57 replies to this topic

[Ace Selin]

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!

Pretty much this.

[DJ Mitchell]

Shredhead, on 10 May 2016 - 07:07 AM, said:

This is neither the novels, nor MW4.

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

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!

It is int he novels and the topic was already covered in 2012 even in these forums + Dev commentary: http://mwomercs.com/...le-hud-element/

No, I can see the changes and also the minor impact it has. Medium and Light play was never killed by the 360degree radar and also not threated by a rear view camera in MW4 for example. And serveral lights and mediums were successfully used in international league play...don´t dream something up.

Yes, it is no problem and should actually be possible anyway. As light/med driver I´m lucky we don´t have backwards mounted weaponary as several mechs especially assaults should have. Now guess how they would operate them.
So you think a rear camera makes this game to easy ? Deal how about rear view camera and backwards mounted weapon then, shouldn´t make it to easy right ?

About your tone and attitude, yes you can do that, but don't expect that any grown man will take you seriously nor waste more time with you as I did this time answering your post..

[Greyhart]

himself, on 28 February 2016 - 10:06 PM, said:

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.

read this and though that's about right then read the rest of the thread and you nailed it.

Basically you could use that formula for every discussion on this forum about game changes.

Of course you'd have to add the 4th: Someone will bring up modern military vehicles and there will be an argument as to what they do or don't have.

and perhaps a 5th; someone will bring up lore

Edited by Greyhart, 11 May 2016 - 01:30 AM.

[Satan n stuff]

SuomiWarder, on 23 February 2016 - 07:30 AM, said:

The short answer is that years ago PGI complained that the game engine did not handle picture in picture very well and that a back view camera would be technically difficult if not impossible. With a new release of the engine coming out soon maybe that will change. Or maybe it has always been possible but PGI just doesn't want to bother.

Or maybe PGI has never in their entire existence employed a half decent graphics programmer, let's go with that.

[Impyrium]

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!

Wait... you're saying the game might be slightly more like a 'mech sim and less like Counter Strike in Robots? Well we can't have that, can we!

himself, on 28 February 2016 - 10:06 PM, said:

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.

Mmhmmm. Frustratingly accurate.

[Vashramire]

Ball Pit, on 10 May 2016 - 01:02 PM, said:

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?

Camera's for HMMWV's are super rare and even then it's only forward facing on the turret. It's not there for the visibility either. It's to keep the gunner inside and protected. Then there's the whole problems with ammo and jams. The FoV on them is far narrower than having a gunner up there as well. For those not familiar with how the military operates and thinks cameras are some jesus device that will be super useful, there is a very narrow scope for use of them on ground vehicles in regards to actually providing vision. At most they will be for gunners and be equipped with thermals or night vision. That's it. Drivers do not need them. There isn't a need for multiple cameras around the vehicle.

If you are deployed and you need to back up and aren't confident you won't hit something or fall in a ditch, your gunner will guide you from the turret or your TC will ground guide you. For driving in a convoy, once again driver is moving forward and doesn't need them. You travel in at least a pack of 4 and each trucks gunner takes a direction to guard. They don't need 360 camera's because if you get engaged, whoever's lane that is engages them. The rest keep their eyes out for a flanking ambush in the direction they are already facing.

I don't know how anyone can think that camera's are something that is super justified on land based vehicles in terms of driver awareness. Having driven said vehicles personally I can say that my mirrors and gunner are more than enough vision for me to drive comfortably. Now if the driver was the sole occupant and had to gun as well like a mech, It might make a bit more sense but even then the movement of a tracked or wheeled vehicle is much different than a biped. Vehicles mostly stick to roads and drive a majority of the time forward. Especially in crowded urban environments.

As far as cameras for current military vehicles. It's mostly absurd aside from the cases I stated above. For mechs I can see some uses but I doubt it's going to have as large an impact that some people want. People will still back into people and such.

~Also that is an Okotar COBRA II and it's expensive as **** for doing basically the same thing as HMMWV. Used by Turkey.

[Appogee]

Imagine what PUG matches would be like if PUGs could actually see where they were going while they fled from the red doritos.

No, we're better off dealing with their blind panic.

[adamts01]

Vashramire, on 16 May 2016 - 02:40 AM, said:

Having driven said vehicles personally I can say that my mirrors and gunner are more than enough vision for me to drive comfortably.

This completely invalidates your entire argument. A mirror might as well be a camera and a gunner is voice navigation.

