304 replies to this topic

[Dimento Graven]

Sandpit, on 27 January 2014 - 02:13 PM, said:

Now this is where I generally take issue with PGI.

They leave it to the community to fix issues for them instead of putting in very basic things like this and quality tutorials. I don't get it. We launch an online multiplayer game with no lobbies, no persistent game world, no voip, etc.

It makes no sense and to me that's a managerial issue. It's one of the main reasons I won't spend money until I see some improvements (which lately, it seems like they're on the right path)

Yes, take for example the subject of this thread.

PGI has a considerable number of people who have issues with the current implementation of cockpit glass.

The community has a solution.

PGI could respond by saying:

An INTELLIGENT PGI said:

We have found a temporary solution to the cockpit glass issue. All that is necessary is adding ONE line to your USER.CFG file and it is as follows [blah blah].

Unfortunately this results in the cockpit being removed from 'standard view' (unnoticeable at any zoom level above 1.0), but remember this is only temporary.

We plan to have this fixed shortly after UI2.0 is released 2/4.

We appreciate everyone's patience!

[Kyle Polulak]

I'll just leave this here.

Although I can understand the feeling of being cheated when someone seems to have an advantage, I have to disagree that the community should be restricted from using these mods until we get something more official in the UI. We generally dislike user.cfg changes but it's part of running any game. I do not consider it negative or in anyway a reason to disrespect other players whom are just trying to have fun and change things up with their clients; it's clearly in the spirit of experience and not a tactic to raise someone's skill.

If people are experiencing better frame-rates because they do not render the cockpit glass then that's something we should be looking at but that's something I know we'd be very interested in seeing in our FPS tests.

I'm unlocking the thread to keep the conversation going.

[Dimento Graven]

Kyle Polulak, on 28 January 2014 - 11:38 PM, said:

I'll just leave this here.

Although I can understand the feeling of being cheated when someone seems to have an advantage, I have to disagree that the community should be restricted from using these mods until we get something more official in the UI. We generally dislike user.cfg changes but it's part of running any game. I do not consider it negative or in anyway a reason to disrespect other players whom are just trying to have fun and change things up with their clients; it's clearly in the spirit of experience and not a tactic to raise someone's skill.

If people are experiencing better frame-rates because they do not render the cockpit glass; then that's something we should be looking at; but that's something I know we'd be very interested in seeing in our FPS tests.

I'm unlocking the thread to keep the conversation going.

Wow, Kyle, I don't know what to say, but I'll start with:

THANK YOU.

Now, clarification time: We've had word from an IGP rep on this thread, one who made the decision (I believe) without knowing how it was done, to tell everyone to NOT use it.

After some 'cajoling' to get her to contact me, even then she didn't ask how it was done, I had to more or less 'press the point' to ensure there was no residual ignorance in the matter.

Given Bryan's comments here, http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__1348473, and assuming you now know how to remove the cockpit from the USER.CFG, I am asking for a straight answer:

YES or NO: Can we use this USER.CFG change to remove the cockpit?

Edited by Dimento Graven, 28 January 2014 - 11:51 PM.

[A banana in the tailpipe]

Kyle Polulak, on 28 January 2014 - 11:38 PM, said:

We generally dislike user.cfg changes but it's part of running any game.

Kyle... you're going to regret those words.

Giving more thought to this, Kyle as opened a huge can of worms.

[Dimento Graven]

lockwoodx, on 28 January 2014 - 11:52 PM, said:

Kyle... you're going to regret those words.

Giving more thought to this, Kyle as opened a huge can of worms.

Anyone can use the USER.CFG file now to remove cockpit shake. Thanks Kyle for clearing that up.

Fully admitting that my experience with the Crysis engine is at best, cursory, I don't really believe that.

I do not recall any setting (and I'm moderately certain I looked them all over) that would affect cockpit shake.

