FOV options

  • 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/

Zetsumei

FNG / Fresh Meat
Nov 22, 2005
12,458
1,433
0
33
Falmouth UK
What we know about the fov in ROOST so far:

We already know there are 3 stages of zoom.


  • Normal wide field of view. (looks like 85 fov in normal ro)
  • Ironsight slightly zoomed field of view. (looks like 75 fov)
  • breathing mode heavily zoomed field of view. (looks like 60 fov)

---------------------------------------
The suggestion:

It would be nice if users could somewhat within a margin change the field of view of the 3 individual options like back in the Red Orchestra mod.


  • Like normal wide field of view could be set between 70 and 85
  • Ironsight, slightly zoomed field of view could be set between 70 and 85
  • and Ironsight breathing, heavily zoomed field of view could be set between 60 and 85.
(note the numbers in this suggestion could logically be changed)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why this suggestion:

This way the users could setup their fov view how they prefer to have it.


  • Like making all fov numbers the same at say 75 fov, so you wont have a zoom function but have to cope with a bit less pherhipheral view and zoom as the default one. However you wont have to cope with the transitioning effect.
  • Or keeping the zoom function but making it a little less extreme. Say default fov of 80, ironsight fov of 75 and zoom fov of 65.
  • Or using the max fov for perhipheral view, and the lowest fov for the zoom view (default mode)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: Please do Not discuss wether or not fov zoom is realistic, there are plenty other threads for that.
 
Last edited:

Hyperion2010

FNG / Fresh Meat
Nov 22, 2005
2,560
1
0
33
NC
Quite honestly I think that every game should have user defined FOV (if the engine supports it obviously). It really is no different than mouse sensativity and the tradeoffs are similar. The wider your fov the more easily you can see in cqb and the worse you are at range, similarly the lower your fov the worse your cqb and the more detail you can see at range. ROHOS has mitigated the tradoff to some extent, and for that reason the devs need to set reasonable limits so that you can see clear to the other side of the map with fov 20 when in IS and you dont *really* want people like me running around with fov 130 like they are playing quake (though I personally would love this). I have always though that the unrealistic feel of cqb in RO has primarily been because the FOV is so low that you simply miss players that would otherwise be rather obvious (not to mention the eternal sneeking tigertanks etc. ;)). The more choice you give to the user the more they personally can enjoy the game. I also think it might be possible to test empirically whether or not higher (or lower) FOV gives players a real advantage (unfair? not if everyone can do it) or whether it is just a ficticious concern. All in all I think that the more control you give to all players equally the more fun they will have in the end.
 

Zetsumei

FNG / Fresh Meat
Nov 22, 2005
12,458
1,433
0
33
Falmouth UK
Well i personally think that atleast the lower end of the fov should be limited. simply otherwise every weapon could become a sniper weapon when going in IS (ideally in my opinion people should never get a view bigger than 1:1 scaling with reality).

But on the other end i personally wouldnt mind seeing high fov amounts for the people that want to use multiple monitor setups with "proper" widescreen.
 
Last edited:

Reise

FNG / Fresh Meat
Feb 1, 2006
2,689
851
0
Maine, US
FOV should be completely restricted.

The last thing we need are more people messing with .ini files to get an advantage.
 

=GG= Mr Moe

FNG / Fresh Meat
Mar 16, 2006
9,794
890
0
55
Newton, NJ
While I don't see it happening, I do like the idea of a user defined FOV, as long as it stays within the scope of realism. I would prefer this over a forced 'zoom' when in IS. It shouldn't be anything that would be tweaked in the .ini, something toggled in game is best. I don't know how feasable this is.

Three preset settings such as Zets has outlined would be fine (with my choices below):

- One for a realistic FOV (whatever angle that may be), whatever can be done without distorting it on an average monitor. This way you could come as close as you can (on a monitor) as someones normal FOV in real life. Obviously in order to do this, things would look smaller on screen compared to normal view now, but it would allow a wider angle of view... as in real life. A player would sacrafice his realistic view distance in order to get better but realistic situational awareness.

- One for 1:1 view ratio if you are focusing on areas in front of you. This way you can see things better at a distance, but the 'zoom' would never be more than 100% as in real life. A player sacrafices his peripheral vision in order to achieve a realistic view size (and focus).

