Pixel Hunting

[babokitty]

By going the FOV zoom route, they've swapped one unrealistic feature with a bigger one. I don't think when two soldiers of equal size face off at equal distance, one should look larger than the other, that's not realistic at all. The only instance the FOV zoom would be correct is if this game were a shooting range simulator, but its not, its a WWII combat simulation with two sides facing off at equal distances.

So what if the correct distance gets distorted without zoom. It's the limitation of hardware. Just pretend distances are what they look like and be done with it. If the game were released tomorrow, I envision both sides refusing to break from cover, waiting for artillery to knock positions out. Yes, that's how battles play out in real life, but bloody boring for a video game.

 

[Reise]

Only however if you use an average sized monitor, if you use a big monitor or a small laptop screen you are still ****ed.

FOV isn't linked to your screen resolution unless you're talking about the difference between screen ratios.

People like me with 4:3 dinosaurs will always be at a disadvantage, anyway. But your FOV is still compensated for in both SD and widescreen ratios. I'm not sure how you figure having a smaller resolution does anything.

 

[babokitty]

FOV isn't linked to your screen resolution unless you're talking about the difference between screen ratios.

People like me with 4:3 dinosaurs will always be at a disadvantage, anyway. But your FOV is still compensated for in both SD and widescreen ratios. I'm not sure how you figure having a smaller resolution does anything.

I think he was asking the question: Why try to make the perceived distances look accurate with FOV zoom when things like monitor size and aspect ratio are bigger factors. If you pretend your monitor is a window and you're peering outside, different monitor sizes will make objects look like they're at different distances. It's another aspect of hardware limitation really, but this once again invalidates the argument for FOV zoom somehow being more realistic since the sizes of objects displayed on different monitors will appear larger or smaller.

 

[Reise]

Well jeez unless you're playing on a 50" vs. a 17" the difference should be trivial.

I would rather have the zoom and have most of the difference compensated for than just leave it out completely and have basically the same issue. The zoom does even the playing field, and makes things acceptably realistic..

 

[Zetsumei]

FOV isn't linked to your screen resolution unless you're talking about the difference between screen ratios.

People like me with 4:3 dinosaurs will always be at a disadvantage, anyway. But your FOV is still compensated for in both SD and widescreen ratios. I'm not sure how you figure having a smaller resolution does anything.

Fov probably isn't linked to your screen resolution and probably only based indeed on the aspect ratio.

However for a 1:1 display your screen must pretty much fill 60

 

[Lucan946]

I'm sure it's probably just me but... I like pixel hunting. Anything that makes the game more of a challenge I'm for.

Eh, I don't like it much. In real life, it's much easier to hit a target at 100m with a Mosin-Nagant than in Red Orchestra, by virtue of sight at least.

By going the FOV zoom route, they've swapped one unrealistic feature with a bigger one. I don't think when two soldiers of equal size face off at equal distance, one should look larger than the other, that's not realistic at all. The only instance the FOV zoom would be correct is if this game were a shooting range simulator, but its not, its a WWII combat simulation with two sides facing off at equal distances.

So what if the correct distance gets distorted without zoom. It's the limitation of hardware. Just pretend distances are what they look like and be done with it. If the game were released tomorrow, I envision both sides refusing to break from cover, waiting for artillery to knock positions out. Yes, that's how battles play out in real life, but bloody boring for a video game.

The fact that it's easier to hit something at 100m in the game because it would be in real life wouldn't change the way the game was played that much. You'd have engagments occuring at longer ranges, which is hardly unrealistic. While the feature of zoom itself is unrealistic, what it compensates for is not.

 

[REZ]

I can't argue against that either way cause I have no idea if it's easier in real life or not.. but after watching the video I get the feeling with an artificial zoom and magical breathing powers things will be real easy to hit (especially at relatively close distances which is how most of the fighting took place). We all know eyes dont zoom in and out, and one has to wonder just how much control over one's breath a person has when they've been running about conducting military operations and they know they can die at any second.

Anyway, this has all been said before.. we'll see how it plays out .

 

[Reise]

If you were to utilize that a 16:9 monitor gets a wider fov then that means that the 4:3 monitor gets relatively more zoom. Its all a trade off based on preference. So saying you're at clear disadvantage is a bit odd here.