THOUGH, if there IS such a setting, it would explain how so many of the poptarts are seemingly able to pin point aim DURING the jump (not on the descent). Still, this would be something I'd need explained to me, AND, if there actually IS such a setting I DO KNOW that PGI can modify the .CFG files in the ENGINE.PAK to disable the USER.CFG variable.

To re-enable it would require people to break TOS, and therefore ACTUALLY cheat.

[Kyle Polulak]

lockwoodx, on 28 January 2014 - 11:52 PM, said:

Kyle... you're going to regret those words.

Giving more thought to this, Kyle as opened a huge can of worms.

Now, now. I try not to say words I will regret. I am not talking about anything with the decision to include cockpit glass. That wasn't me. What I am trying to address is the confusion on what is acceptable and what is not.

[A banana in the tailpipe]

Kyle Polulak, on 28 January 2014 - 11:58 PM, said:

Now, now. I try not to say words I will regret. I am not talking about anything with the decision to include cockpit glass. That wasn't me. What I am trying to address is the confusion on what is acceptable and what is not.

Why was my post edited then? It's a legit concern others will try to exclude cockpit shake yet mysteriously that part of my post is gone now?

[Dimento Graven]

Kyle Polulak, on 28 January 2014 - 11:58 PM, said:

Now, now. I try not to say words I will regret. I am not talking about anything with the decision to include cockpit glass. That wasn't me. What I am trying to address is the confusion on what is acceptable and what is not.

Ok, I'll rephrase the question then:

YES or NO: Is it 'acceptable' to use this USER.CFG change to remove the cockpit?

[Kyle Polulak]

Dimento Graven, on 28 January 2014 - 11:47 PM, said:

Can we use this USER.CFG change to remove the cockpit?

Yes, it's in user.cfg afterall.

lockwoodx, on 29 January 2014 - 12:00 AM, said:

Why was my post edited then? It's a legit concern others will try to exclude cockpit shake yet mysteriously that part of my post is gone now?

No, it's because I believed those other lines where just there to purposely provoke confusion and that's contrary to what's needed for clear communications. What's on topic here is cockpit glass and cockpits render and not cockpit shaking; just to be clear.

[Dimento Graven]

Kyle Polulak, on 29 January 2014 - 12:03 AM, said:

Yes, it's in user.cfg afterall.

Thank you.

[Alex Warden]

FupDup, on 27 January 2014 - 11:26 AM, said:

Real Translation

If something that a lot of people don't like gets added to the game, you should not be surprised when you see players trying to get around it.



I'm also not sure if this workaround qualifies as "cheating" seeing how it's just an FoV adjustment (which have been legal for quite some time).

it was legal because some ppl - as me f.e. - just like to sit a bit more INSIDE the mech (and getting even more distractions into your FoV ) ... no one ever said that removing the entire cockpit - and thus getting a completely clear sight while not having such a narrow FoV as in full zoom - was tolerated... and imho it shouldn´t...

Edited by Alex Warden, 29 January 2014 - 12:09 AM.

[Kyle Polulak]

Dimento Graven, on 29 January 2014 - 12:04 AM, said:

Thank you.

The general reason we don't like user.cfg mods is because if we decide to change something down the road; we have just created a user support case when their client crashes for a reason only reproducible by that exact user.cfg file. If a file was shared publicly then we'd have X number of support cases should a crash be the case. Now that's, to borrow a phrase, a can-of-worms I worry about.

[A banana in the tailpipe]

Kyle Polulak, on 29 January 2014 - 12:03 AM, said:

No, it's because I believed those other lines where just there to purposely provoke confusion and that's contrary to what's needed for clear communications. What's on topic here is cockpit glass and cockpits render and not cockpit shaking; just to be clear.

I respect you want to maintain the thread's topic... but a .CFG file is so much more broader than trivial cockpit glass.... OMG....

I'm speechless....

[Kyle Polulak]

lockwoodx, on 29 January 2014 - 12:09 AM, said:

I respect you want to maintain the thread's topic... but a .CFG file is so much more broader than trivial cockpit glass

Understood. So I have added a note that a broader discussion should take place regarding user.cfg rules and regulations to solve all the confusion.

