27 replies to this topic

[smokefield]

I suppose in years 3000 we do have a way of seeing behind. I often wanted a rear view camera when piloting a heavy/slower mechs and i was involved in a combat with a faster light mech. You can better predict where he will turn and the fight would become much more interesting.

so - what if we can add

1. a module - rear view camera

2. rear view mirrors that will occupy a crit and weight 0.5 tons.

one or better both option could be added.

[von Pilsner]

If they ever do get it working, it better not be a module or take crit slots.

[smokefield]

whatever just add an option to see behind

[Hotthedd]

Rear view mirrors are Lostech. There was a rumor that some designs for mounting a mirror on a stick on the side of a Battlemech were discovered in a Castle Brian cache somewhere, but ComStar has denied these reports.

[Ningyo]

I as about to make a thread about adding a PIP in corner of screen for leg facing (its a pain at least for non spectacular pilots while running a different direction than shooting).

I also was going to make it a module or mech exp suggestion. I think both that and your idea are good, could be a single one for both and have a toggle between views. Personally I think having it as a module would be perfect.

The main issue with a module slot is it is pricey and therefore difficult for a newbie to get, and they are the ones that need it most. On the plus side it would give advantage (a free module slot) to people that get good enough that it is not worth having) (and don't tell me they have lost how to make or mount a video camera, and display)

[smokefield]

exactly...year 3000 and no one knows to mount a rear view camera ? rofl.

also...with the 3th person view coming - adding a way ofseeing behind from cockpit will decrease the advantage of those who use 3th person (cause i doubt there is a way of making it even with cockpit view..they will always have a better perspective/fov.)

Edited by smokefield, 15 May 2013 - 10:37 PM.

[Yelram]

What about a mirror/webcam in the cockpit like this: http://www.mobygames...eShotId,603188/

[Thomas Covenant]

PGI said (in I think the last ATD) that it drops frames too much to do that. But maybe it would work if it wasn't picture in picture, you just see behind you only.

[smokefield]

it drops frames overall or on slow builds ? it can be made as option in graph settings to turn it on or off. and maybe pgi should improve game performance ?

[Deathlike]

[redacted]

I hate to tell you, but you cannot compare game engines like they are all the same.

If you're struggling with getting 30+ fps in this game, adding this would make it less than playable.

MW4 was not very sophisticated engine-wise, and subsequently looked significantly more dated than MW3 in many ways. Please stop comparing MW4 to MWO.

Edited by Egomane, 29 May 2013 - 09:22 AM.
quote clean-up

[KingCobra]

Deathlike, on 16 May 2013 - 09:57 PM, said:

I hate to tell you, but you cannot compare game engines like they are all the same.

If you're struggling with getting 30+ fps in this game, adding this would make it less than playable.

MW4 was not very sophisticated engine-wise, and subsequently looked significantly more dated than MW3 in many ways. Please stop comparing MW4 to MWO.

Your right MWO does not even come close to the game MechWarrior 4 was except in a few areas #1 graphics and #2 map graphics. Except for these 2 things MWO is a crap game compared to any of the old MechWarrior games period.

[Deathlike]

Just for reference, the back camera in MW4 was simply just that. All it did in MW4 was change your entire vision from your cockpit camera, to a camera in the back of the mech with some "noise" added to it.

Something like that technically could be added to the game, except there probably would be balancing issues (just like 3rd person).

A picture within picture type of view, like what advanced zoom should be requires a lot more rendering resources to add in, which is not surprising. A back camera would require similar resources, so it's not exactly the most easy to add w/o killing your FPS.

Edited by Deathlike, 16 May 2013 - 10:27 PM.

[Adridos]

Send in a report to Germany.

CryTek didn't implement rear-view possibility, because they didn''t need it for the Crysis suits, but forgot to mention that to the people they happily sell their engine to.

[Deathlike]

Adridos, on 16 May 2013 - 10:28 PM, said:

Send in a report to Germany.

CryTek didn't implement rear-view possibility, because they didn''t need it for the Crysis suits, but forgot to mention that to the people they happily sell their engine to.

Well technically.. you wouldn't really need one in a true FPS. You would be better off having high mouse/joystick sensitivity and turn around.

[Adridos]

Deathlike, on 16 May 2013 - 10:30 PM, said:

Well technically.. you wouldn't really need one in a true FPS. You would be better off having high mouse/joystick sensitivity and turn around.

