A better explaination of the zoom feature.

[KarmakazeNZ]

Read through most of the debates on the zoom thing and I've yet to see 2 things addressed:

1) I did not know tunnel vision was something our eyes could toggle on and off at will. In RO2 I can ADS and then zoom in and out at will?

2) Why can I zoom without using ADS? Do I have cybernetic eyes or something?

In every game you have EVER played, the view is zoomed out.

So, why are you complaining about being given REALISTIC eyesight? You can see BETTER in the real world than you can in most games. Why is that not a problem for you? It's not realistic, makes the game harder and breaks immersion. So why do you seem to prefer it?

Do you really not understand such a basic thing about FPS games?

What you call "zoom" I call "fixing a bug". The view in most FPS games is bugged. It makes everything look too far away. This feature just fixes that bug.

 

[babokitty]

Why is no zoom better for gameplay?

Oh right you die all the time. I get it. You suck at the game and are asking for it to be made easier.

Just be honest about it.

It was the zoom advocates who had trouble aiming at pixels who wanted this in. Why don't you be honest and admit you have no aim.

And regarding "realism", I've already pointed out the zoom violates the greater reality of constant FOV. The constant FOV you were born with and noone in the history of mankind has ever overcome. So you introduce this mechanic to compensate for a hardware limitation only to violate a greater reality?

Why do you think even in ARMA people need to explain to newcomers why their eyes zoom? Because the fundamental reality that your eyes never zoom has been contradicted so they feel bewildered and feel the need to ask.

Don't call zoom real. Your eyes never zoom. Or if you rather, "zoom-out".

 

[Scrappa]

Thankyou for explaining that to everyone.

 

[melipone]

Theres no way you can see so clearly with your peripheral vision that you need it represented ingame.

If it were realistic you would not have several different FOVs, just one

Its unimmersive to be able to change zoom level on a whim

Its bad for gameplay as SMG's and Semi's have low recoil and high accuracy/damage. Makes everyone like a sniper and diminishes the differences between the classes

Try playing a sniper and go into magic zoom, then scope. Its hardly any closer with the scope and you can see every part of the screen in clear focus without the scope

I don't think its more realistic like now and its unimmersive and bad for gameplay. Should be either one FOV or another, not multiple.

Looking at a screen means I have everything in focus, unlike IRL were I would have to move my sight around constantly and have less peripheral vision. Now I can see everything clearly and notice the slightlest movement because everything is shrunk down and all in focus

Now this is my opinion, and the discussion has been beaten to death. It didn't need bumping

 

[Stryker]

This is a great thread, and the pictures really help visually explaining it very well! So the realism nuts complaining can now see it's actually more realistic! Pixel hunting is not realistic, unless your firing from thousands of feet away.

 

[melipone]

No one complained about it in Ostfront. TWI didn't want zoom either. But at some point in developing RO2 they decided they wanted it and came up with a plausible realism explanation. During Ostfront's peak you couldn't find any discussion about the lack of zoom and that people wanted some. It was a feature of the game, worked find and was realistic. More realistic than changing FOV when you feel like it anyway

 

[SurgeonPredator]

Well well...

The whole discussion about the correct and "right" implementation of the human eye is a joke. We are talking about a video game that in itself is a "real world" with different mechanics and features.

So don't mix the real world eye sight with in-game eye sight.

The OP might be right about the idea behind the FOV change and it might be a good solution, but it isn't.

Strangely other games do not need such a zoom or not necessarily. Granted, OFP and ArmA have a FOV change, but a user controllable. I do play alot ArmA 2 OA with the ACE mod and was modding ArmA 1 for quite some time. First thing I did was remove all those FOV change voodoo.

It might not be realistic by means of correct eye FOV, but it will be way more authentic and immersive.

Let me try to explain.

Some people on those forums speak of "long range combat" and state that 300m is considered long range...

Well, I do shoot 300m alot and it's not even difficult to hit a 30mm target repeatedly in different stances if you are a trained shooter. It's not under combat stress but 300m is still easy enough. That might sound arrogant, but soldiers were trained at longer distances than the usual 100m.

The usual combat distance in WW2 was about 200 m, only 3-4% of shots fired by infantry were fired at longer distances. That is not because the soldiers could not see beyond 200m, the hit probability was dramatically reduced, it made more sense to call in support by arty or tanks than to engage the enemy at those distances.

But to the point: The soldier (the player) should see a foxed FOV, aiming or not, optics will decrease the FOV. That would be more immersive and, if you like it or not, more realistic. Realistic because you see what you have on your screen period. If you see some infantry men running in the distance, you will have a hard time hitting them. Now we are talking realism. Who said every soldier hit with the first shot? The battle will slow down, it will result in longer fire fights, snipers will have the edge, as they should have, officers and NCOs can spot with their binocs etc.

Having a FOV change might be a correction for the screen limitation, but it also results in a arcady, repetitive shooter game.

I am a long time player of World War 2 Online, and I didn't have any zoom on my K98k (except for the Zielvier). I had to pixel hunt and I did so on ranges between 400 and 800m with success. I had an advantage the riflemen had not.

In RO1 we didn't have FOV changes and it was a great game, I remember long distance (past 300m) firefights which were intense and satisfying.

Now I barely see beyond 250 m with all the fog going on, and I can decrease to a "normal" FOV which basicly reduces the combat zone to 300m max!

This is something I really don't like. I'd prefer to see enemies move in the countryside, not in the effective range of my rifle (but in the effective range of the MGs and snipers). The whole squad can crawl into position waiting for the enemy to get close enough to efficiently engage.

With the FOV change, it is a real immersion breaker. Hit shift, take a closer look, aim, hold shift, shoot, repeat. Without the FOV change, and an increased view distance, the situation would be different. And other games do work depsite the fixed FOV quite well. The enemy would be a small figure running around, not clearly visible, shooting and hitting will be much more difficult and challenging.

By the way, the focus/blurred peripheral view is a great feature other games already implemented. But you guys forget that the front sight is in focus...so you can focus the hell out of your front sight, your enemy will be a blurred silhouette. So scrap the focus and just fix the FOV, same result.

So if you want to realistically simulate the eye, do it the right way, focus the front sight, blur the peripheral view, and keep one FOV to simulate the fixed FOV of the human eye, it is totally irrelevant if a computer can show the complete FOV or not, the monitor will not rotate with your head, the screen will not cant if you look around a corner, basicly reducing your FOV, the only thing you would not have is proper sized targets. But who cares? the whole world is scaled the same way, so you don't need to recreate the correct real life eye FOV and all the unrealistic magic eye BS.

I planned to be more eloquent, but it is late and I am fed up with the guys arguing about the whole FOV thingy and not be consequent about the issue. I can understand both sides and I am clearly for the no-FOV change party, because it will make the whole experience more authentic. I don't care if I can see as good as IRL or if I have a hard time spotting targets. The enemy will have the same game, and no guy with better eyes will outgun me, as some would in the real world. It's a friggin game, gentlemen. It might be realistic, but not a simulation of the human eye.

And if you guys ask yourself "Who is this dude and why should I care what he has to say?" Well. I don't care if you care what I have to say, but I might as well make some of you think about the whole issue and why both parties are right with their opinion and are not "too dumb to understand the OPs facts"... Take a closer look at WW2O. Great game, great experience and no FOV change for intense battles. Why do you guys assume only the RO2 way is the right way to make a good WW2 game? Who made you the good guys because you support the thoughts behind the DEVs decision to implement the FOV mechanis? Why did they change the RO1 way of gaming? Think about that as well.

Cheers, I'm out.

 

[Josef Nader]

Your whole point boils down to "It's not my thing, and it breaks my immersion." That's fine, and a perfectly understandable position to take, but pixel hunting is bad for your eyes, and I'm glad that I have the option to change my FoV on the fly to adapt to my situation. It makes for much more intense firefights, as you can lay eyes on the enemy, and your enemy can lay eyes on you, and you aren't reduced to trying to identify a cluster of 3-4 pixels hiding in a bush at 150m.

Besides, snipers -do- have the edge in rifle battles, provided they can get to a solid position, they stay concealed, and they pick their targets carefully.

What you feel is arcadey and unimmersive, I find to be exactly the opposite. I can get a good look at my targets, identify friends or foes, scan the horizon, and I generally feel much more oriented than I did in RO1.

Different strokes for different folks.

 

[vyyye]

Your whole point boils down to "It's not my thing, and it breaks my immersion." That's fine, and a perfectly understandable position to take, but pixel hunting is bad for your eyes, and I'm glad that I have the option to change my FoV on the fly to adapt to my situation. It makes for much more intense firefights, as you can lay eyes on the enemy, and your enemy can lay eyes on you, and you aren't reduced to trying to identify a cluster of 3-4 pixels hiding in a bush at 150m.

Besides, snipers -do- have the edge in rifle battles, provided they can get to a solid position, they stay concealed, and they pick their targets carefully.

What you feel is arcadey and unimmersive, I find to be exactly the opposite. I can get a good look at my targets, identify friends or foes, scan the horizon, and I generally feel much more oriented than I did in RO1.

