Jump to content

Field of view / Widescreen issue


Recommended Posts

Call me a skeptic, but until I see true WS / FOV working in the game, I'm going to doubt it. At some point we will be able to see screen shots and I hope the fix is in... believe me. I think a lot of people would actually make sure they DON'T buy this game if GRiN hoses up WS support.

-jk

Good point, good point...... :thumbsup:

Cheers!

Fresh

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 199
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I don't doubt that they have a resolution (fix) for WS, however I honestly don't think they'll do a thing about the FOV.

I'm willing to bet on this one Sup. After there performance last summer with patches, I can see how serious they are about meeting their promises.

I'll bet that WS users get a better FOV.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't doubt that they have a resolution (fix) for WS, however I honestly don't think they'll do a thing about the FOV.

I'm willing to bet on this one Sup. After there performance last summer with patches, I can see how serious they are about meeting their promises.

I'll bet that WS users get a better FOV.

I agree with the WS FOV Sleepdoc. I think the overall FOV is a whole different issue than just WS though. WS or not, GRAW as well as this version both have a "tunnel" vision feel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't doubt that they have a resolution (fix) for WS, however I honestly don't think they'll do a thing about the FOV.

I'm willing to bet on this one Sup. After there performance last summer with patches, I can see how serious they are about meeting their promises.

I'll bet that WS users get a better FOV.

I agree with the WS FOV Sleepdoc. I think the overall FOV is a whole different issue than just WS though. WS or not, GRAW as well as this version both have a "tunnel" vision feel.

Yeah, after playing a bunch of Beta, then going back to ORG this weekend I noticed the tunnel-vision thing. I agree... WS support and FOV are two different issues. I now see what you guys are talking about... that FOV thing needs to be fixed or at least give us some kind of XML control over it. It was hard to go back to the MP demo after [GR]...

-jk

callsign threepoint

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't doubt that they have a resolution (fix) for WS, however I honestly don't think they'll do a thing about the FOV.

I'm willing to bet on this one Sup. After there performance last summer with patches, I can see how serious they are about meeting their promises.

I'll bet that WS users get a better FOV.

I agree with the WS FOV Sleepdoc. I think the overall FOV is a whole different issue than just WS though. WS or not, GRAW as well as this version both have a "tunnel" vision feel.

Yeah, after playing a bunch of Beta, then going back to ORG this weekend I noticed the tunnel-vision thing. I agree... WS support and FOV are two different issues. I now see what you guys are talking about... that FOV thing needs to be fixed or at least give us some kind of XML control over it. It was hard to go back to the MP demo after [GR]...

-jk

callsign threepoint

Hi Kretz,

although the WS and FOV issues are different animals, they are siamiese twins, connected at the hip.

In other words, the mathematical proportionality of each is realted to the next.

If you increase the width of the image to fit the wide Screeen, and it is your intention not to make the image look proprtionally different (not to stretch it or squeeze it), you must, by defintion, incresae the FOV (or leave black lines on the side of the screen)

Have you ever owned or watched anyones new HD TV? when you watch old SD (Standard DEF) TV on a new, wide, HD TV. you always have a format button on the remote. If you put it into SD format, you get the original proprotions of the original TV show (like I love lucy) and you get black lines on either side. Since I love lucy is not a video game and cannot have increased fields of view, you can oly fill the entire HD screen by stretching the image. Lucy and Ricky end up looking stretched and funny proportionally....

In a video game however, you have 3 choices you can make.

#1.

Keep one of the FOVs (vertical FOV was fixed in the demo) and Proprotionality the same, but place the image across the entire WIDE screen. in order to achive this, you must cut off the top and bottom of the screen (The horizontal FOV). GRiN took this approach in the Demo. And as evidenced by this thread, it did not get recieved very well.

: )

#2.

You can give back the tops and bottoms that GRiN took away from wide screen users (Fix the vertical FOV), but still keep the same Horizontal FOV for all players across the ful width of the screen. In this case, you must stretch the image and lose the proportionality of the image, thus making people look stretched and funny. Circles become oblong etc in such an image. Also a solution I would not apprecaite and would not recommend.

#3.

