57 replies to this topic

[himself]

Been discussed before.

You will find 3 kinds of people in this thread.

1. People who are reasonable human beings and agree with the idea of a back up camera.
2. People who can't stop saying "picture in picture" like it's the only way to have a back up camera.
3. People who think you should be 100% aware of everything and a back up camera would change the game drastically with exactly zero basis to back up their ludicrous claim.

Good luck, you will not succeed.

[Brandarr Gunnarson]

Giving us a back up camera (even a low res one) on one of those cockpit display would be awesome and the most ideal way to do it.

If PIP is really too much to ask, the a toggle would be ok, as well. This has to be possible.

Either way, a rear view cam would be great!

[CBT Enthusiast]

Vashramire, on 28 February 2016 - 09:45 PM, said:

Lol he wasn't wrong. People aren't cameras. You specifically called out cameras not crews which are not cameras. And no most modern military vehicles do not have cameras since most are crewed and the military is cheap as ****.

Tanks and other armored vehicles having crews gives mechs even more of a reason to have cameras as only one man is controlling a billion dollar machine, on top of that a large percentage of the United States budget goes into military spending. More modern military vehicles have cameras to give a tactical edge, the f-22 and a few other f models have cameras mounted all around the body and a helmet that is synced to these cameras this lets the pilot see all around the aircraft.

http://www.usgovernm...nding_pie_chart

http://www.businessi...-helmets-2013-3

[Timuroslav]

I don't see why they can't do it. There a ton of creative solutions they could do.
change the camera height depending on the mech.
Lower the fidelity of the screen while changing the screen the pilot sees completely. The Pilot is wearing a helmet after all.

But, the Other thing is. If they do the Rear view camera, which I think they should. The Atlas D and Atlas S need to have their hard points swapped to what they are supposed to be.
Back-Firing-Medium Lasers.

Battletech Tech wise: I mean they have figured out how to jump to stars' Nadir and Zenithusing Jump ships. They can dock Dropships to Jumpships, they can build battery powered lasers for infantry. They can terra-form planets, but they can't build a camera? The eff?

Also, out of all the hard points infaltions... How did the Atlas get absolutely screwed over in the weapon department?

ps: Destruction of Back Armor breaks your camera function? just a brainstorm.

Edited by Timuroslav, 09 May 2016 - 07:45 PM.

[Vashramire]

Ball Pit, on 09 May 2016 - 05:15 PM, said:

Tanks and other armored vehicles having crews gives mechs even more of a reason to have cameras as only one man is controlling a billion dollar machine, on top of that a large percentage of the United States budget goes into military spending. More modern military vehicles have cameras to give a tactical edge, the f-22 and a few other f models have cameras mounted all around the body and a helmet that is synced to these cameras this lets the pilot see all around the aircraft.

http://www.usgovernm...nding_pie_chart

http://www.businessi...-helmets-2013-3

Aircraft is one thing, armor vehicles is another. Having actually driven and gunned for a Bradley I can say it doesn't need any cameras. Like a car you mostly move forward and the driver will drive so often that they know the size of the vehicle. Anything that is needed for movement will be relayed from the vehicle commander to the driver. The turret can see damn near everything and if you have dismounts they can see the sides and rear. While a camera could be nice, in practical applications of combat, it isn't needed. Your driver is likely a Private and you don't want those overloaded with information. Plus it weighs several dozen tons. If you scrape a building/wall, you will be fine. Hell if you drive straight into a building, you'll be fine.

A jet however where an enemy can attack you from 360 degrees in all directions and you only face forward makes sense to have cameras. On the ground your crew is your eyes. Most accidents happen from the front anyways in low light conditions (a lot of falling in holes). Cameras wouldn't really help that much since three people are often looking forward (likely at least one with night vision and gunner with thermals). And just because the government spends money on the military doesn't mean it should go to pointless stuff that will break. It costs a ton just to maintain and refurbish vehicles. Plus I'd rather the money go to the majority of the fighters (infantry/ground troops) and give them better armor and 1st aid supplies than a camera that's going to break (and it will break if you give it to a Private).

[MechWarrior5152251]

Rear View Cameras are Lostech.

They lost them after MW2....

[Sky Hawk]

First, the "picture-in-picture" variant wouldn't be good, even when PGI's engine could do it. Because in low level settings or in case of old/small monitors you could see almost nothing. And that would give a very unfair advantage for "rich" players with a table sized monitor.

As mentioned, the MW4-style "Push a Button" Full Rear View would be perfect. For the side of PGI, there could be no problems, since we have this kind of fast changed wiev alredy in game. It's the same as our game-end Spectator Mode. When you can jump between another players live view, you do the same thing, and it didn't broke the FPS.

And it would be a drastical but not a critical changes.. and it would be a great help.. Like.. yesterday, I figured out, that I ran into some rocks, when I saw them behind my Mech's smoking body in the Deadscreen...

Edited by Sky Hawk, 11 May 2016 - 04:32 AM.