- One for an average normal view set as the default (such as in RO now) It would be the one most players would use and is a compromise between the two real extremes above. Probably the most useful under most players circumstances.

--------

As long as view modes can be toggled in game, no players will have an advantage over the others as everyone can choose which style works best for them. There is nothing wrong with the choices either as they all will represent something similar to what is viewed in real life without going beyond realism or accuracy.
 
Last edited:

Tiger2

FNG / Fresh Meat
Jun 13, 2008
501
144
0
FOV should be completely restricted.

The last thing we need are more people messing with .ini files to get an advantage.

Fully agree. Also it is impossible to have 85 degree FOV in zoomed in view with the average monitor.
 

Zetsumei

FNG / Fresh Meat
Nov 22, 2005
12,458
1,433
0
33
Falmouth UK
FOV should be completely restricted.

The last thing we need are more people messing with .ini files to get an advantage.

I agree 100% with your reasoning and that is exactly the reason why i want limits of the max en min fov, that the devs code into the game.

Of course if there is a way to get away from the 60-85 (or whatever) range, then customizability should be scrapped like what happened when going to ostfront. However I'm confident in the abilities of the devs that they can stop exploitability of such a system.

I'm no coder so i don't know about the exploitability of sliders, but there must be options to stop the slinders from going over their limits. To stop exploitism it could be made to not allow changing of the sliders and settings when playing in a server, so you cannot use bindings. In a similar way that you can't use the "god" cheat command while online and cannot change the local "max fps" setting more than once while online.

Believe me on one thing, i don't want exploits and bugs into this game, and actually hope myself that there will be more exploit/bug fixing and more tools for instance competition site/server admins to see if cheat accusations are correct or wrong (as if people start doubting everything can fall apart).

If the max zoom is the same as the default zoom, and the max fov is thesame as the default fov. Then if a user prefers to have something in the middle, he can neither see further or see at a wider view so he gets no advantage beside not seeing any zooming in or out which breaks the immersion for some people.
 
Last edited:

Morello

Administrator
Mar 17, 2006
1,277
79
48
As long as there is a maximum which cannot be bypassed, then having this small amount of tweaking room sounds like a good idea.
 

LionbI4

FNG / Fresh Meat
Apr 26, 2006
273
12
0
Agree with Zetsumei.
Additionally, it should be possible to limit minimal and maximal FOV on server side. For example, I would like to limit minimal FOV to 75 for everyone, so 'Ironsight breathing' will not have such big zoom.
 

Cpt-Praxius

FNG / Fresh Meat
Dec 12, 2005
3,300
1,667
0
Canadian in Australia
I don't really get what you mean. Nobody said 85 would be the zoomed in view, I mean, that's RO's default FOV setting.

Actually last I checked it was 90.... I know, 5 isn't that big of a difference. :cool:

One thing that kinda bugs me about people tweaking around with the FOV and then complaining about the bubbly sides with an skewed central vision.... is that you shouldn't have a wide angle view of the map in the first place.

Sure in real life you see much wider.... but that's without a helmet on your head. ;)

But I suppose I could live with 2 or 3 preset modifications on the FOV, so long as they're equal to everybody who plays and they can't be screwed around with.

But I like my screen flat with proper perspective and my corners not bubbily, so if my regular view in game is pre-set to some screwed up cone view, I won't be pleased.
 
Last edited:

Zetsumei

FNG / Fresh Meat
Nov 22, 2005
12,458
1,433
0
33
Falmouth UK
Unlike most games Red Orchestra actually does use 85 as the default fov instead of 90 ;). Don't ask me why though.

Open DefUser.ini

[Engine.PlayerController]
DesiredFOV=85.000000
 
Last edited:

Cpt-Praxius

FNG / Fresh Meat
Dec 12, 2005
3,300
1,667
0
Canadian in Australia
Unlike most games Red Orchestra actually does use 85 as the default fov instead of 90 ;). Don't ask me why though.

Open DefUser.ini

[Engine.PlayerController]
DesiredFOV=85.000000

Odd, the mod was set to 90 as it being the original default of UT2k4.... last I checked on my options I thought I saw 90 in Ost.... maybe I changed it, or maybe I just didn't notice.

Meh, oh well... the difference is probably slight anyways from 85-90.