Different strokes for different folks.

I don't really get the argument about pixel hunting. The only effect of the zoom will be that you'll now pixel hunt at larger ranges than you did before, you can still only shoot people when they are X pixels high on your screen. Zoom just increases that range.

Granted, if the maps are ports from RO1 they will play out differently as the engagement distances will be altered, but that's more of a map thing and not a zoom one.

I don't really mind either way, but eh.

 

[Josef Nader]

I don't really get the argument about pixel hunting. The only effect of the zoom will be that you'll now pixel hunt at larger ranges than you did before, you can still only shoot people when they are X pixels high on your screen. Zoom just increases that range.

Granted, if the maps are ports from RO1 they will play out differently as the engagement distances will be altered, but that's more of a map thing and not a zoom one.

I don't really mind either way, but eh.

Well, the FoV change drastically changes how maps of similar size to RO1 play, as you said. The maps in RO2 are very similar to the size of maps in RO1 (at least the vanilla maps), ergo it totally changes how we play.

We'll be pixel hunting when we get some big, open field maps soon enough, but at much more realistic ranges. I was careful to include a specific range in my post, as I realize that out to, say, 300m we -will- be pixel hunting. However, it's totally unrealistic to be stuck in a zoomed out FoV and struggling to shoot someone a paltry 150m away.

 

[EvilAmericanMan]

My problem is the further zoom you get after you get your aiming zoom. Regardless, even without the easy button zooming, this game results in far more deaths than ever possible in Ostfront because its just so easy. Which is really annoying.

 

[Josef Nader]

My problem is the further zoom you get after you get your aiming zoom. Regardless, even without the easy button zooming, this game results in far more deaths than ever possible in Ostfront because its just so easy. Which is really annoying.

Well, again, Ostfront was made artificially a lot more difficult than reality to compensate for the shortcomings of the engine and the hardware that was present at the time. They couldn't render realistic combat ranges like they can now, so they had to hamper the player to prevent it from turning into a massive deathmatch. Players ran slower, weapons were far less accurate, and all-in-all everything was stretched to compensate for the shortcomings of the rendering engine.

And again, now those shortcomings are gone. They can take full advantage of modern hardware to present a far more realistic depiction of weapon handling. The maps haven't become any larger, and that's what's causing a lot of the problems here. However, I shouldn't have to struggle to shoot an exposed target 50m down the street from an elevated position. It was -way- to hard to aim and shoot in RO1 unless you had mastered the anti-sway muscle memory, and even then the RNG bullet spread would still screw you out of a legit kill. That doesn't happen anymore, and the game is better for it, I think.

 

[tw.ed.uk]

Most games give you a FOV between 75 and 90, which is generally perspective-incorrect for the distance most players sit back from their monitors, unless they have an absolutely gigantic monitor. Nobody minds too much, because the brain easily compensates. But what the forced 75-90 degree FOV in most games does is effectively show you a view that is ZOOMED OUT to begin with.

Example: if my monitor is 60 cm wide, and I'm sitting 95cm back, then the perspective-correct horizontal FOV would be

fov = 2 * arctan (0.6 / 2 / 0.95) = 35 degrees

This means that if your in-game "forced" FOV is set to 90 degrees and the "perspective-correct" FOV for your particular setup is 35 degrees, then you are actually ZOOMED OUT by a factor of sin(90/2) / sin(35/2) = 2.35, if my math doesn't fail me.

So, long story short - all the zoom feature does is partially compensate for the zoomed-out view that you get from forcing a relatively wide field of view onto a single monitor that is relatively far away from the player's head. I personally don't have a problem with it.

The zoom factor seems to be no more than about 1.5 to me, which seems hardly game-breaking. Is it different for each non-scoped weapon?

 

[Josef Nader]

The zoom factor seems to be no more than about 1.5 to me, which seems hardly game-breaking. Is it different for each non-scoped weapon?

Nope, FoV switch is universal for all weapons. Again, as you and I have both said, it's not zoom, it's putting everything into a 1:1 ratio. Scopes offer a pretty significant zoom boost, but I try to avoid marksman as I find the scope very obstructive and disorienting.

 

[Proud_God]

Nope, FoV switch is universal for all weapons. Again, as you and I have both said, it's not zoom, it's putting everything into a 1:1 ratio. Scopes offer a pretty significant zoom boost, but I try to avoid marksman as I find the scope very obstructive and disorienting.

You can however, set a different Iron Sight fov for rifles smg's and MG's.