[Dimento Graven]

Kyle Polulak, on 29 January 2014 - 12:08 AM, said:

The general reason we don't like user.cfg mods is because if we decide to change something down the road; we have just created a user support case when their client crashes for a reason only reproducible by that exact user.cfg file. If a file was shared publicly then we'd have X number of support cases should a crash be the case. Now that's, to borrow a phrase, a can-of-worms I worry about.

Understood, I have some experience in what you're talking about.

Honestly though, depending on how much "overhead" you want put on your upper tier support guys (assuming you're using a first/second/third/etc. organized structure to your TS team), it "should" be possible to build a simple parser that can be maintained and controlled by PGI, and used by the end user to process their USER.CFG. Any settings "known" to cause issues could be highlighted with the user given the option to reset to known working values, or, REM out.

I built something extremely similar simply using VB script of all things a few years back...

Heck it could probably even be done via Java and embedded into a web page.

Edited by Dimento Graven, 29 January 2014 - 12:24 AM.

[GalaxyBluestar]

okay it really was a storm, i haven't experienced combat with this cockpit glass stuff. {not logging in due to clan reasons} but boy it seems people are vile over the mech cockpit being more like a cockpit, must be really bad art or something. also film grain isn't needed so having both sounds like overkill.

BTW i'm just posting here to say thanks to the PGI reps who've posted here and have posted sensibly about the situation. it's very concerning that such issues are driving people this far that the game gets tampered with to this extent that it can become a fair contest balancing issue {those stuck with obstructions vs those who aren't}

keep up the good work adressing such issues.

[Rushin Roulette]

Kyle Polulak, on 29 January 2014 - 12:08 AM, said:

The general reason we don't like user.cfg mods is because if we decide to change something down the road; we have just created a user support case when their client crashes for a reason only reproducible by that exact user.cfg file. If a file was shared publicly then we'd have X number of support cases should a crash be the case. Now that's, to borrow a phrase, a can-of-worms I worry about.

Just handle it like most other games do with editable files. If a user has a modified user.cfg file and is experiencing problems, insist on a clean re-install (including registry cleaning). If the problem still persist with a clean and unmodified game, then it is a job for the support staff. A gaming company can not be held responsible if a user modifies any files (even though they are permitted to... but explicitly informed as they have been, that such modifications are at the users sole discretion). Especially as you say, the game is still being actively modified by the developing company.

What would be great if the game client options would include film grain and cockpit glass removal, mainly it is not a problem... but certain points in various maps make the cockpit glass exceedingly annoying (and no Im not using that phoney excuse of nausea through movement which is already there in the form of a moving cockpit frame for the view).

Id be interested in an FPS comparison between the regular and the modified game client (various combinations of filmgrain, cockpit glass and cockpit removal). My FPS is fine at around 40-60+ with everything standard, but I do have players in my unit who are having increasing problems with ever lowering FPS. It would be great for them to be able to play normally again (and I wouldnt be averse to being able to make videos which can be used for representative purposes which do not have any unneeded filters superimposed )

[Alex Warden]

okay so it´s legit... well... i still prefere

this

(no entries other than fov=85. medium settings, shot today with glass...)

over that

Edited by Alex Warden, 29 January 2014 - 12:44 AM.

[Dimento Graven]

Alex Warden, on 29 January 2014 - 12:42 AM, said:

okay so it´s legit... well... i still prefere

this

(no entries other than fov=85. medium settings, shot today with glass...)

over that

And by gosh, as long as there's no significant advantage to either, everyone should be allowed to play in the mode they prefer and/or that their systems can best support.

[Rushin Roulette]

Maybe everyone should just relax and sit back... PGI only added a really well known sci-fi technology, but only got the terminology a little mixed up. Its not Cockpit glass that was added but a pair of Joo Janta 200 Super-Chromatic Peril Sensitive Sunglasses for the Neurohelmet.

Edited by Rushin Roulette, 29 January 2014 - 01:18 AM.