98 replies to this topic

[Soviet Alex]

Having just watched the GDC trailer again, I'll point out that the cockpit layout of the Atlas & Hunchback are different, whilst the HUD is the same in both. Getting the right cockpit for you might be a deciding factor in choosing a mech. Unless we can do cockpit-swaps in the Mech-Lab.

[Aegis Kleais]

Soviet Alex, on 11 March 2012 - 10:33 AM, said:

Having just watched the GDC trailer again, I'll point out that the cockpit layout of the Atlas & Hunchback are different, whilst the HUD is the same in both. Getting the right cockpit for you might be a deciding factor in choosing a mech. Unless we can do cockpit-swaps in the Mech-Lab.

Hopefully you can at least customize what information goes on what panel, but I'm fine with the fact that each cockpit is different from another; gives a LOT of immersion to the game, IMO.

[TimberJon]

I suggest that the range be within a bracket or box with a low-opacity border because as some people noticed, it was hard to spot right off the bat. Now we know where to look for it but a new player might miss it like some of us did. I think there should also be a range indicator for the floating reticule just to cover the bases. Or am I not seeing that one either?

Edited by TimberJon, 11 March 2012 - 11:07 AM.

[Kenyon Burguess]

i didnt have a problem with the HUD, its rather nice. i just hope that the mechs represented in the side panels change with the mech you are driving.

[Darkrasp]

I am a bit bugged that the enemy damage diagram is on the opposite corner as your own, when I'm in a battle I'm constantly comparing my enemy's health to my own, and I don't want to have to look all over the place to do so. If it can be slid elsewhere through some kind of configuration options that would be great. The torso twist indicator is also a little weak, considering as torso twisting is without question the most crucial element in gameplay. I like the sliding bar idea from a couple pages back that showed how far you were off center and how much farther you could go. That's clever and intuitive.

Otherwise, looks fantastic.

[Sprouticus]

Darkrasp, on 11 March 2012 - 11:34 AM, said:

I am a bit bugged that the enemy damage diagram is on the opposite corner as your own, when I'm in a battle I'm constantly comparing my enemy's health to my own, and I don't want to have to look all over the place to do so. If it can be slid elsewhere through some kind of configuration options that would be great. The torso twist indicator is also a little weak, considering as torso twisting is without question the most crucial element in gameplay. I like the sliding bar idea from a couple pages back that showed how far you were off center and how much farther you could go. That's clever and intuitive.

Otherwise, looks fantastic.

I agree with this. I would prefer the two readouts to be close together to easily assess the situation.

I would also love an option to show armor in a bar format instead of the paper-doll of the mech. I just prefer that kind of structure.

[Pht]

The hud is very pretty and looks quite functional; I'll be interested to see how the various sensor modes are displayed and how they handle the side/rear view that you get from the visual sensors mounted on the 'mechs.

You've done an exceedingly good job from what I can see; and I don't say that lightly.

That said, I do have one serious gripe, and a potentially scary thing.

Dual reticules... eech. Don't like it. Not necessary, I don't see that they give a worthwhile return for the trouble of having to track two reticules instead of just one, in real time, in heavy combat.

It goes directly against the job of a reticule that (i hope) is used to indicate where your BattleMech should aim it's weapons at; an indicator should not be made in such a way that makes it harder to indicate targets or otherwise make it harder to track what's going on when stuff gets crazy.

A single reticule that changes color with an audible tone for "best convergence" fulfills that role quite well without the extra clutter.

Now for the scary thing...

InnerSphereNews, on 07 March 2012 - 11:03 AM, said:

Aim Reticles

...
When the ’Mech’s torso is not currently rotating, the two reticles will align over top of each other and all weapons will fire on the same point.

...

Please tell me this doesn't mean mw4 style shooting when the reticules are aligned, where all weapons fired at the same time that travel at the same velocity will hit exactly the same spot, instead of spreading across the target 'mech's armor panels ... IE, proper simulation of the accuracy vs precision factor.

Accuracy = ability to hit a single point with a single weapon (mechs are great at that)
Precision = ability to hit a single point with a bunch of weapons mounted across a 'Mech - mech's arent' so great at that (and neither are our combat units either).


pretty please...

Is this just a mistake in the words and sentence structure?

Edited by Pht, 11 March 2012 - 06:11 PM.