 

[Sufyan]

Thank you so much for this thread. I was planning on making something like this myself, though with video and voice overs. What this game does that so many other games fail to do is to give you fairly extensive control of an ordinary human being. Your spatial awareness in-game is quite close to what your virtual character would experience if he had a brain of his own. It allows battles to flow at more true to life distances and avenues than the typical first person shooter.

I think the only way you can make a game more realistic (at the expense of immersion) is to give it a third person perspective. First person is best for immersion, no doubt, but until games can simulate the feeling of our physical body existing within the virtual world, being able to see our body interact with the game gameworld is the closest we get to actually being in full control of virtual avatar.

The most important aspect of being able to "zoom" into a true to life scale is not that it makes weapon handling any more realistic (I never fired a lethal firearm, so I can not tell), but it makes it possible for the game to relay more information that would be easily available to you in real life. In this game it is very much possible to peek over cover and scan the horison for targets and generally just absorb the visual information present in the world thanks to actually being able to look at it from a true to life distance. A typical shooter (even RO1) limits the amount of visual information you can get from a single frame in a way that you can not make realistic true to life decisions. Your virtual character is a visually impaired idiot in most games, whereas in RO2 he is an able bodied soldier with a steady aiming hand.

One sometimes mentioned field of view-modifier used in the game is the slighly increased field of view while sprinting. This is both aesthetically pleasant and informative. Higher FOV makes everything seem to move a little faster than with lower FOV, so maybe Tripwire tweaked this to make sprinting feel "right". Higher FOV gives you a little more information on your immediate surroundings. You see more of the ground beneath you, more of the obstacles to your sides. The extended view makes it a little bit easier to see your nearby team mates which is very likely of value to you while you sprint as you should be running alongside your fireteam. In real life we are able to swivel our head and notice things with our peripheral vision. For the game we can do almost the same thing by looking at different parts of the screen.

I don't know if true scale makes gun play better for this game. I can certanly appreciate the skill required to hit anything in RO1. I do however enjoy the true to life level of awareness it gives you in game. As an example, try standing behind a corner and lean around it. You can't really see anything with any clarity beyond 50 meters. If your eye sight was this bad in real life you probably wouldn't be a frontline soldier.

Any arguments about blurred vision I dismiss right away. Unless you have dirt in your eyes there is no reason for them to go blurry in games. Yes, looking through the iron sights the gun or the environment will be out of focus depending on where your eyes are focusing, but there in lies the problem with representing this within the game: The game can not know where you are actually looking at any given time. The clever compromise in this situation is to have both the sights and and target be in focus because if you were aiming a real gun your eye would be rapidly switching between the two to make sure they line up. Straight up field of depth effects are irrelevant for modelling human physiology. Those effects are more about PHOTO REALISM than actual realism, ie you get this from looking through a camera. A typical photo realistic effect is the lens flare. Field of depth and lens flares can be good for immersion but they are not artifacts of the human eye.

 

[SurgeonPredator]

The FOV change is a nice tool to have true to life visus, but it is not implemented in a user friendly way so it is a real immersion breaker.

Either fix the FOV like in WW2O (which has combat on longer distances than RO2 and more realistic fire fights without a zoom)

or make it continuous like in ArmA/OFP, so you can change the FOV to your needs and not a on/off toggle with another key for finger acrobats.

I hate to hold a key to see normal or shoot with "proper" FOV. In ArmA you could set your FOV to min, max or something inbetween (with proper configured keys) or "zoom" in or out without holding down a key, that will also make us run if moving sideways with sights. I know there is a console command to bind a different key, but I'd like to have that option in the GUI.

But all this "realistic" combat distance mumbo jumbo is completely out of question if you barely see beyond what? 250m and the FOG strikes back?

If this whole discussion is about realism and authenticity, why do you guys want a proper FOV if the proper view distance is cut at around 300m by either fog (fallen fighters) or rubble (red october)?

Hitting someone on 300m is, even with the narrow FOV, difficult, but it should not be. Hitting a target on 300m is easy, as stated in my previous comment. And I was talking about a 30mm mouche/bull's eye. A human silhouette, or the head as part of the vital zone, is a bigger target, so considering the good shooting drills and accuracy of the WW2 veterans (not to be confused with the piss poor aim of the 'Nam generation, sorry if I offend vets, but fact was, a grunt was unable to hit a target beyond 25 yard with consistency, not to speak of targets beyond 100 yards, which was a seldom distance in the jungle, but did not help in a low roudnds per kill ratio)

Beyond 300m the environmental influences will play a bigger and bigger role, talking wind- and spin drift, temperature, humidity, altitude, dew point, powder temperature,...heck even coriolis for the tankers or the cracks that fire their MN/K98k on extended ranges)

But let's just assume we play on a calm (wind-wise) day and shoot perfectly east-west and vice versa with a constant weather conditions, the range is still limited to claustophobic ranges.

