9 replies to this topic

[Aegis Kleais]

Try something in real life. Stand up, make a "left bracket" with your left hand and a "right bracket" with your right, holding both hands up in front of yourself to create a "window". Assume this is your pilot's FOV (Field of View)

Now, begin to walk forward at a normal pace. You'll notice that the human mechanics (which transfer somewhat to the motions of a bipedal Mech) make it so your hands move in unison in a somewhat flat sideways figure '8' (like in the infinity symbol - ∞ ).

As you begin to run (approaching a Mech's full speed), you'll notice the flatness of the motion widens a bit and as the view approaches the bottom of the motion there is a vibration (this is when the foot hits the ground and transfers the shock through the chassis).

Lastly, lock one leg in position and move forward in a limp. You'll notice that the infinity motion is back to normal, however there is a tilt of the view that dips down to the direction opposite of the broken leg as the Mech lurches forward on its good leg)

So here's my question/suggestion...

These motions are not currently implemented in the game. Your view merely moves like the infinity symbol at a speed directly based on the Mech's speed. Walking, running, it's the same movement, just played faster. Limping is also the same. It is the motion played at the reduced speed, no different than if you were walking at that speed with both legs intact.

So does PGI plan on implementing a more realistic FOV for walk, run and limp, or did they decide that it would be too disorientating for the user or cause some other kind of detriment to them?

[blinkin]

i like it.

although this is one of those things that would be fairly low priority on my list of changes i want to see in the game.

[Aegis Kleais]

blinkin, on 22 April 2013 - 10:18 AM, said:

i like it.

although this is one of those things that would be fairly low priority on my list of changes i want to see in the game.

Absolutely. A very low priority. But when the time comes to add some "immersion", I think this will definitely help sell me that I'm in the cockpit.

[Zyllos]

Aegis Kleais, on 22 April 2013 - 10:08 AM, said:

So does PGI plan on implementing a more realistic FOV for walk, run and limp, or did they decide that it would be too disorientating for the user or cause some other kind of detriment to them?

I think this is the big one as to why they do not want to add it.

Think how much the world would move from the cockpit's point of view if they implemented this.

[PaladinXIII]

I like this idea, it might also fix some of the problems of precision where I can be running at 70+KPH and fire 2 PPC blast (for example, substitute lasers or ballistics for preference), currently I have the precision for both to hit the CT of an enemy mech when in reality I should be lucky if both hit and chances are one might hit the Right Arm and the other might hit the LT. The only thing is that all of this movement might not be popular with community as well as PGI, and even other FPS don't usually do this level of detail as well.

[Blue Footed Booby]

Maybe I'm missing something, but it sounds a lot like you're describing view bobbing. The idea's been around since at least Doom. You're right that it's realistic, but there's a good reason that the games that include it almost always make it optional: it gives some people motionsickness or headaches in a matter of minutes. If they add view bob as a means of counterbalancing the precision of weapons (which means they'll have to make it mandatory) then suddenly a large swath of the population will be constitutionally unable to play.

The better way to go about this, I think, is to have the reticule move as you walk/run/etc, but have the view itself stay stable. Then allow view bob as an option. This gives you the best of both worlds. It makes it drastically more difficult to snipe while jumping or running, but at the same time it's possible and there's isn't just a random number generator that decides "nope, this shot missed."

In a way this is more realistic. Yeah your field of view moves as you walk, but your eyes stay fixed on whatever you're looking at. Combined with how wide your fov is and you're basically a biological steadycam. This is why you usually have to hold your hands in front of your face or something to become aware of how much your head moves when you walk.

Just for the record, the main battle tanks of countries like the US, UK, etc use sensors and software to compensate for motion of the vehicle, allowing the gun (and thus the view of the gunner looking through the sites) to stay steady even ont he move. The human equivalent is that crouch-walk you see SWAT teams and so forth do on TV. PGI could conceivably replicate this by making the movement of the reticule minimal below a certain threshold velocity (as a percentage of max speed), and increase drastically past that point. Basically, design it so it's assumed the machinery can keep the guns totally steady up to a certain point.

Edited by Blue Footed Booby, 22 April 2013 - 11:35 AM.

[ArmageddonKnight]

The problem is at this stage of development, things that are low in priority generaly just dont get put in. Thats a feature that would have been put in at the start to make the game 'feel' how the developers wanted it to. its a good idea, realistic even, but i dont see it being put in.

[Aegis Kleais]

PaladinXIII, on 22 April 2013 - 11:20 AM, said:

I like this idea, it might also fix some of the problems of precision where I can be running at 70+KPH and fire 2 PPC blast (for example, substitute lasers or ballistics for preference), currently I have the precision for both to hit the CT of an enemy mech when in reality I should be lucky if both hit and chances are one might hit the Right Arm and the other might hit the LT. The only thing is that all of this movement might not be popular with community as well as PGI, and even other FPS don't usually do this level of detail as well.

A very good point. Usually, with more and more vibration due to faster moving, it would be naturally harder to maintain what the pilot interprets as the proper aim.