[Frank the Tank]

Anyone else not like the torso twist and elevation indicators? I feel like that whole part of the HUD could be touched up to be easier to read at a glance.

Also maybe I'm looking at it wrong, but aren't the compass headings too close together? He's looking north, so east and west should be off screen, since they would be aligned with his shoulders.

[Siilk]

Pht, on 11 March 2012 - 06:08 PM, said:

Please tell me this doesn't mean mw4 style shooting when the reticules are aligned, where all weapons fired at the same time that travel at the same velocity will hit exactly the same spot, instead of spreading across the target 'mech's armor panels ... IE, proper simulation of the accuracy vs precision factor.

Lol but that's exactly why there are two reticles: to actually simulate non-perfect aim of mech weapons, instead of adding completely artificial cone of fire. Bad targeting is not "simulated" by randomness, it is imperfect, because of slow convergence and delayed torso weapons aiming. Only your skills can decide how precise you could be.

[Spooky]

Pht, on 11 March 2012 - 06:08 PM, said:

Please tell me this doesn't mean mw4 style shooting when the reticules are aligned, where all weapons fired at the same time that travel at the same velocity will hit exactly the same spot, instead of spreading across the target 'mech's armor panels ... IE, proper simulation of the accuracy vs precision factor.

Accuracy = ability to hit a single point with a single weapon (mechs are great at that)
Precision = ability to hit a single point with a bunch of weapons mounted across a 'Mech - mech's arent' so great at that (and neither are our combat units either).


pretty please...

Is this just a mistake in the words and sentence structure?

There is no mistake in the words or sentence structure. You are simply misunderstanding it . This has nothing to do with the arcade style shooting of MW4. This was about having two reticules. Your Torso reticule lags behind, when you move your torso to the left or right, because your pilot's head runs a little bit ahead of the motion and the arm weapons follow your pilot's head. So when you do not move your torso left or right, the two reticules will align again (unless you press the toggle for free look, in which case the arm weapons follow your pilot's head again).

[0Tempest0]

I have no complaints about the hud, its the best one ive seen for any mech game. Only thing i would like is the option to change the color of the hud, if i (we) can have that i think id be a happy chappy XD

[Redburn]

Something else to junk up the HUD.....an "MSL" indicator.....just a thought. Might be important in some situations.

[Sylow]

One question on the HUD, due to my personal hardware setup: my main monitor is a polarisation filter 3D monitor. MWO looks like a great candidate to be run in 3D view, but i wonder if the team did any testing or plans to adjust the game to hardware like this. The usual problems are: crosshairs acting "weird" in 3D and text looking very bad.

From what i saw, i think the text could be big enough to not suffer so much from the "seperated lines" issue like some other games, but i can't tell for sure from just the videos. {Videos are 2D, so i can't reliably crosscheck on my machine. } (Forget most MMOs on polarisation 3D, the text on tooltips and stuff like that is unreadable. )

Thus i wonder if anybody on the team could tell if 3D is being looked into?

Next to that, as the thread asks for nitpicking, for somebody used to military hardware, the startup sequence is quite strange. Covered switches are used for activating displays and the likes. Nobody actually uses covered switches for non-critical equipment, and i don't think that displays are considered a significant threat. Weapons arming (and similar stuff) uses a covered switch, but starting displays or the engine should not.

If everything in a military vehicle is switched on by a covered switch, all the switches do is slowing down the procedures while at the same time loosing their "Warning! I am special! Think about it before switching me!"-status. So, for a pure game, the current covered switches are allright, but they take away from the simulation feel of the game.

[Pht]

Siilk, on 12 March 2012 - 01:13 AM, said:

Lol but that's exactly why there are two reticles: to actually simulate non-perfect aim of mech weapons,

I wasn't referring to the fact that they're using seperate reticules for the torso and arm mounted weapons. I was referring directly to the quoted langage in his post, which is ambiguious on the point.

Quote

instead of adding completely artificial cone of fire. Bad targeting is not "simulated" by randomness, it is imperfect, because of slow convergence and delayed torso weapons aiming. Only your skills can decide how precise you could be.

I didn't like the cone of fire idea, so don't lay that at my feet.

Spooky, on 12 March 2012 - 01:57 AM, said:

There is no mistake in the words or sentence structure. You are simply misunderstanding it . This has nothing to do with the arcade style shooting of MW4.