Finally, the design of choice IMHO, is to FIX (meaning hold constant) the proprotionality in both planes (horizontal and vertical), and let the FOV chips fall where they may. So for example, when comparing 1024x768 to a 1366x720 screen, the latter guy gets slightly less vertical FOV (he has 720 and not 768) but somewhat more horizontal FOV (he has 1366 and not 1024). and the 1920x1080 guy gets greater FOVs in both the horizontal and vertical plane.

some will argue that solution #3, which preserves equivalent proportionality of images for all players, gives teh widescreen player an unfair advantage. After all, they can see further around their sides and higher up and down in every view. They essentailly have better peripheral vision. So they have a wider view. My reponse? Oh well. WS is here to stay. WE better support it and deal with it. and making images look funny is no solution. People deserve to enjoy their widescreen goodness. and the 800x600 players will just have to see less and die more for being too cheap to go out and spend $159 for a 1680x1050 screen (which is what i paid for mine) (last comment some what tongue in cheek, but you get my point i hope...)

Edited by Sleepdoc
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't doubt that they have a resolution (fix) for WS, however I honestly don't think they'll do a thing about the FOV.

I'm willing to bet on this one Sup. After there performance last summer with patches, I can see how serious they are about meeting their promises.

I'll bet that WS users get a better FOV.

I agree with the WS FOV Sleepdoc. I think the overall FOV is a whole different issue than just WS though. WS or not, GRAW as well as this version both have a "tunnel" vision feel.

Yeah, after playing a bunch of Beta, then going back to ORG this weekend I noticed the tunnel-vision thing. I agree... WS support and FOV are two different issues. I now see what you guys are talking about... that FOV thing needs to be fixed or at least give us some kind of XML control over it. It was hard to go back to the MP demo after [GR]...

-jk

callsign threepoint

Hi Kretz,

although the WS and FOV issues are different animals, they are siamiese twins, connected at the hip.

In other words, the mathematical proportionality of each is realted to the next.

If you increase the width of the image to fit the wide Screeen, and it is your intention not to make the image look proprtionally different (not to stretch it or squeeze it), you must, by defintion, incresae the FOV (or leave black lines on the side of the screen)

Have you ever owned or watched anyones new HD TV? when you watch old SD (Standard DEF) TV on a new, wide, HD TV. you always have a format button on the remote. If you put it into SD format, you get the original proprotions of the original TV show (like I love lucy) and you get black lines on either side. Since I love lucy is not a video game and cannot have increased fields of view, you can oly fill the entire HD screen by stretching the image. Lucy and Ricky end up looking stretched and funny proportionally....

In a video game however, you have 3 choices you can make.

#1.

Keep one of the FOVs (vertical FOV was fixed in the demo) and Proprotionality the same, but place the image across the entire WIDE screen. in order to achive this, you must cut off the top and bottom of the screen (The horizontal FOV). GRiN took this approach in the Demo. And as evidenced by this thread, it did not get recieved very well.

: )

#2.

You can give back the tops and bottoms that GRiN took away from wide screen users (Fix the vertical FOV), but still keep the same Horizontal FOV for all players across the ful width of the screen. In this case, you must stretch the image and lose the proportionality of the image, thus making people look stretched and funny. Circles become oblong etc in such an image. Also a solution I would not apprecaite and would not recommend.

#3.

Finally, the design of choice IMHO, is to FIX (meaning hold constant) the proprotionality in both planes (horizontal and vertical), and let the FOV chips fall where they may. So for example, when comparing 1024x768 to a 1366x720 screen, the latter guy gets slightly less vertical FOV (he has 720 and not 768) but somewhat more horizontal FOV (he has 1366 and not 1024). and the 1920x1080 guy gets greater FOVs in both the horizontal and vertical plane.

some will argue that solution #3, which preserves equivalent proportionality of images for all players, gives teh widescreen player an unfair advantage. After all, they can see further around their sides and higher up and down in every view. They essentailly have better peripheral vision. So they have a wider view. My reponse? Oh well. WS is here to stay. WE better support it and deal with it. and making images look funny is no solution. People deserve to enjoy their widescreen goodness. and the 800x600 players will just have to see less and die more for being too cheap to go out and spend $159 for a 1680x1050 screen (which is what i paid for mine) (last comment some what tongue in cheek, but you get my point i hope...)

Oh, I agree. I've been dealing with WS issues for a long time now (I broke my teeth on widescreen Macs more than a decade ago)... and I still have fun explaining to my parents WS modes on a letterbox TV in normal non-WS broadcasts. :)

I also agree regarding your option #3. WS is here and I think it will only be another year or so before WS monitor sales outweigh standard square screens. It's time to accept the future. :)

-jk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Kretz,

although the WS and FOV issues are different animals, they are siamiese twins, connected at the hip.

