53 replies to this topic

[Excalabur50]

Mercules, on 20 October 2014 - 05:01 PM, said:

It doesn't. There is a reason the zoom functions the way it does. That was he best they could coax out of the engine. Crysis giving you two "views" literally redraws the second view. So it would take twice the computing power on your computer to draw the "reverse monitor". So think about your Frames Per Second being cut in half every time you backed up. Now think about someone running a marginal computer who only gets 20 FPS normally hitting reverse...

Sorry but I'm a selfish B*****D why should games constantly hold back important or useful features just because someone can't afford a better PC if you can't then it should just not work in game but for those of us whose computers can handle it then put it in the game and when people can upgrade then the feature will be there for them too and how much system resources would be used by a say 5x5 cm monitor showing what is behind you. Hell racing sims have a rear view in them and they can run on some pretty low end PC's so it can't be that difficult

Edited by Excalabur50, 20 October 2014 - 05:11 PM.

[Rear Admiral Tier 6]

mirrors and reversing cameras are lostech

[cSand]

Excalabur50, on 20 October 2014 - 04:50 PM, said:

i've seen the argument it's due to the engine what's that got to do with it it's a small low powered electrical unit that would be easy to power it shouldn't be that difficult

[IceSerpent]

Flash Frame, on 20 October 2014 - 05:06 PM, said:

Inside the genreal battlemech cockpit, they didn't use "windows" like we see in EVERY mechwarrior game [mostly for ease of programming.] they relied on a full monitor setup that surrounded them in a 180degree arc. Those monitors compressed a 360 degree view into that 180 degree arc. allowing the pilot to effectively see entirely around themselves, but compressed.

Riiight, and all the BT lore references to pilots being injured by shards of cockpit glass due to a hit to the cockpit or a messed up ejection are clearly a figment of our imagination...

[Farix]

SuomiWarder, on 20 October 2014 - 04:43 PM, said:

The answer we got back in the closed beta days was that the engine did not support it well. Maybe with PGI on their own they might investigate if the can do it with minimal coding time or not.

They would have to replace the game engine and recode the game from the ground up. Do you think it is actually worth it for such a minor feature?

Excalabur50, on 20 October 2014 - 05:08 PM, said:

Sorry but I'm a selfish B*****D why should games constantly hold back important or useful features just because someone can't afford a better PC if you can't then it should just not work in game but for those of us whose computers can handle it then put it in the game and when people can upgrade then the feature will be there for them too and how much system resources would be used by a say 5x5 cm monitor showing what is behind you. Hell racing sims have a rear view in them and they can run on some pretty low end PC's so it can't be that difficult

And how many of those racing games use CryEngine?

Edited by Farix, 20 October 2014 - 05:32 PM.

[cSand]

I wouldn't mind having a button that made your whole screen look behind you. Then you could do quick glances

[FireDog]

Basically when the game engine was written it was intended to support an "armored" soldier (FPS). Solders do not have rear mounted video cameras on their helmets.

[Mercules]

Excalabur50, on 20 October 2014 - 05:08 PM, said:

Sorry but I'm a selfish B*****D why should games constantly hold back important or useful features just because someone can't afford a better PC if you can't then it should just not work in game but for those of us whose computers can handle it then put it in the game and when people can upgrade then the feature will be there for them too and how much system resources would be used by a say 5x5 cm monitor showing what is behind you. Hell racing sims have a rear view in them and they can run on some pretty low end PC's so it can't be that difficult

I'm constantly telling people to upgrade. However, I can understand why the game designer is not saying, "To have this feature that is an advantage in game, you have to buy a new processor and GPU."

It is difficult because PGI went with Cryengine 2 and apparently Picture in Picture in that engine RENDERS the entire scene again. That means it literally DOUBLES the processing needed. So for a 1mm x 1mm shot behind you it doubles the processing needed for rendering. For a 100cm x 100cm shot it doubles it. See why we don't have a small camera... size isn't the issue it is how the engine handles picture in picture.

Edited by Mercules, 20 October 2014 - 06:56 PM.

[Brody319]

We have the minimap already, so why not have the minimap be better to show elevation. So you can see where a drop is, or not. Mechs should already have sensors that tell you that there is a mech behind you at a close range.

[cSand]

We could have a little promximity warning if something is close behind you

[Koniving]

Excalabur50, on 20 October 2014 - 04:38 PM, said:

Self explanatory question we have these super advanced fighting machines that can't see behind them when backing up? I mean really? shite the modern car has a mirror or reversing camera, now im not talking about 360 degree view here just when you hit reverse in your mech you need to have some way to see what's behind you so you don't get stuck on terrain or as is the most prevalent other players.
Is this going to happen and if not why not?

They do.
PGI blames Crytek for not being picture in picture friendly.
I blame PGI for not looking at the abilities of the engine before deciding on using it.

Sadly hindsight is 20/20.
Long story is that this is, supposedly, not possible given this game's engine.
Otherwise, mobility would have several cameras akin to this.