Blue Footed Booby, on 22 April 2013 - 11:31 AM, said:

Maybe I'm missing something, but it sounds a lot like you're describing view bobbing. The idea's been around since at least Doom. You're right that it's realistic, but there's a good reason that the games that include it almost always make it optional: it gives some people motionsickness or headaches in a matter of minutes. If they add view bob as a means of counterbalancing the precision of weapons (which means they'll have to make it mandatory) then suddenly a large swath of the population will be constitutionally unable to play.

The better way to go about this, I think, is to have the reticule move as you walk/run/etc, but have the view itself stay stable. Then allow view bob as an option. This gives you the best of both worlds. It makes it drastically more difficult to snipe while jumping or running, but at the same time it's possible and there's isn't just a random number generator that decides "nope, this shot missed."

In a way this is more realistic. Yeah your field of view moves as you walk, but your eyes stay fixed on whatever you're looking at. Combined with how wide your fov is and you're basically a biological steadycam. This is why you usually have to hold your hands in front of your face or something to become aware of how much your head moves when you walk.

Just for the record, the main battle tanks of countries like the US, UK, etc use sensors and software to compensate for motion of the vehicle, allowing the gun (and thus the view of the gunner looking through the sites) to stay steady even ont he move. The human equivalent is that crouch-walk you see SWAT teams and so forth do on TV. PGI could conceivably replicate this by making the movement of the reticule minimal below a certain threshold velocity (as a percentage of max speed), and increase drastically past that point. Basically, design it so it's assumed the machinery can keep the guns totally steady up to a certain point.

Yeah, view bobbing is close. But I've always thought of it as an interim solution. For example, the game's bobbleheads and other cosmetics that should have realistically moved to the motion of the Mech, were instead (previously) playing a looped animation, unaware of the actual movement of the Mech cockpit or outside forces on it; thus it moved in an unrealistic manner. Weapon bob is, to me, the attempt to adjust the player's POV, based on their in-world movement and physics, transposed to the player's view model. So in a way, yeah, this would be like bobbing 2.0

I know there will be an uprising between purists who want a realistic transition of this (and all the negative penalties it imposes) and those who want a simpler game (or are medically sickened by realistic FOV transitions) Personally, I love immersion, and would keep the option on, but that's just me.

As for the "we have tech that does it now", I've always been of a belief that we can use such information as a grounds for basis, but that the game's overall mechanics would dictate whether it shoulds translate 1:1 into the game. For example, someone did the math on Company of Heroes and stated that if kept to scale, the tanks should be able to accurately fire from one side of any map and hit a tank on the other side each and everytime. Of course, this would overpower tanks when you look at the grand scheme of things, but I'm sure some common ground could be met between the extremes of both sides of the discussion.

ArmageddonKnight, on 22 April 2013 - 11:45 AM, said:

The problem is at this stage of development, things that are low in priority generaly just dont get put in. Thats a feature that would have been put in at the start to make the game 'feel' how the developers wanted it to. its a good idea, realistic even, but i dont see it being put in.

True enough. There are a myriad of things that could be done for immersion, and even though I'd love to see them, I am on your side when it comes to wanting the core components to be worked on instead. Things like this would definitely be low priority. Like netcode issues (which are the reason why I'm currently on hiatus with the game). I'd MUCH rather they work on that then this FOV adjustment; it's crucially more important.

... I wonder if they're ever going to get my netcode issues squared away?

[Blue Footed Booby]

Aegis Kleais, on 22 April 2013 - 12:27 PM, said:

...
As for the "we have tech that does it now", I've always been of a belief that we can use such information as a grounds for basis, but that the game's overall mechanics would dictate whether it shoulds translate 1:1 into the game. For example, someone did the math on Company of Heroes and stated that if kept to scale, the tanks should be able to accurately fire from one side of any map and hit a tank on the other side each and everytime. Of course, this would overpower tanks when you look at the grand scheme of things, but I'm sure some common ground could be met between the extremes of both sides of the discussion.
...

One hundred percent agree that fun>internally consistent>realistic, just trying to *** that particular realism argument in the bud.

Edit: And when I say head bobbing I wasn't just thinking of, like, Doom and Serious Sam, but games like Chronicles of Riddick: Escape From Butcher Bay where your body is a physical presence in the game. Your view stays locked in the character model's head. Same for Mirror's Edge, Breakdown, and...uh...that Jurassic Park game where your health bar is a tattoo on your character's boob.

Add mechboobs, PGI. Thanks in advance.

Edit: Really, PGI? N-i-p is censored? Am I allowed to refer to Vietnam's currency, the Dong? Am I allowed to use latin phrases like magna *** laude? Is it permissible to mention 18th century poet John ***? Might this word filter be made an option so I can have grown-up conversations?

Edited by Blue Footed Booby, 22 April 2013 - 06:02 PM.

[blinkin]

Blue Footed Booby, on 22 April 2013 - 05:48 PM, said:

Edit: Really, PGI? N-i-p is censored? Am I allowed to refer to Vietnam's currency, the Dong? Am I allowed to use latin phrases like magna *** laude? Is it permissible to mention 18th century poet John ***? Might this word filter be made an option so I can have grown-up conversations?

this is how the forum moderators keep themselves entertained. it is actually a game they play where they see how many words they can censor out of context to confuse the community.