In other words, the mathematical proportionality of each is realted to the next.

If you increase the width of the image to fit the wide Screeen, and it is your intention not to make the image look proprtionally different (not to stretch it or squeeze it), you must, by defintion, incresae the FOV (or leave black lines on the side of the screen)

Have you ever owned or watched anyones new HD TV? when you watch old SD (Standard DEF) TV on a new, wide, HD TV. you always have a format button on the remote. If you put it into SD format, you get the original proprotions of the original TV show (like I love lucy) and you get black lines on either side. Since I love lucy is not a video game and cannot have increased fields of view, you can oly fill the entire HD screen by stretching the image. Lucy and Ricky end up looking stretched and funny proportionally....

In a video game however, you have 3 choices you can make.

#1.

Keep one of the FOVs (vertical FOV was fixed in the demo) and Proprotionality the same, but place the image across the entire WIDE screen. in order to achive this, you must cut off the top and bottom of the screen (The horizontal FOV). GRiN took this approach in the Demo. And as evidenced by this thread, it did not get recieved very well.

: )

#2.

You can give back the tops and bottoms that GRiN took away from wide screen users (Fix the vertical FOV), but still keep the same Horizontal FOV for all players across the ful width of the screen. In this case, you must stretch the image and lose the proportionality of the image, thus making people look stretched and funny. Circles become oblong etc in such an image. Also a solution I would not apprecaite and would not recommend.

#3.

Finally, the design of choice IMHO, is to FIX (meaning hold constant) the proprotionality in both planes (horizontal and vertical), and let the FOV chips fall where they may. So for example, when comparing 1024x768 to a 1366x720 screen, the latter guy gets slightly less vertical FOV (he has 720 and not 768) but somewhat more horizontal FOV (he has 1366 and not 1024). and the 1920x1080 guy gets greater FOVs in both the horizontal and vertical plane.

some will argue that solution #3, which preserves equivalent proportionality of images for all players, gives teh widescreen player an unfair advantage. After all, they can see further around their sides and higher up and down in every view. They essentailly have better peripheral vision. So they have a wider view. My reponse? Oh well. WS is here to stay. WE better support it and deal with it. and making images look funny is no solution. People deserve to enjoy their widescreen goodness. and the 800x600 players will just have to see less and die more for being too cheap to go out and spend $159 for a 1680x1050 screen (which is what i paid for mine) (last comment some what tongue in cheek, but you get my point i hope...)

Hey Sleepdoc ...

You got your Horizontal and Vertical mixed up ...

This is the Horizontal and the Vertical ...

GRAW2%20FOV.jpg

What they did in the demo ws cut down the Vertical FOV whilst keeping the Horizontal FOV the same as it was for 4:3 screens.

True Widescreen has an increase in the Horizontal FOV whilst the Vertical FOV stays the same.

What the guys are asking for is an increase in the base horizontal FOV ... so it will be wider for 4:3 screens and proportionally wider for Widescreens.

... as you say ...

..., the mathematical proportionality of each is realted to the next.
Edited by Paddywak
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to carify... GRiN have indicated that widescreen is now supported, i.e. they did away with their implementattion of option #1 in Sleepdoc's post. Correct? We just don't know how they have implemented the WS support. Now the question is did they choose option #2 or #3?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to carify... GRiN have indicated that widescreen is now supported, i.e. they did away with their implementattion of option #1 in Sleepdoc's post. Correct?

Correct.

We just don't know how they have implemented the WS support.
Correct.

Now the question is did they choose option #2 or #3?
I think/hope that GRIN will have corrected the Widescreen FOV issue by making it as it was in GRAW ...

Which was an increase in the horizontal FOV whilst leaving the Vertical FOV.

Which is ... True Widescreen ... ;)

Edited by Paddywak
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

To put everyone's mind to rest!

TrueWS-Grin.gif

:thumbsup:

... but it isn't TRUE widescreen ... :(

graw2-SP-FOV-T.jpg

Whilst this is better than a decrease in the Vertical FOV (as it was with the MP demo) it is not true widescreen.

True widescreen has an increase in the horizontal FOV without increasing or decreasing the vertical FOV ... as it was in GRAW ... ;)

TrueWS.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really don't care, what GRIN have done, is good enough, the picture is in a wider FOV on 16:10 & 9 and I get an extra 5% on my vertical too... This issue is now low priority for me (but your point is good). I want the game please & Editor.

p.s. The only thing is why are they having a hard time defining std: 16.10 & 16.9 aspects in relation to 4.3 , it's all about the pixels? maybe it's a stretch problem, either way, I'm happy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To put everyone's mind to rest!