Battletech's control system was designed from a combination of Gundam (08th MS Team specifically) and Patlabor (original series) with a dash of Robotech. Patlabor's system is the most reflective of Battletech's system.

The HUD would be attached to the main viewing screen (the cockpit glass, which is actually a transplast or 'transparent armored metal alloy'.

In this case on the Atlas... the screen to the left (which is directly between your legs) would be the secondary screen. Things such as thermal, night vision, etc. would be shown on this secondary screen. Neighboring monitors would give you other information from radar to enemy status to your own status, etc. (In some mechs, the secondary screen would be forced to switch between displays).

Original depictions of Battletech didn't have 'huds' on your eyes.

Edited by Koniving, 20 October 2014 - 07:19 PM.

[RealityCube]

If you had that, then how would I continue to core you out from behind in my light mechs? No i'd rather keep it with no rear facing camera.

[Artillery Witch Viridia]

Gaming engines aren't as advanced as those made in 1995. Mech2 for example. Golden age of lostech. It's funny how new games,engines, consoles have stripped down functionality compared to some parts of their predeccesors to get more bling on the screen over time presumably. I can't even play mp3s at the same time I game on my ps4 until they come out with a 2.0 update. It's like wtf are designers thinking when they lay the groundwork for these things. It's like sitting in a new car without a radio or cupholder but somehow the outside looks more aesthetically pleasing so they decided it was fine. Bf4 has been struggling since launch with fundamental coding and appropriate game mechanics that should have been working on launch as a triple A title. Ya we made the game look good but screw netcode, hit detection, tickrate, latency, all the core mechanics of having things appropriately appear and work as they should on your screen. Although it had it's bugs I haven't had a tactical shooter pass in my book since Rainbow six 3: Black Arrow. Since then it's seems like companies just want to sell flashy visuals at the cost of core game mechanics and true gamers suspensions of disbelief. I like MWO I haven't played it in months although I just purchased an ala carte wave II mech. It's gameplay is pretty solid but the content is stifling. Balance decisions have been questionable lately but I can deal with that. Needs more game modes, C.W , more weapons and equipment of the era working as intended, Inner sphere mechs that actually combated the invasion such as the clan busters. 100 ton devastator anyone? Complaining about Direwolf power is irrelavent when design decisions do not have the appropriate mechs to fight against them. The gorilla armed Atlas is just too restrictive both with hardpoints and weapon placement smashing every hill. End off topic choo choo non sequetor train rant. My mind just goes from one thing to another.

[Deathlike]

If you don't want to "reduce performance", you would literally have to change your "view" by literally swapping to a camera that is viewing "the back of the mech". Basically, you aren't watching from the cockpit, but literally looking behind from a different perspective.

That's the only other way.

[Troutmonkey]

The main reason I'd like to have a reversing camera is so I can tell why I can't move backwards. Rock, friendly mech, clipping on a building, or just a hill that's too steep? Minimap can't give me that info, but a rear view could.

Excalabur50, on 20 October 2014 - 05:08 PM, said:

Sorry but I'm a selfish B*****D why should games constantly hold back important or useful features just because someone can't afford a better PC if you can't then it should just not work in game but for those of us whose computers can handle it then put it in the game and when people can upgrade then the feature will be there for them too and how much system resources would be used by a say 5x5 cm monitor showing what is behind you. Hell racing sims have a rear view in them and they can run on some pretty low end PC's so it can't be that difficult

MWO is an un-optimized mess. My gaming PC can handle pretty much any other game that's not MWO on high graphics, but chugs when playing MWO regardless of the setting. I wouldn't want any solution that was going to reduce my FPS, I can't afford to lose any more frames.

Deathlike, on 20 October 2014 - 09:41 PM, said:

If you don't want to "reduce performance", you would literally have to change your "view" by literally swapping to a camera that is viewing "the back of the mech". Basically, you aren't watching from the cockpit, but literally looking behind from a different perspective.

That's the only other way.

This is a pretty simple solution, and should have no impact on performance.

[Excalabur50]

RealityCube, on 20 October 2014 - 08:17 PM, said:

If you had that, then how would I continue to core you out from behind in my light mechs? No i'd rather keep it with no rear facing camera.

Did you actually read all of the posts I made on here I said not on all the time only when your mech is reversing

[King Arthur IV]

cause gpu go boom

[Kilo 40]

Deathlike, on 20 October 2014 - 09:41 PM, said:

If you don't want to "reduce performance", you would literally have to change your "view" by literally swapping to a camera that is viewing "the back of the mech". Basically, you aren't watching from the cockpit, but literally looking behind from a different perspective.

That's the only other way.

literally

[Elfman]

I would settle for a foot cam - the amount of times I get stuck on something that I cannot see even in external camera mode until I get death cam and notice as my mech slowly falls over there is a tiny pebble or lip of a road thats a fraction of my mech's foot size

[Xtrekker]

It's not a matter of just lower performance, it's a matter of poor rendering in the engine causing artifacts, etc. If you're actually curious as to what's going on, feel free to read about it:

http://www.crydev.ne...ltiple+viewport