Here's what I think we all need:

http://www.shacknews.com/images/gen...red_without_text_alienware_curved_monitor.jpg

only with more curve to wrap more around your head so that you can actually turn your head to look without actually moving your character in game.
 
Last edited:

Tiger2

FNG / Fresh Meat
Jun 13, 2008
501
144
0
Changing FOV will always be a tradeoff between the angle and the zoom level.

If the anlge is extremely big, it will result in a fish eye effect with all objects in the world appearing much further away than they actually are. If the angle is much smaller, objects will appear of the right size, but then peripheral vision will be lost. This is why games like Arma give you different zoom levels and peripheral vision indicators.
 
Last edited:

Zetsumei

FNG / Fresh Meat
Nov 22, 2005
12,458
1,433
0
33
Falmouth UK
Changing FOV will always be a tradeoff between the angle and the zoom level.

Exactly although the optimum of that tradeoff is different for different people.

Thats why if there is a wide fov (perhipheral), and a low fov (zoom). Why not let players decide, if they prefer to have something inbetween those 2 modes? (assuming its not exploitable to go beyond the boundaries)
 
Last edited:

Tiger2

FNG / Fresh Meat
Jun 13, 2008
501
144
0
Exactly although the optimum of that tradeoff is different for different people.

Thats why if there is a wide fov (perhipheral), and a low fov (zoom). Why not let players decide, if they prefer to have something inbetween those 2 modes? (assuming its not exploitable to go beyond the boundaries)


The thing is.. TWI has taken care of that to some extent. The zoomed in sights give the right "size and scale" on your monitor that the world objects would appear if your eyes were to focus on something further away. In my opinion it would be ideal to have indicators at the sides of the screen to mark any friendlies/foes up to 20 metres away and within 140-180 degrees of your FOV who are not visible on the screen at that time.

If they allowed the players to modify the existing FOV both in the normal mode and the zoomed in mode, then people who own larger monitors would always be the winners. Very large resolutions can give you 90 degrees of vision plus the same zoom level that an average monitor would have. The owners of smaller monitors would be at a disadvantage.
 
Last edited:

Zetsumei

FNG / Fresh Meat
Nov 22, 2005
12,458
1,433
0
33
Falmouth UK
The thing is.. TWI has taken care of that to some extent. The zoomed in sights give the right "size and scale" on your monitor that the world objects would appear if your eyes were to focus on something further away. In my opinion it would be ideal to have indicators at the sides of the screen to mark any friendlies/foes up to 20 metres away and within 140-180 degrees of your FOV who are not visible on the screen at that time.

If they allowed the players to modify the existing FOV both in the normal mode and the zoomed in mode, then people who own larger monitors would always be the winners. Very large resolutions can give you 90 degrees of vision plus the same zoom level that an average monitor would have. The owners of smaller monitors would be at a disadvantage.

Larger monitors will always have an advantage. As what for the other is 1:1 imagery they have say a 2x zoom over reallife scaling. In that sense the normal ironsight mode might show enemies as big for someone on a big monitor as someone on a smaller monitor in zoom.

So either they see everything bigger and can shoot further away, or they can see more fov. That advantage wont change. Most likely twi will support "real" widescreen this time aka people with multi monitor setups / widescreens will be able to get a wider fov anyway.

The current fov zoom is somewhat balanced for an average monitor size which is 19-20" and for someone that wants to have both wide vision and 1:1 scaling. Users with a 30" monitor will see things 1.5 times bigger than in reallife for example. And multi monitor setups can get up to seeing things 2+ times bigger than in reallife.

This suggestion wont change the advantage bigger monitors have over smaller monitors, it just allows people to customize the game more to ones preference.

All difference this will make, is that people can change the settings to something they feel the most comfortable with.
Some people including me would rather have a little bit less wide vision and a bit less zoom, for not having to switch between 2 modes all the time. I prefer a mode a bit more in the middle.

Some people prefer a wider fov and some people prefer a more narrow fov, if within bounds everybody has the option to customize their settings to something they feel the best with, and they perform the best with then i think its a win win situation for every gamer.

The only things i think are important is A there are limits in the min and max fov settings, and B that they disable changing the fov settings more than once while in an online game. (exactly like the max fps setting in ut2004 to stop people using binding tricks).
 
Last edited: