That's what I found so sucky in Call of Duty IMO, that ironsights had zoom...
I made the game look so stupid, I just sold it! :D
 
Upvote 0
#179
Bartender said:
Phoenix D you've confused Resolution and FIELD OF VIEW...

The "ZOOM" is a lower FOV which brings things to a 1:1 scale...
Click to expand...

Correct. But NOT what you were initially bitching about.

Bartender said:
Another thing, the game requires you to run a 1152x864 minimum to be able to see the text, let alone a helmet peaking over a sandbag, which somehow magically shoots you.

In most games, lower resolution makes things bigger.
Click to expand...

This is what I was commenting on. Has nothing to do with FOV/Zoom at all.
 
Upvote 0
#180
Bartender I completely agree with you on all points and I made a similar thread in the General Discussion forum, it's now at 106 replies and counting and people STILL DO NOT UNDERSTAND THAT ADDING ZOOM IS REALISTIC.

OMFG I think I will give up and not mention it ever again and just block it out of my mind.

http://www.redorchestragame.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5786
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back
Jump to latest Follow Reply
Jump to latest Follow Reply
Community News
Forums
Merch
Menu