If anyone was around in beta they will remember the heated debates about the scale of ro2s avatars.
http://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=4912&d=1315103672 Not to open up an old can of worms I just posted a pic showing unreal units (not the thread).
The UU scale changed between games, from 60.352:1m in RO1 to 50:1m in RO2. 107 / 60.352 * 50 = 88.6 UU. The RO2 guy is about 1cm shorter. Less than half an inch. They're pretty much identical.
Again I run at 80 fov at 1650 rez and have np seeing targets at range. I will use the zoom to cut through the fog on certain maps. I think more than anything that's the problem in Ost the FOV was like 70 and it was easy to spot a person at 400 m. Sure you couldn't tell what team he was on but he was certainly taller than 1 pixel.
This is what a standing, fully-exposed enemy in RO2 looks like at 400m. This is on a 1920x1080 monitor at roughly 90 degrees, which gives slightly higher clarity per-pixel than 1650 at 80 degrees (although I should point out, if you're getting that 80 degrees from the settings menu and you're using a widescreen monitor, your FoV is actually wider than that. Apparently it shows what the FoV would be on a 4:3 monitor. That would make the clarity of my picture that much higher than you would see in-game on your monitor). Would you seriously claim that this is anywhere close to what you can see at the same distance in real life? (For reference: no. 20/20 vision is slightly better than the scope+focus picture I posted)
As for my my opinion on how it could be realistically implemented its hard to say lol. Maybe just snap to a lower FOV automatically during iron sights since the scale is lower than Ost's it would have to be lower than 70.Something about the magic button that got me even while not ADSing why would a person close one eye while not ADSing. Just having a FOV change in ADS could reflect closing one eye in RL that reduces your FOV.
Okay, now I'm starting to see more of the problem. It's not the zoom, so much as the aesthetics of zoom (Again...). You don't like the idea of a person being able to "magic button" a zoom, unless that magic button also brings up the sights? I'm sorry, I'm just at a loss as to how someone can at one point say that zoom is unrealistic because human eyes don't zoom in, but then say zoom is realistic when you put a couple pieces of metal in front of your eyes.
Closing an eye, while it
does restrict your vision (Which is why you
shouldn't do it) does
not give you better visual clarity in real-life. If it did, then
absolutely people would close an eye to see further. You're fixated on an aesthetic of FoV (Which no game will be able to present realistically anyway), while happily throwing out the ability to see at real-world distances and clarity. You're arguing for aesthetics over outcome, asking for a thoroughly unrealistic result so long as it "feels" realistic (The same priority seen in several games that tend to be used as a form of obscenity on these forums).
The compromise between the two would logically have to be a windowed type zoom just in the sight area during ADS.Then the rest of the screen would be at normal FOV but blurred out. All blended together so it don't look like a window as well as showing the lens effect that the human eye has only center objects are focused.
There are several issues with this. First is one of implementation, of which there are two ways to do this. One is to just superimpose the zoom-window over the normal view, which blocks out a ring around where you're aiming. The other is to make the rest of the view fish-eyed to make up for the reduced area available to show the rest of the FoV (Which means everything else shrinks to fit). Both also require have the same downside as scopes, requiring you to render the image twice, for a much larger performance hit than simple FoV scaling.
While it does mimic the fact that human eyes only reach maximum acuity in the center of the vision, it overlooks the fact that we're still looking at these images
with said eyes. It not only double-dips the penalty, it's significantly more of a penalty. For example, my monitor covers about a 60 degree arc of my vision (Horizontally). Any time my in-game FoV is less than 60 degrees (Such as when using a rifle's iron-sight zoom or using focus zoom), the eye's cone of clear vision covers a smaller angle of the game world than it does in real life. It gets even more pronounced if I lean in, such as when pixel-hunting; if my monitor fills 90 degrees of my vision, and I'm in focus-zoom (2.1x), then my angle of clear vision in-game is less than a
quarter what it is in real life. It gets even more extreme if we narrow the FoV enough to give 20/20 vision. There is no need to cut down the area of clarity, because the act of narrowing your FoV has already done that quite thoroughly.
Cutting down that angle is less realistic, not more. It's not a fully-focused and zoomed battlefield, it's extremely narrowed vision with less clarity than real life.
not sure why he's bringing it up, as it's not being discussed and someone on the no zoom side will probably point it out. but it is a very valid comparison.
I brought it up because they're all examples of concessions to reality in order to present a game on current hardware, it's just that the ones I mentioned are so ingrained that everyone accepts them as natural. So natural, that he immediately says that nobody claims they're unrealistic. Well guess what? They are! They're
blatantly unrealistic. That's why you can't train for a run by holding down shift+W, and despite what some politicians say, you won't learn proper weapon handling by using your mouse. They range from having only superficial similarity to no similarity at all. WASD is useful for directing an avatar in-game, but it bears no resemblance in any way to moving in real-life.
But it's the best method we have available to control it, given the interface we have.
They're a method of simulation. It's very much worth noting, however, that a simulation is, by definition,
not real. It tries to present reality, but it can never
be real. As such, if we want to present a realistic outcome, we need to accept adaptations that are not, in themselves, realistic, in order to get an accurate simulation. The thing people seem to overlook is that being able to control your FoV is no more unrealistic than being locked to a fixed FoV that covers a
fifth of the area that our eyes can naturally perceive. Both are unrealistic. What matters, then, is the outcome; a variable FoV lets us simulate (poorly) the full range of human vision. The fixed FoV does not. A variable FoV gives us a much more realistic
outcome, a more realistic simulation of what the human eye can perceive, and the outcome is what matters for simulation.
Edit:
To properly make targets close to life size at distance using 90 FOV the scale of the avatars would have to be larger...if any of this makes sense i just woke up lol
You'd have to make a person about 30 feet tall to be as visible at long ranges in-game as they would be in real life, if you keep the FoV locked to 90 degrees. Obviously, that would have other significant drawbacks and side-effects...