[DarthHias]

Mead, on 23 February 2016 - 08:18 AM, said:

If a creaker like WWII Online can handle rear view cameras and 300 degree mouselook with no issues, this engine can as well.

And refusing to add a completely optional feature because some potatoes might bake is a cop-out. At some point we need to move forward instead of backward.

What do you need a rear view for then?


Sorry I couldn´t resist ^^

On a serious note, rear view would be nice to have but I don´t see it as important either.

[Shredhead]

We won't and shouldn't get a rear view camera. What all the whiners ignore, either on purpose or out of ignorance, is that the implementation of rear view would completely change the balance and game play. And the light and medium mechs would pay the price. They already are the least played weight classes. So, use seismic sensor, or learn 2 play the game as it is! And stop whining!

[DJ Mitchell]

Shredhead, on 10 May 2016 - 05:50 AM, said:

We won't and shouldn't get a rear view camera. What all the whiners ignore, either on purpose or out of ignorance, is that the implementation of rear view would completely change the balance and game play. And the light and medium mechs would pay the price. They already are the least played weight classes. So, use seismic sensor, or learn 2 play the game as it is! And stop whining!

If I remember correctly in the BT novels each mech has a compressed 360 degree round view hud...so having a rear view would be the least to have. MW4 Version was sufficient and effectiv especially in No Radar drops...

And as mainly medium and light pilot no it won´t change the balance nor game play drastically the camera mainly helps with maneuvering.

As long as target aquisiton, target intel gathering speeds, radar depreviation and mech speeds and torso rotation speeds especially on assaults don´t get changed, lights and meds have a comfortable position, compared to other Mechwarrior iterations which all included rear view cams..which never were an issue...but the content and tone fo your post is...might want to change this.

[Shredhead]

DJ Mitchell, on 10 May 2016 - 06:52 AM, said:

If I remember correctly in the BT novels each mech has a compressed 360 degree round view hud...so having a rear view would be the least to have. MW4 Version was sufficient and effectiv especially in No Radar drops...

This is neither the novels, nor MW4.

Quote

And as mainly medium and light pilot no it won´t change the balance nor game play drastically the camera mainly helps with maneuvering.

lol what? If you can't see how that changes game play I honestly can't help you. "Manoeuvring"

Quote

As long as target aquisiton, target intel gathering speeds, radar depreviation and mech speeds and torso rotation speeds especially on assaults don´t get changed, lights and meds have a comfortable position, compared to other Mechwarrior iterations which all included rear view cams..which never were an issue...but the content and tone fo your post is...might want to change this.

They weren't an issue in those other games because they had 360° radar, which totally killed light and medium play in those other MW games. Yeah, absolutely no problem when you suddenly could check your rear ark without having to turn the mech.
As to my tone, I calls it as I sees it. This is what has become of these forums because all the time terribads nag and whine and demand for the game to become easier for them, it pisses me off! Seriously, if you need a rear view to "manoeuvre" your mech I pity you!

[MoonUnitBeta]

The other wish-list item is HTAL paperdoll. I can’t decide between HTAL or Rear View Camera…

HTAL would be nice to actually know specifically how much armor and structure I have left would be slightly more beneficial.

Rear View Camera would be a case-by-case thing. I think I’d use it more to quickly identify who the hell shot me in the back of the head, and what type of ridiculous geometry I’m hung up on now. But sometimes just to see what the hell is behind me without turning around could have also saved my life.

[SteelBruiser]

You shouldn't need a rear view camera as you're always supposed to be pushing forward...and your team mates always have your back...rrriight.

The main reason I'd like one is so I could see the a**hole that's preventing me from backing out of enemy fire! I'd like to be sure to return the favor to the proper fool when the opportunity presents itself!

[Chados]

It would be nice to have rear facing lasers like in lore, too. For Jenners and Arctic Cheetahs. This way before lock boxes.

[SteelBruiser]

Chados, on 10 May 2016 - 11:02 AM, said:

It would be nice to have rear facing lasers like in lore, too. For Jenners and Arctic Cheetahs. This way before lock boxes.

Add this to the rear view camera and we could see the smile melt off their face from our lpl blast.

[CBT Enthusiast]

Vashramire, on 10 May 2016 - 04:08 AM, said:

Aircraft is one thing, armor vehicles is another. Having actually driven and gunned for a Bradley I can say it doesn't need any cameras. Like a car you mostly move forward and the driver will drive so often that they know the size of the vehicle. Anything that is needed for movement will be relayed from the vehicle commander to the driver. The turret can see damn near everything and if you have dismounts they can see the sides and rear. While a camera could be nice, in practical applications of combat, it isn't needed. Your driver is likely a Private and you don't want those overloaded with information. Plus it weighs several dozen tons. If you scrape a building/wall, you will be fine. Hell if you drive straight into a building, you'll be fine.