Nowhere does it state it is an FPS only engine... at least not when you're buying their license.

[KingCobra]

Deathlike, on 16 May 2013 - 10:25 PM, said:

Just for reference, the back camera in MW4 was simply just that. All it did in MW4 was change your entire vision from your cockpit camera, to a camera in the back of the mech with some noise added to it.

Something like that technically could be added to the game, except there probably would be balancing issues (just like 3rd person).

A picture within picture type of view, like what advanced zoom should be requires a lot more rendering resources to add in, which is not surprising. A back camera would require similar resources, so it's not exactly the most easy to add w/o killing your FPS.

Death please why defend ******** ideology? Don't you think back when those games were made 30FPS you would have been a god at MechWarrior ? those old graphics cards were crap compared to what we have now. Ill tell how well those games were made go install MechWarrior 4 Vengeance or MechWarrior 4 Mercenaries and you will see how smooth the games play so if they can make the all the options those games had with crap graphics cards crap CPU and memory im sure if PGI had the talent they could very easy make it work for MWO.I have said many times take any of the older MechWarrior games just upgrade the game engine graphics and sound and even today they would be AAA games and top sellers.

[Deathlike]

Adridos, on 16 May 2013 - 10:31 PM, said:

Nowhere does it state it is an FPS only engine... at least not when you're buying their license.

True, but you don't get features by default if it is unlikely to be used.

[Deathlike]

KingCobra, on 16 May 2013 - 10:32 PM, said:

Death please why defend ******** ideology? Don't you think back when those games were made 30FPS you would have been a god at MechWarrior ? those old graphics cards were crap compared to what we have now. Ill tell how well those games were made go install MechWarrior 4 Vengeance or MechWarrior 4 Mercenaries and you will see how smooth the games play so if they can make the all the options those games had with crap graphics cards crap CPU and memory im sure if PGI had the talent they could very easy make it work for MWO.I have said many times take any of the older MechWarrior games just upgrade the game engine graphics and sound and even today they would be AAA games and top sellers.

Yes, I can play RTCW:ET in full 60+fps glory too, but I also recognize how old the game is.

If you think it is "easy" to make it work for MWO, then I'm sure you can put in an application to PGI to dumb down MWO a lot for the rest of us.

It's not as simple as "upgrading graphics". There's tons more work that would have to be done... like physics, netcode, engine...

Edited by Deathlike, 16 May 2013 - 10:39 PM.

[KingCobra]

Deathlike, on 16 May 2013 - 10:37 PM, said:

Yes, I can play RTCW:ET in full 60+fps glory too, but I also recognize how old the game is.

If you think it is "easy" to make it work for MWO, then I'm sure you can put in an application to PGI to dumb down MWO a lot for the rest of us.

It's not as simple as "upgrading graphics". There's tons more work that would have to be done... like physics, netcode, engine...

Yes I know what it takes to make games I also put in my application for PGI and they sent me back a letter stating I was overqualified and they could not afford my talents.

Edited by KingCobra, 16 May 2013 - 10:43 PM.

[Deathlike]

Here's a simple example... water.

In MW4, water is nothing special in that game. It's not a complicated texture... and the game isn't even using Shaders (IIRC, it's a DX7 game, thus using no shaders at all).

Water has been "reproduced" with shaders of various kinds. In MWO, it is appreciably noticeable. I can't say it is realistic, but it's literally at least an order or two magnitudes better than what MW4 had implemented. I do not know the performance characteristics of water in this game and AFAIK the water doesn't seem to hurt performance any that I can tell. If you have ever driven a Jenner in the water and occasionally "dip" the head of the Jenner into it, it does an interesting splash effect over the cockpit of the mech. No such immersion exists in MW4.

You could not possibly implement it in MW4 unless you completely ripped apart the graphics engine or at least replace it with something that used DX9 and applied shaders to water. No "water textures" could possibly make MW4 better... you would have to do something dramatically different to make water even visibly appreciable. I've seen older DX7/DX8 games with reasonably good looking water...

I'm not saying MWO couldn't benefit from performance and graphics optimizations, but the reality is that when you're playing something hardcore like MWO... you should be using modern day hardware or reasonably older high end hardware to take advantage of it. Telling me that Intel graphics should be the top of a gamer's list is a laughing joke of the ages.

Edited by Deathlike, 16 May 2013 - 10:54 PM.