Maybe its a FOV thing. My FOV is 75 and as I've said, I havent' seen them since the beta (or maybe a patch).
Removing "Edge marker" in Realism mode
- Thread starter Chomiq
- Start date
Wouldn't an FoV of 180 degrees be more realistic for FoV? Doesn't that sound like a blast (or a headache) to play?
You can only go so big on a single screen before you start fisheyeing, that's the thing.
I can go up to 100 degrees horizontal FOV before it becomes more disorienting than helpful.
The peripheral vision indicator should not be removed, but it does need to be tweaked. Certain problems, spotting through smoke primarily, need to be addressed. Also in most cases it is easier to sweep your head around and look for the indicator than actually look for the enemy. But to say that having functional peripheral vision is unrealistic isn't accurate.
Perhaps there could be a few more variables asigned to this mechanic such as distance, % of target that is visible, or motion activating the indicators.
Perhaps there could be a few more variables asigned to this mechanic such as distance, % of target that is visible, or motion activating the indicators.
this is easily the worst feature in the game. an interview with alan wilson said they implemented it because the human eye may not detect detail on the edges of your fov, but it'll see movement. except the indicator only shows enemy and it doesn't matter how much of the enemy is visible.
my vision couldn't pick up the things this detects. it's a de facto wallhack. i've been in clan matches where the enemy runs around looking all over the place just for the indicators. these teams will circle a house until they see the flash and then unload with their guns through the walls at the spot it indicated. frequently getting kills without even seeing the enemy.
it's not right and it's quite cartoonish.
my vision couldn't pick up the things this detects. it's a de facto wallhack. i've been in clan matches where the enemy runs around looking all over the place just for the indicators. these teams will circle a house until they see the flash and then unload with their guns through the walls at the spot it indicated. frequently getting kills without even seeing the enemy.
it's not right and it's quite cartoonish.
Oh, now I understand why some players were acting weird...
I just found out about this feature on this thread, it needs a serious nerf ASAP, like only working at short range AND moving targets.
[ NeoTokyo has a special vision which only detect moving target, it seems you can code it without too much efforts. Players in movement have an aura effect - only visible with motion vision activated]
Keep the actual code, tweak it so it displays only at x meters, only when the target is moving (sprint or running speed, lean in/lean out), no ?
=> Why ?
Peripheral vision is mostly made of rod cells, who are much more sensitives than cone cells but less accurate, they can't see colors but can see movements much more easily.
==> Why ?
- Multiple rods cells converges on a single interneuron, so the image resolution is smaller (= less accurate), but you only need 1 cell to activate an entire interneuron.
- They also have slower responsiveness (like an higher exposure in photography), so even a slight change in light condition is detected, but they can't get a clear picture/details.
TWI, if you plan on adding peripheral vision to be more "realist", please do it right.
Peripheral vision is done by rod cells, specialized in motion detection, and weak in details and colors.
I just found out about this feature on this thread, it needs a serious nerf ASAP, like only working at short range AND moving targets.
[ NeoTokyo has a special vision which only detect moving target, it seems you can code it without too much efforts. Players in movement have an aura effect - only visible with motion vision activated]
Keep the actual code, tweak it so it displays only at x meters, only when the target is moving (sprint or running speed, lean in/lean out), no ?
=> Why ?
Peripheral vision is mostly made of rod cells, who are much more sensitives than cone cells but less accurate, they can't see colors but can see movements much more easily.
==> Why ?
- Multiple rods cells converges on a single interneuron, so the image resolution is smaller (= less accurate), but you only need 1 cell to activate an entire interneuron.
- They also have slower responsiveness (like an higher exposure in photography), so even a slight change in light condition is detected, but they can't get a clear picture/details.
TWI, if you plan on adding peripheral vision to be more "realist", please do it right.
Peripheral vision is done by rod cells, specialized in motion detection, and weak in details and colors.
Last edited:
IIRC, TWI played around with having the indicators go on no matter if it was friend or foe, but found it cluttered things too much (say during spawn).
I'd like to see the indicators go off on friends if they're a little further away, and have the indicators go away all together if the person is too far to realistically spot, or obscured behind smoke / partial cover.
Interesting. (And my favourite peeve in RO2, no less!)