A jet however where an enemy can attack you from 360 degrees in all directions and you only face forward makes sense to have cameras. On the ground your crew is your eyes. Most accidents happen from the front anyways in low light conditions (a lot of falling in holes). Cameras wouldn't really help that much since three people are often looking forward (likely at least one with night vision and gunner with thermals). And just because the government spends money on the military doesn't mean it should go to pointless stuff that will break. It costs a ton just to maintain and refurbish vehicles. Plus I'd rather the money go to the majority of the fighters (infantry/ground troops) and give them better armor and 1st aid supplies than a camera that's going to break (and it will break if you give it to a Private).

Humvee's have cameras for the mounted gun so do other military vehicles, its not just limited to American vehicles either. cameras don't weigh several dozen tons since they are mounted on suv's, given those have no armor but it still wouldn't weigh several tons. Your telling me the government wouldn't spend a few thousand on a camera to provide a tactical edge and more visibility for a multi billion dollar mech that is both semi slow and really big?

[CBT Enthusiast]

Shredhead, on 10 May 2016 - 05:50 AM, said:

We won't and shouldn't get a rear view camera. What all the whiners ignore, either on purpose or out of ignorance, is that the implementation of rear view would completely change the balance and game play. And the light and medium mechs would pay the price. They already are the least played weight classes. So, use seismic sensor, or learn 2 play the game as it is! And stop whining!

Assault torso rotation is already slow as hell cameras would help with maneuverability. Per say if I wanted to keep my guns trained at a certain direction or target but also want to back up to find better cover, I cant see where I'm backing up for all I know there could be a wall, mountain, or even another teammate blocking me. That's only one example of a camera being helpful.

[CBT Enthusiast]

Timuroslav, on 09 May 2016 - 07:41 PM, said:

I don't see why they can't do it. There a ton of creative solutions they could do.
change the camera height depending on the mech.
Lower the fidelity of the screen while changing the screen the pilot sees completely. The Pilot is wearing a helmet after all.

But, the Other thing is. If they do the Rear view camera, which I think they should. The Atlas D and Atlas S need to have their hard points swapped to what they are supposed to be.
Back-Firing-Medium Lasers.

Battletech Tech wise: I mean they have figured out how to jump to stars' Nadir and Zenithusing Jump ships. They can dock Dropships to Jumpships, they can build battery powered lasers for infantry. They can terra-form planets, but they can't build a camera? The eff?

Also, out of all the hard points infaltions... How did the Atlas get absolutely screwed over in the weapon department?

ps: Destruction of Back Armor breaks your camera function? just a brainstorm.

I don't know how they would implement it as I am not a game developer, but I do know Arma 3 has rear view mirrors that actually reflect whats behind you, they also have cameras for certain vehicles. There is probably a way to do what Arma 3 did at maybe the cost of some fps. I like the idea you had about camera functionality linked to the rear armor.

[LordNothing]

lostech.

[ScarecrowES]

Ball Pit, on 09 May 2016 - 05:15 PM, said:

Tanks and other armored vehicles having crews gives mechs even more of a reason to have cameras as only one man is controlling a billion dollar machine, on top of that a large percentage of the United States budget goes into military spending. More modern military vehicles have cameras to give a tactical edge, the f-22 and a few other f models have cameras mounted all around the body and a helmet that is synced to these cameras this lets the pilot see all around the aircraft.

http://www.usgovernm...nding_pie_chart

http://www.businessi...-helmets-2013-3

For the sake of clarification, there is only one aircraft in the world with airframe cameras linked to a helmet-mounted display system, and that's the F-35 (full disclosure, I build military aircraft for a living). The integrated display on the F-35 helmet works a lot like Microsoft's HoloLens, projecting data onto the pilot's actual real view. The camera system allows the pilot, if he choses, to look through his own plane.

Both the proposed F-22 helmet (not yet implemented) and the F-35's current helmet allow the helmet view to integrate with the avionics and target acquisition systems to target an enemy aircraft merely by having the pilot look at and select it. This does, of course, require that the aircraft's sensors, or the weapon's, already see the target.

However, the data network suite on the F-35 acts as an integrated data hub for sharing information between allied aircraft and ground stations. This includes tracking data for enemy aircraft. This means any enemy aircraft one friendly F-35 can see, any allied aircraft linked to the F-35 can also see, even if it's not an F-35 too.

So under such a system, an F-35 can be flying along the outskirts of a combat area, tracking an enemy fighter flying behind a friendly F-22. That target trace is automatically relayed to the F-22, whose pilot can look behind him, view the enemy fighter (including tracking data) through his helmet, target that fighter through the HOBS feature of his helmet, and fire a missile at that target... still behind him... without ever making an effort to try to turn at the enemy fighter.

This is also why it's silly to say an F-35 can't dogfight. First, it can. Let's not be silly. But second, it never needs to, because as long as ANYONE can see the enemy fighter, the F-35 can target it and kill it, even if that target is behind and below the F-35.

F-35 OP. US Government plz nerf.

So yeah... Battlemechs. Whoopie.