If true widescreen support is included, 4:3 would indeed be at a disadvantage. The top and bottom of the screen wouldn't be simply cut off to fit a widescreen ratio.

I'm not sure if it's possible with UE3, but it would be an excellent feature to include. I know Crysis is a played-out example, but it shows the difference well.

http://www.widescreengaming.net/wiki/Image:Crysis-1024.jpg
http://www.widescreengaming.net/wiki/Image:Crysis-1440.jpg

Notice how the visible area on the widescreen image includes more viewable space to the left and right while retaining the vertical spacing shown in the 4:3 screenshot.

 

[Dwin]

I've never understood this whole "breathing to steady" concept. When I'm holding a camera for example, my breathing has absolutely no noticeable effect on the steadiness of my arms. The only unsteadiness just comes from my body's natural inability to be perfectly still.

 

[SheepDip]

You don't just hold a gun with your arms, the butt of the weapon is supported/stabilised in part by your shoulder/upper chest.

 

[Lucan946]

I can't argue against that either way cause I have no idea if it's easier in real life or not.. but after watching the video I get the feeling with an artificial zoom and magical breathing powers things will be real easy to hit (especially at relatively close distances which is how most of the fighting took place). We all know eyes dont zoom in and out, and one has to wonder just how much control over one's breath a person has when they've been running about conducting military operations and they know they can die at any second.

Anyway, this has all been said before.. we'll see how it plays out .

It is much easier. A while back in that one thread that I'm sure you'll have no problems finding links to if you look around, Ramm stated that the (I think it was FOV?) FOV in Red Orchestra: Ostfront 1941-45 made it so that your character could only clearly see half (?) the distance you would be able to see in real life. So, in Heroes of Stalingrad, they're compensating by adding a feature that zooms 2x. As for breathing control, holding your breath is a very basic function. Controlling your shots to be all on the exhale is not. So, really, the game ought to make it so that to get the most accurate shot possible, you hold your breath for a few seconds and then fire the moment you release the breath.

I've never understood this whole "breathing to steady" concept. When I'm holding a camera for example, my breathing has absolutely no noticeable effect on the steadiness of my arms. The only unsteadiness just comes from my body's natural inability to be perfectly still.

In reality, it's the exhale that will really steady your hands. You have a tiny window to make that shot. Although, the effect of breathing is much more noticable, at least to me, when I have a rifle butt pressed against my shoulder than when I'm firing a pistol with one/two hands.

 

[=GG= Mr Moe]

As far as breathing, I learned growing up that controlled breathing was the way to aim and fire and only first heard of holding your breath when certain video games added it into their sniper feature. Am I the odd man out on this?

 

[Lucan946]

As far as breathing, I learned growing up that controlled breathing was the way to aim and fire and only first heard of holding your breath when certain video games added it into their sniper feature. Am I the odd man out on this?

Nope. I took a shooting course at my camp when I was 8, I think, and the instructor taught us to shoot on the exhale. I don't remember a whole lot else from that.

EDIT: Note that none of us were capable of that, being 8.

 

[Xendance]

In the FDF they taught that you shoot when you exhale. Seems to work, considering that about 75% of our company scored over 90% in the shooting test, we shot from 150 meters.

 

[REZ]

So you guys agree that breath control has a lot to do with the accuracy of your shots. Good. Now add all the other factors I mentioned and subtract the fact that you guys were shooting most likely at a rested position while being well fed, not tired, and without your lives being in imminent danger. I dont know about you but my heart would be pounding out of my chest and I'd probably be suffering some other physical effects too - not to mention no matter how hard I tried I'd not be able to get my eyes to zoom in X2. (you can bet the zoom will be identical to KF)

The argument is null and void because they've already decided to add this junk, sooo.. no point in continuing other than to say, we'll see how it plays out. These things could turn it into just another FPS game on the pile, or it could improve what was already a magnificent balance - we'll see.

 

[Fedorov]

I don't get why you are so zealously defending a system that is unrealistically harder, are you a masochist? RO is very flawed as it is, and those changes are needed.

Get over it REZ, and If you don't want change, just play the old one as Its not gonna disappear from existence.

 

[REZ]

Like I said Fed, we'll see how it plays out. I havent made a conclusive decision.. mainly because I'm going to wait and see what some people say about it before I actually spend money on it (I'll have to buy a whole new computer just to play this thing, so it's more than 40-50 bucks for me).