Um ...

Quote

When the ’Mech’s torso is not currently rotating, the two reticles will align over top of each other and all weapons will fire on the same point.

I'm asking what he means by "point;" which he didn't define. If he didn't mean mw4 style accuracy, than the language is ambiguous and a bit scary.

[MaddMaxx]

Aegis Kleais™, on 10 March 2012 - 09:34 AM, said:

Simmer down, soldier!

(bows head) Some days it just gets to be to much. The level of obliviousness. The utter unremarkability. The contextualization of unspeakable horrors...

Damn, I think I might need a Beer!

[CyBerkut]

Spooky, on 11 March 2012 - 01:32 AM, said:

Then your post seems pretty pointless. No-one disputes the fact, that the weapon range indicator is important and more important than the ranges in the weapons list. We are simply discussing the addition of adding the weapon ranges to the weapon list as well.

Though I do not think I misunderstood your post, since you specifically "+1"ed Aegis' statement on eye wander, indicating, that a pilot would have to look down to the right in order to check whether a weapon is in range or not and thus implying, that there would be not weapon range indicator near the reticule.


Also this is directed to Aegis as much as you.

OK... to make myself as clear as I can, while trying to get away from having anyone have to scroll up (or change pages) to view previous posts, etc.

- Weapon "In Range" indication belongs in the HUD. Yes, that is widely agreed upon.
- Weapon Min/Max range listings. My Opinion: They do not belong on the HUD, near the reticule. They should be on some secondary weapons list display panel. If it is still visible in the main screen, while not cluttering up the area immediately adjacent to the target reticule, that's fine by me. In my opinion, the HUD/HMD should be used for displaying data that is changing as the mech moves through the mission. Weapon Min/Max ranges are not that sort of information. Once you have departed the mechlab / mechbay / drop ship, you have whatever weapons you configured, and those Min/Max's will remain the same for the remainder of the mission.

The above approach is similar to how HUDs are managed in modern combat aircraft, which is based upon a lot of Human Factors research. HUDs will display an indicator of what weapon is selected, what is targeted, and will provide an indication of whether the target is currently within range/locked as appropriate. The HUDs do not provide a listing of weapon Min/Max ranges. Why? Because it is additional clutter on the display, and it is information that the pilot already knows.

Now, we are playing a game, so it makes sense to accomodate people climbing the learning curve. In my opinion, it makes sense to do that on a secondary weapons list display. If the developers want to put it on the HUD near the targeting reticule, with an option to turn that Min/Max listing off... that's cool. The newbies can have their ranges while learning them, and the older hands can have a less cluttered HUD.

[Dukov Nook]

So, tried looking around the site, and it wasn't immediately apparent. Where might one find the Hud screenshots?

[Dukov Nook]

Dukov Nook, on 13 March 2012 - 09:33 AM, said:

So, tried looking around the site, and it wasn't immediately apparent. Where might one find the Hud screenshots?

Ah, nevermind, I found it.

So, it looks like they are going with the old school HUDs of MW3 or Wing Commander - Privateer. Not sure I like that. It's a waste of valueable screen real estate to include rendered components of a cockpit into the gaming screen just for a little added immersion. The Hud should simply be a display of the components you will need to manage and maintain you mech in battle; speed, damage, radar, targetting; weapons, and comms. Adding the other items is not only fluff, but creates a distraction.

[Point Blank]

I personally think it looks great, no major changes needed here :3

[Sprouticus]

Dukov Nook, on 13 March 2012 - 09:43 AM, said:

Ah, nevermind, I found it.

So, it looks like they are going with the old school HUDs of MW3 or Wing Commander - Privateer. Not sure I like that. It's a waste of valueable screen real estate to include rendered components of a cockpit into the gaming screen just for a little added immersion. The Hud should simply be a display of the components you will need to manage and maintain you mech in battle; speed, damage, radar, targetting; weapons, and comms. Adding the other items is not only fluff, but creates a distraction.

I would disagree. I understand the concern for fluff cockpits over a clearer HUD, but the cockpit screens in MWO have actual information, most of it secondary, that will be useful to the pilot. I actually had those concerns myself, but watching the gameplay videos, the cockpit does not seem to get in the way, and it is seperation of the HUD from the window/viewscreen is a nice touch which will allow for some interesting UI design features.