26 replies to this topic

[Zensei]

Sarna says this, which would be cool, why cant we be this cool?
AS7-S A very basic FedCom upgrade of the standard Atlas introduced in 3050, the S model removed five heat sinks from the design, upgrading the rest to Double Heat Sinks. The weight savings are used to add two rear firing Coventry T4H Streak SRM-2 launchers, giving the Atlas increased protection in its rear arc of fire. After the civil war production of this model ceased, although garrison forces in both sundered states continued to use them, with AFFS units using Precision Ammunition for the autocannon and LAAF units making use of specialized LRM munitions captured from the Free Worlds League. Rear camera would be nice also. no way a rant just wondering.

[Mcgral18]

Just as leg mounted weapons were placed in the appropriate STs, rear mounted are moved forward.

[Zensei]

Mcgral18, on 10 February 2015 - 06:46 PM, said:

Just as leg mounted weapons were placed in the appropriate STs, rear mounted are moved forward.

That kind of makes sense. Touche, I feel completely put in place, its bed time already? OK

[Aethon]

Zensei, on 10 February 2015 - 06:41 PM, said:

Sarna says this, which would be cool, why cant we be this cool?
AS7-S A very basic FedCom upgrade of the standard Atlas introduced in 3050, the S model removed five heat sinks from the design, upgrading the rest to Double Heat Sinks. The weight savings are used to add two rear firing Coventry T4H Streak SRM-2 launchers, giving the Atlas increased protection in its rear arc of fire. After the civil war production of this model ceased, although garrison forces in both sundered states continued to use them, with AFFS units using Precision Ammunition for the autocannon and LAAF units making use of specialized LRM munitions captured from the Free Worlds League. Rear camera would be nice also. no way a rant just wondering.

Rear-firing weapons and rear camera views will not work in MWO, due to engine limitations.

[Escef]

Many of the Atlases, Cataphracts, Dragons, Quickdraws, Centurions, and Battlemasters have rear firing weapons in table top. How many mechs have rear firing weapons in MWO? Zero. And TBH, I'm happier this way. I can only imagine the friendly fire incidents from dips repeatedly firing their rear guns and trying to figure out why there are no beams coming out of the front of their mech.

[Mechteric]

Aethon, on 10 February 2015 - 06:51 PM, said:

Rear-firing weapons and rear camera views will not work in MWO, due to engine limitations.

They could implement a rear camera, the limitation just means you can't have picture-in-picture style rear camera. No reason they couldn't let you see the rear only when you press/toggle a key, other than they need to code it.

[Zensei]

Escef, on 10 February 2015 - 06:52 PM, said:

Many of the Atlases, Cataphracts, Dragons, Quickdraws, Centurions, and Battlemasters have rear firing weapons in table top. How many mechs have rear firing weapons in MWO? Zero. And TBH, I'm happier this way. I can only imagine the friendly fire incidents from dips repeatedly firing their rear guns and trying to figure out why there are no beams coming out of the front of their mech.

Maybe as a module then? That would maybe prevent rookie spam firing

[zagibu]

Rear camera would be great, even without rear facing weapon mounts.

[STEF_]

Does anyone remember how many camera views there were in MW2?

1995!!!!!

And after 20 years.... with this engine it's not possible!!!

[zagibu]

Stefka Kerensky, on 10 February 2015 - 11:22 PM, said:

Does anyone remember how many camera views there were in MW2?

1995!!!!!

And after 20 years.... with this engine it's not possible!!!

Of course it's possible. What they are referring to is picture in picture, which is possible, too, but comes at a huge performance hit. A secondary or even more camera views that switch completely is not only possible, but easy.

[PurpleNinja]

And then we could use the term BFF: butt friendly fire.

[Brizna]

Having rear firing cERPPC would be a nice way of gently reminding "freinds" about not standing in another mate's back

'Excuse me mate, care to move to the side so I can get out of that 6x cUAC5 Direwolf?'

[Rhaythe]

Why Picture-in-Picture can be difficult for the engine

This game runs in the Crysis engine. While obviously it doesn't look anywhere near as impressive as Crysis 3, the underlying technology is the same - though heavily modified. Field of view plays a big deal when it comes to your framerate - almost as much as texture detail and object models. To illustrate this to yourself, go into your user.cfg file and increase your field-of-view from 70 to 90. Then to 110. Watch your framerate closely and see what happens.

What picture-in-picture does is render an *additional* field-of-view using a rear arch camera. So you have two simultaneous renderings occurring in unison. While certain games can easily get away with this, you'll notice that not many online PVP games implement it.

Why? Because it's a framerate sink. Especially if you're dealing with an engine with a heavy overhead.

Can it be done in this game? Sure. Do you want it to? Well. How well do you run Crysis 3? Because if your answer isn't "flawlessly", you probably don't want it.

[Aethon]

CapperDeluxe, on 10 February 2015 - 06:59 PM, said:

They could implement a rear camera, the limitation just means you can't have picture-in-picture style rear camera. No reason they couldn't let you see the rear only when you press/toggle a key, other than they need to code it.

Right, but a full-screen rear camera would be kind of weird, IMHO. Maybe that is just me.

[Mechteric]

Aethon, on 11 February 2015 - 11:31 AM, said:

Right, but a full-screen rear camera would be kind of weird, IMHO. Maybe that is just me.

Worked just fine in Mechwarrior 4.

[DivineEvil]

Well, there's little else PGI can do about those occassions. I for one would never consider placing weapons on my butt a viable option, even with the rear-view camera.

There are some other modifications PGI had to make. For example, Thunderbolt-5SS is missing two Flamethrowers in it's left arm, while having one in it's Right Torso. It is not clear why they decided to move up those hardpoints from the arm (probably for the efficiency purpoces), but in fact the variant itself is one ton short to allow it to mount a second flamer. Adding to that, the entire chassis is redesigned, placing a cockpit on the left torso side, the modification only present on the 7M variant of the mech. Originally, all present variants of the Thunderbolt are supposed to have their cockpit under the LRM launcher and near the primary Right Arm mounting Large Laser/PPC.

Edited by DivineEvil, 12 February 2015 - 06:35 AM.

[Bobzilla]

Actually it can run PiP just fine. They proved it with the advance zoom. It just took them a while to figure it out. So really a reverse camera could work exactly like the zoom module, just change the view 180 degrees.

Don't know why everyone is saying it can't happen when it clearly already does, unless the zoom actually zooms what is being rendered, which would be crazy silly and way worse i'd think.

[Krivvan]

Bobzilla, on 12 February 2015 - 10:02 AM, said:

unless the zoom actually zooms what is being rendered

This is exactly what it used to do.

[Aethon]

CapperDeluxe, on 12 February 2015 - 06:09 AM, said:

Worked just fine in Mechwarrior 4.

The left/right/down arm-swing worked with fullscreen; was the rear view fullscreen? I honestly cannot remember (in first person; I know 3PV was fullscreen rear view).

Edited by Aethon, 12 February 2015 - 02:20 PM.

[Pathos]

Aethon, on 12 February 2015 - 02:19 PM, said:

The left/right/down arm-swing worked with fullscreen; was the rear view fullscreen? I honestly cannot remember (in first person; I know 3PV was fullscreen rear view).

Yes. You could see who the jackass was on your team preventing you from backing up.