I have a Love/Hate relationship with Peripheral Vision Indicators (PVIs) in RO2: I like the idea behind it but as is the case with so many of the ‘in principle’ good ideas in RO2 the implementation leaves an awful lot to be desired. It makes sense to implement a mechanic that gives the player peripheral feedback; it makes no sense at all that the PVIs see through concealment and only detect the enemy.
Tweak: Adjust PVIs to detect friendly as well as enemy movements or get rid of them entirely.
Tweak: Do not detect movements that are concealed or get rid of them entirely.
Sorry people, but I’m going to bang on again about how unnoticeable PVIs are on large, widescreen monitors. I recently played the game on a friend’s 4:3 aspect ratio screen and the PVIs are in your face and very difficult to ignore. On my 24” 16:10 aspect ratio screen they are tiny and fall outside of the central cone of detail in the typical Human eye thus all but unnoticeable. Debate regarding current implementation aside, it is undeniable that PVIs help you stay alive; not being able to notice them is a significant disadvantage. (The angle of detection that PVIs pick up is far, far wider than the extra few degrees of view that widescreens present over normal aspect displays.)
Brace yourselves, here comes the science bit (to add to what Temporary already posted)…
If you sit with your face ~1.5ft away from a 16:10, 1920x1200+ resolution monitor – aka. Gamer’s Hunch - the PVIs are no longer picked up by the eye’s densely packed cone cell receptors in the fovea centralis, but are instead more reliant on being detected by the rod cell receptors in the areas surrounding the fovea centralis. Cone cells are packed far more densely than rod cells, thus the level of visual acuity in this central region of the eye is far higher than in any other area. The net result of this is that rod cells (the cells that most of us are relying on to notice PVIs when using large, widescreen resolutions) are only really capable of detecting movement and rapid changes in contrast. In RO2 PVIs are pretty much static (thus aren’t likely to be detected by rod cells) and they have a fixed colour, white (thus aren’t likely to be detected by rod cells again). When playing on large, widescreen resolutions you only notice PVIs when you are looking for them, which pretty much defeats the point of having them.
Tweak: Make the PVIs rapidly flash black and white via a tickbox option [on/off].
I created a poll about this (http://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/showthread.php?t=71396http://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/showthread.php?t=71396) and no-one thinks making PVIs easier to see on widescreen resolutions is a good idea. I’m a bit flummoxed by this result and have concluded that the poll has been hijacked by protest votes against the PVI system in general. Perfectly valid sentiment, at present there is very little that works about RO2’s PVI implementation and it is currently borderline ‘hackish’; however, If PVIs are here to stay then they need to be fixed and the visibility of these indicators must be factored into said fix for hi-res, widescreen players.
Peace & chocolate.
I have a Love/Hate relationship with Peripheral Vision Indicators (PVIs) in RO2: I like the idea behind it but as is the case with so many of the ‘in principle’ good ideas in RO2 the implementation leaves an awful lot to be desired. It makes sense to implement a mechanic that gives the player peripheral feedback; it makes no sense at all that the PVIs see through concealment and only detect the enemy.
Tweak: Adjust PVIs to detect friendly as well as enemy movements or get rid of them entirely.
Tweak: Do not detect movements that are concealed or get rid of them entirely.
Sorry people, but I’m going to bang on again about how unnoticeable PVIs are on large, widescreen monitors. I recently played the game on a friend’s 4:3 aspect ratio screen and the PVIs are in your face and very difficult to ignore. On my 24” 16:10 aspect ratio screen they are tiny and fall outside of the central cone of detail in the typical Human eye thus all but unnoticeable. Debate regarding current implementation aside, it is undeniable that PVIs help you stay alive; not being able to notice them is a significant disadvantage. (The angle of detection that PVIs pick up is far, far wider than the extra few degrees of view that widescreens present over normal aspect displays.)