The only reason I defend the current mechanics is because they work! The mechanics in Ost are better than any other FPS in my opinion. That's why I spent so many years playing it. It's been incredibly fun to play RO the way it has been, and I feel some of the things they are doing to the game are a big step away from what made it successful to begin with. That's all. You dont have to get upset at my opinion. It's not an attack aimed at you.

One of the reasons I keep posting about these two specific 'features' is because (unlike 'relaxed realism') you probably wont be able to turn this stuff off if you dont like it. I go into IS about 20-30 times a minute (sometimes more).. thats a lot of zooming in and out. Really annoying/distracting if you ask me. Zoom hold the breath button, zoom hold the breath button, zoom hold the breath button ad nauseum.

To answer your 'just play the old one'.. well, in my part of the world you can only play Danzig, and.. I've had enough of that thank you. I havent played RO in a couple of years specifically because of that. 50 player servers and 24/7 Danzig killed the magic for me.

..and now after all this typing I'm sitting here thinking 'why am I explaining myself to Fed'..

 

[Fedorov]

Like I said Fed, we'll see how it plays out. I havent made a conclusive decision.. mainly because I'm going to wait and see what some people say about it before I actually spend money on it (I'll have to buy a whole new computer just to play this thing, so it's more than 40-50 bucks for me).

are you sure about that? My computer is like 5 years old and it wasn't even expensive at its time and I can still max all UE3 games I've played so far.

The only reason I defend the current mechanics is because they work! The mechanics in Ost are better than any other FPS in my opinion.

The thing is that, It doesn't really work.
As you said, you haven't played in years, believe me, this game has aged pretty badly since RO2 was announced, what at first felt very natural, it just feels frustrating and unnecessary now.

But I agree that the current mechanics are better than in other FPS (I'm not currently playing any FPS at all), but RO2 will have it better than RO1 and therefore any other FPS too.

So hopefully, It will have the best mechanics ever in an FPS.

That's why I spent so many years playing it. It's been incredibly fun to play RO the way it has been, and I feel some of the things they are doing to the game are a big step away from what made it successful to begin with. That's all. You dont have to get upset at my opinion. It's not an attack aimed at you.

What made it successful is still there and improved, which is 3d weapon ironsights instead of x-hair, real ballistics, and a realistic damage model.

And no, I don't take it as a personal attack, sorry if I made it sound that way. I just don't want people getting in the way of what I feel is a necessary evolution.

One of the reasons I keep posting about these two specific 'features' is because (unlike 'relaxed realism') you probably wont be able to turn this stuff off if you dont like it. I go into IS about 20-30 times a minute (sometimes more).. thats a lot of zooming in and out. Really annoying/distracting if you ask me. Zoom hold the breath button, zoom hold the breath button, zoom hold the breath button ad nauseum.

I didn't feel such a thing playing KF, I don't know anyone who does either. Yet when you know you are trying to snipe at a distorted image that is twice as small as it should be, now thats what really becomes annoying.

To answer your 'just play the old one'.. well, in my part of the world you can only play Danzig, and.. I've had enough of that thank you. I havent played RO in a couple of years specifically because of that. 50 player servers and 24/7 Danzig killed the magic for me.

that sucks =(

..and now after all this typing I'm sitting here thinking 'why am I explaining myself to Fed'..

=P

 

[Floyd]

As far as breathing, I learned growing up that controlled breathing was the way to aim and fire and only first heard of holding your breath when certain video games added it into their sniper feature. Am I the odd man out on this?

No. Your not the odd man out. Can't speak for what they teach 'modern' day, but in competition shooting we trained using natural breathing. Holding your breath causes you to involuntarily twitch. And as someone here said, how can you magically "control" your breath and/or heartrate when you've just run for your life a 1/2 block to get under cover? I'll concede perhaps some advantage for a few seconds, but certainly nothing magical. Its hard enough trying to gain control over your adrenaline in a match, let alone a battlefield situation.

 

[<animal>INSTINCT]

when i went hunting with a buddy of mine, he told me to exhale and wait for the pause in between heartbeats to shoot

the heart beat thing might be hard to do in a combat scenario though, since the adrenaline would make you heart pump at a gazillion beats per minute