I'd like to see Ivan in the distance, not able to shoot back, calling out for arty or fire support, moving into position to engage when the targets are in range.

Where is the thrill in fighting the enemy the moment I spot him, because he also knows I am there, reducing the whole battle to the boring see first, score first shooter mechanics.

No tactics required in positioning yourself at a choke point/objective building and being the fastest gun on the Eastern Front.

Let us plan our atttack or defence when we see the enemy approaching (they have enough options to conceal and cover, even if it is a smoke grenade) as long as they did not spot us.

Where is the joy in just another fast paced shooter, regardless of the setting? It all comes down to reflexes not wits and intelligence, the recon plane is a useless tool, too much "kill streak"-esque for my taste and I doubt there were recon planes flying (for long) low over Stalingrad able to spot targets. This is not Bird Dog from the 'Nam...

I guess the recon was implemented to satisfy the casual gamers of a well known make and model, but were also added to have some sort of long range visibility. But again, a plane can not spot targets in buildings nor concealed targets and won't put experience into the detection methods (a change in the landscape, a walking bush...) as the human could.

We have a somehow broken tool, the realistic eye sight, but not the possibility to put them to good use. I can see a target at 250m better with low FOV, but I won't see anything beyond that range...how so? Well, it's not the eyes that make the FOV thingy useless...it is the limited view distance.

So do we need a FOV feature, if we just see better on 250-300m?

Is it really necessary to have realistic eye simulations in a game that is too fast paced to scan the horizon, plan the path of advance, the defensive choke points and whatnot, by guessing where the enemy could appear? I say it is a good feature for a game like OFP/ArmA, where you can see targets on ranges past 1klick, and if you keep a low profile, you can plan ahead, stage an ambush, retreat, reroute...you name it.

I won't be able to end this discussion, but I can try to influence people. I doubt the DEVs will change this in the near future, maybe never, but they might think about the view distance and key binding on/off toggle issue mentioned somewhere in this wall of text. That would make larger missions possible without being unplayable. Granted, the deadly accurate shooting skills under all combat conditions would make it a laser tag game, but I have hopes for a properly implemented suppression and sway system.

Enough for now. Thanks for reading up to this point. And I hope the critique is not just a one liner, I put some brain cells into this reply (again) and like to hear what others think of it (not just a short "you have a different opionon" reply)

Predator OUT

 

[Josef Nader]

Well, the problem is that I can answer all that with a one liner.

We asked for realism. They gave us realism. In real life, if you see Ivan in the distance playing with a radio, chances are you can put a bullet on him from a good firing position. Real life combat is often decided by who can put the most lead in the air the fastest after making visual contact. Real combat is who sees who first, which is why real life armies spend weeks of training teaching soldiers how to move around the battlefield unobserved, how to reach positions without being seen, and how to avoid drawing attention to themselves without accomplishing something by doing it.

Real combat isn't slow, or deliberate. It's all about which side can maneuver into the best positions in the fastest and safest manner possible, and then lay down the most accurate and devastating fire. It's not about who stops to think the most. The tactical thinking needs to be reflexive. It needs to be drilled into you to the point where you -aren't- thinking about it when the bullets start flying. If a grenade lands next to you and you have to stop to think about what to do, you die. Trained soldiers will instantly drop prone and cover themselves without a thought crossing their mind. Trained soldiers don't need to plan out the best route to approach a machine gun nest, they do it instinctively. They see the lay of the land and can process that instantly into the most efficient route.

Slow is hard, not realistic. We wanted realism and they gave it to us. I can only hope that they leave it the way it is now and let the modders slow the game down for those of you who don't like the new setup.

 

[SurgeonPredator]

Well, you just told me stuff I already know and did not comment on anything besides what combat is like.

I said the view distance is too short in game, because in the real world I can see for kilometers, unless there are severe weather conditions, which are not present in RO2.

So the whole reply was just a repetition of stuff I just used as a better insight of why the eye simulation is not needed.

 

[Gaizokubanou]

Well, you just told me stuff I already know and did not comment on anything besides what combat is like.

I said the view distance is too short in game, because in the real world I can see for kilometers, unless there are severe weather conditions, which are not present in RO2.

So the whole reply was just a repetition of stuff I just used as a better insight of why the eye simulation is not needed.

Yeah it's probably limitation with the engine that's creating such short view distance.

I mean Unreal Engine 3 could let you see far out, but it can't produce anything in detail at that range. Not to mention loads of post processing effect that blurs the game to remove jaggies and add depth of field.