[Vashramire]

adamts01, on 16 May 2016 - 03:22 AM, said:

This completely invalidates your entire argument. A mirror might as well be a camera and a gunner is voice navigation.

How so? My argument is that the ground combat vehicles don't need cameras. How does having mirrors and a gunner invalidate that?

[adamts01]

Vashramire, on 16 May 2016 - 05:06 AM, said:

How so? My argument is that the ground combat vehicles don't need cameras. How does having mirrors and a gunner invalidate that?

Mirrors are essentially backup cameras, just different technology, they serve the exact same purpose. A gunner is a 360 degree set of extra eyes, essentially relaying any information a backup camera would give you. If your ground combat vehicle didn't have a gunner and mirrors I'm sure a backup camera would be exponentially more useful.

On a side note, I don't care whether this game gets these stupid cameras or not. I just like to argue.

Edit: Thank you for your service

Edited by adamts01, 16 May 2016 - 05:17 AM.

[TriggerHappyPacifist]

I want a rear view mirror or backup camera so that I can see if it is a rock or another mech blocking me from backing up. Doesn't need to be big or high res, just something.

[Nightbird]

Not gonna happen because it will cut FPS in half.

[VonBruinwald]

adamts01, on 16 May 2016 - 05:17 AM, said:

A gunner is a 360 degree set of extra eyes, essentially relaying any information a backup camera would give you.

Not all gunners get a 360 degree view. You think the gunner manning the forward cupola of the M577 APC can see what's behind him? Dude only gets a 120 degree firing arc!

Edited by VonBruinwald, 15 September 2020 - 09:33 AM.

[Beorning]

haha this old chestnut, a true classic. Your best bet is to switch to 3rd person while backing up.

[LordNothing]

ok, who the **** nekro'd?

SuomiWarder, on 23 February 2016 - 07:30 AM, said:

The short answer is that years ago PGI complained that the game engine did not handle picture in picture very well and that a back view camera would be technically difficult if not impossible. With a new release of the engine coming out soon maybe that will change. Or maybe it has always been possible but PGI just doesn't want to bother.

render to texture is the actual name for it. picture in picture was a feature on old tvs that let you watch 2 channels at once. first time i saw rtt was in quake 3 team arena. me and others helped hack in into the freespace2 engine. it works but it is not cheap performance wise. big thing is to limit the update frequency, resolution, turn off more expensive rendering options, and rendering at the correct time so that scene setup only has to be done once. most modern game engines have problems implementing rtt. its sort of like the reflective surfaces that were a thing with voodoo cards and quickly became lostech, see og unreal. however unity seems to be able to do it, many ksp mods have used the feature.

Nightbird, on 15 September 2020 - 08:15 AM, said:

Not gonna happen because it will cut FPS in half.

30% reduction tops. keep in mind you are probably going to render to a 1k texture, which is tiny compared to most screens. though with the size of the cockpit monitors, 0.5k would be plenty. you are also disabling things like shadows (im not sure you might be able to re-use the g-buffer as i do believe its in world space) and particles. with the number of rendering units in modern gpus, its completely possible. but there is always the potato (computer, not player) factor. additional speed can be had doing frame skip. since once a texture is rendered it can be used many times. like doing one every 3 frames for example still gives you 20 fps, more than enough for knowing theres a squirrel in your rear.

Edited by LordNothing, 15 September 2020 - 08:10 PM.

[MW Waldorf Statler]

PGI searched since 4 Years Programmers for the Cryengine...the Market is emptyand and most Programmers works and bind by(the Staff Programmer from PGI change to Relic) Company like Relic

Hope is only in Future a MWO 2 with UE4

Edited by MW Waldorf Statler, 16 September 2020 - 02:10 AM.

[Beorning]

MW Waldorf Statler, on 16 September 2020 - 02:07 AM, said:

PGI searched since 4 Years Programmers for the Cryengine...the Market is emptyand and most Programmers works and bind by(the Staff Programmer from PGI change to Relic) Company like Relic

Hope is only in Future a MWO 2 with UE4

Hope you are wrong, Everything I have seen out of UE4 seems like small scale maps.

[LordNothing]

MW Waldorf Statler, on 16 September 2020 - 02:07 AM, said:

PGI searched since 4 Years Programmers for the Cryengine...the Market is emptyand and most Programmers works and bind by(the Staff Programmer from PGI change to Relic) Company like Relic

Hope is only in Future a MWO 2 with UE4

thats the problem, nobody wants to write their own code anymore. if they cant find an asset in the store that solves a particular problem, they simply dont do it.