TrueWS-Grin.gif

:thumbsup:

... but it isn't TRUE widescreen ... :(

graw2-SP-FOV-T.jpg

Whilst this is better than a decrease in the Vertical FOV (as it was with the MP demo) it is not true widescreen.

True widescreen has an increase in the horizontal FOV without increasing or decreasing the vertical FOV ... as it was in GRAW ... ;)

TrueWS.gif

Paddy is the man.

The SP demo is much improved though, feels ALOT better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh yeah I agree it does feel a lot better than the MP demo ...

I just don't understand why GRIN changed the way that it works between GRAW and GRAW 2.

In GRAW it was Horizontal + only ... true widescreen and there was an auto aspect ratio option.

Why change it to an inferior method of implementing widescreen ? .... isn't that a step backward ? .... :huh:

Very odd .....

That said I love the game and can't wait to play it ... :rocky:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

........ :rofl: .......

It is nothing to do with POV ... it is just a fact widescreen is wider ... unless messed up by a game developer.

What is really odd is that GRIN had got the aspect ratio and widescreen FOV implementation correct in the past with the same game engine (GRAW) ... :blink:

Isn't it just as easy to say it's not true 4:3 support?
... no ... the 4:3 support is already true 4:3 ... :no:

Can't people without WS just complain that 4:3 is really just a cropped version of 16:10 or 16:9?
Complain ? ... 4:3 is a cropped version of 16:10 or 16:9 by its very nature and they aren't missing anything from their 4:3 view ... :hmm:

Which one is correct?
Which one of what is correct ? ... it is possible to have true 4:3 and true WS and both be correct ... ;)

Can we choose for ourselves?
Choose what for ourselves ? ... the FOV ... ?

You wouldn't have to choose anything if true WS and true 4:3 were implemented correctly as they were in GRAW ... :whistle:

Widescreen is just that .... not at taller screen ... not a squashed screen ... not a stretched screen ... but a wider screen and as such the view should be just ... well ... eh ... wider ... :thumbsup:

TrueWS.gif

Edited by Paddywak
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Widescreen.jpg

If the 16:10 aspect ratio is truly 16:10, and not stretched, and 16:9 is truly 16:9, and not stretched, and 4:3 is truly 4:3 and not squeezed, then who cares what the original frame of reference is? I know you're a WS purist (compliment, not a crack), but based on the 3 choices, I'll take Grin's offering.

If you can say Grin's WS is not true WS because the vertical view is greater than the 4:3 AR, then I can say the 4:3 AR is not true 4:3 because the vertical view is less than the WS. It's a matter of perspective. If Grin never offered 4:3 support, then added it in a patch, you would not say that Grin's WS was not "true." You would say that the 4:3 was a cheap shortcut.

After all, doesn't Grin's WS alleviate the "zoomed in" feeling? Doesn't a wider, broader FOV translate to being "zoomed out?"

All I'm saying is that as long as the aspect ratios are correct, and the images are not stretched, then they are "true" to their relative ratios. And as far as that goes, I'll take more :)

I guess I'm perplexed on the characterization of "true."

Edit:

You type too long! Me go home now. Read later!

Edited by Cangaroo.TNT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

OMG!!! Are people really COMPLAINING that wide screen users get this amazing implementation?

Are you guys crazy?

are you on crack?

(I'm just a bit tongue in cheek here goes... dont throw tomatoes please)

LOL. This is excellent. they kept the proportionality of the image the same and allowed the pixel count to dicate the increased FOV in BOTH PLANES!..

BRAVO GRIN!!!!! GREAT JOB.

Any one who says this is not "TRUE" wide screen has decided to create tehir own strict definition. This is excellent implementation. its wide open. it means the more pixels i own, the more visual realestate I get. What could be more "TRUE"???

As my old freind would say "Some people would beach if you hung them with a new rope"

LOL

Edited by Sleepdoc
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On a serious note, I understand Paddywhak completely. The term widescreen was implemented with reference to the conventional 4:3 screen and meant the screen was wider - not and wider and taller. Having said that, I'll take the Grin widescreen and be very happy except for the fact that I have 4:3 monitor. :( It is time for an upgrade...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...