Brace yourselves, here comes the science bit (to add to what Temporary already posted)…
If you sit with your face ~1.5ft away from a 16:10, 1920x1200+ resolution monitor – aka. Gamer’s Hunch - the PVIs are no longer picked up by the eye’s densely packed cone cell receptors in the fovea centralis, but are instead more reliant on being detected by the rod cell receptors in the areas surrounding the fovea centralis. Cone cells are packed far more densely than rod cells, thus the level of visual acuity in this central region of the eye is far higher than in any other area. The net result of this is that rod cells (the cells that most of us are relying on to notice PVIs when using large, widescreen resolutions) are only really capable of detecting movement and rapid changes in contrast. In RO2 PVIs are pretty much static (thus aren’t likely to be detected by rod cells) and they have a fixed colour, white (thus aren’t likely to be detected by rod cells again). When playing on large, widescreen resolutions you only notice PVIs when you are looking for them, which pretty much defeats the point of having them.
Tweak: Make the PVIs rapidly flash black and white via a tickbox option [on/off].
I created a poll about this (http://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/showthread.php?t=71396http://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/showthread.php?t=71396) and no-one thinks making PVIs easier to see on widescreen resolutions is a good idea. I’m a bit flummoxed by this result and have concluded that the poll has been hijacked by protest votes against the PVI system in general. Perfectly valid sentiment, at present there is very little that works about RO2’s PVI implementation and it is currently borderline ‘hackish’; however, If PVIs are here to stay then they need to be fixed and the visibility of these indicators must be factored into said fix for hi-res, widescreen players.
Peace & chocolate.
Again, a poll with insufficient options. The current system just needs to be changed so that allied soldiers as well as enemy soldiers trigger the peripheral indicators. Tweak it a little more to make sure they only trigger when an enemy/ally is moving and not stationary, and it'll be perfectly fine.
Best solution imo: make it a server side option.
Actually the variables are already in the rogame.ini on the server:
However, changing them doesn't have any influence.
But still... this would give people a choice.
Actually the variables are already in the rogame.ini on the server:
Code:
bDisablePeripheralActionIndicators=False
bDisablePeripheralWhips=FalseBut still... this would give people a choice.
According to the manual, the intent is to also show friendlies:
"These work to simulate your real life
peripheral vision: if something is moving to one side of you, you can detect the movement, but you can't tell what it is,
without turning your head to look. It could be a friendly - or it could be an enemy flanking you."
We need that, TWI.
"These work to simulate your real life
peripheral vision: if something is moving to one side of you, you can detect the movement, but you can't tell what it is,
without turning your head to look. It could be a friendly - or it could be an enemy flanking you."
We need that, TWI.
Are you sure it doesn't apply to Friendlies? Maybe it doesn't on Relaxed, but does on Hardcore...?
The poll clearly needs a "keep it in, but with some changes" option.
I just voted no.
You still have to turn and acquire your target on-screen, period. If it does not track friendlies (I haven't really experimented with it much even though I've noticed it), maybe it should --although I inexpertly wonder if that's just another performance issue...tracking twice the amount of targets.
It shouldn't track targets that you wouldn't see, such as targets that are on the other side of smoke and not making a silhouette (remember that sometimes silhouettes can be seen in smoke) or targets that are completely concealed. I don't know how difficult that is to code nor am I 100% sure it reveals these targets currently, but I can imagine that if it does, it's because it's not easy to code whether or not you could see someone if they were on screen. But I'm no expert in this area so I could be completely wrong, it might be easy.
*But also, to the people who say it shows enemies regardless of whether they moved, how do you know they weren't moving??? To whit, they were outside your game field of view, therefore you can't be sure they didn't move when you weren't looking.
I just voted no.
You still have to turn and acquire your target on-screen, period. If it does not track friendlies (I haven't really experimented with it much even though I've noticed it), maybe it should --although I inexpertly wonder if that's just another performance issue...tracking twice the amount of targets.
It shouldn't track targets that you wouldn't see, such as targets that are on the other side of smoke and not making a silhouette (remember that sometimes silhouettes can be seen in smoke) or targets that are completely concealed. I don't know how difficult that is to code nor am I 100% sure it reveals these targets currently, but I can imagine that if it does, it's because it's not easy to code whether or not you could see someone if they were on screen. But I'm no expert in this area so I could be completely wrong, it might be easy.
*But also, to the people who say it shows enemies regardless of whether they moved, how do you know they weren't moving??? To whit, they were outside your game field of view, therefore you can't be sure they didn't move when you weren't looking.