yahooi dont think ppl realize that they can get 108,4 fov with 1280x600 resolution.
108,4 fov is the max on valve servers and comp servers. since its capped at 1.85:1
Thats why you should distinguish hFOV from vFOV (and even dFOV like wareya mentioned).
Also, what you say is not completely true. Since the default value for sv_restrict_aspect_ratio_fov is 1, the 1.85:1 cap ONLY applies to windowed resolutions. If you run the game fullscreen, at a custom resolution set in your graphics drivers, you can still get a bigger hFOV with a wider aspect ratio on Valve servers. As for comp, in ETF2L the cvar value is set to 0, because the only thing that 1 does is impact people who run weird windowed resolutions, while fullscreen resolutions are not affected. Setting the value to 2 would render people's expensive 21:9 monitors or multimonitor setups completely useless.
[quote=yahoo]i dont think ppl realize that they can get 108,4 fov with 1280x600 resolution.
108,4 fov is the max on valve servers and comp servers. since its capped at 1.85:1[/quote]
Thats why you should distinguish hFOV from vFOV (and even dFOV like wareya mentioned).
Also, what you say is not completely true. Since the default value for sv_restrict_aspect_ratio_fov is 1, the 1.85:1 cap ONLY applies to windowed resolutions. If you run the game fullscreen, at a custom resolution set in your graphics drivers, you can still get a bigger hFOV with a wider aspect ratio on Valve servers. As for comp, in ETF2L the cvar value is set to 0, because the only thing that 1 does is impact people who run weird windowed resolutions, while fullscreen resolutions are not affected. Setting the value to 2 would render people's expensive 21:9 monitors or multimonitor setups completely useless.
skeejyttriumI already mentioned that when I stated how players sit on the couch. However, the reason games use it is because of performance. The reason they get away with it is because it isn't bad since you're sitting on a couch.
Oh right, I missed that part, I was in a hurry and had to go out x) .
I'm not a game developer so I was just making a guess about the performance impact, and I was doing so from the viewpoint of TF2. All that you do is render a little more world geometry, which is pretty basic to begin with. I'd imagine that in other games the added load could be way bigger. Considering what you explained about visleaves, I guess I'm not too wrong then (because you're saying that at a higher fov it still renders the same stuff as at a lower fov)?
As for the choice of using low fov on consoles: Still not sure about your argument. I'm too optimistic about game developers to think that they make design choices firstly because of raw graphical horsepower rather than overall game experience.
These are the same devs that lower resolution and tank framerate to the 20s in order to have prettier explosions.
regarding rendering, at least in TF2, yes there isn't a big hit because it uses PVS. Not many games use PVS anymore though, because it has to be pre-baked into a map at compile time and doesn't work if the map doesn't have easy divisions (see the optimization isssues with koth_suijin). That being said, PVS isn't the only form of culling that games use, and even TF2 uses other forms of culling like Viewing Frustrum Culling. While objects are completely unloaded from memory based on PVS, they aren't rendered in each frame based on VFC. See here for Valve's implementation and here for a general description. Source, or at least this iteration of Source, opts for a per-object VFC rather than per-polygon, which is possible because it uses PVS. TF2 still does have a hit to framerate based on FOV, but again, since it's a CPU-bound game and most GPUs are hardly used anyway, there isn't much of a hit to begin with.
If you're curious, PVS is also used for networking information - it's why you can't use the smooth tool to see the rest of the map in a POV demo.
[quote=skeej][quote=yttrium]I already mentioned that when I stated how players sit on the couch. However, the reason games use it is [i]because[/i] of performance. The reason they [i]get away[/i] with it is because it isn't bad since you're sitting on a couch.[/quote]
Oh right, I missed that part, I was in a hurry and had to go out x) .
I'm not a game developer so I was just making a guess about the performance impact, and I was doing so from the viewpoint of TF2. All that you do is render a little more world geometry, which is pretty basic to begin with. I'd imagine that in other games the added load could be way bigger. Considering what you explained about visleaves, I guess I'm not too wrong then (because you're saying that at a higher fov it still renders the same stuff as at a lower fov)?
As for the choice of using low fov on consoles: Still not sure about your argument. I'm too optimistic about game developers to think that they make design choices firstly because of raw graphical horsepower rather than overall game experience.[/quote]
These are the same devs that lower resolution and tank framerate to the 20s in order to have prettier explosions.
regarding rendering, at least in TF2, yes there isn't a big hit because it uses PVS. Not many games use PVS anymore though, because it has to be pre-baked into a map at compile time and doesn't work if the map doesn't have easy divisions (see the optimization isssues with koth_suijin). That being said, PVS isn't the only form of culling that games use, and even TF2 uses other forms of culling like Viewing Frustrum Culling. While objects are completely unloaded from memory based on PVS, they aren't rendered in each frame based on VFC. See [url=https://developer.valvesoftware.com/wiki/Source_BSP_File_Format#Node_and_leaf]here[/url] for Valve's implementation and [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_surface_determination#Viewing_frustum_culling]here[/url] for a general description. Source, or at least this iteration of Source, opts for a per-object VFC rather than per-polygon, which is possible because it uses PVS. TF2 still does have a hit to framerate based on FOV, but again, since it's a CPU-bound game and most GPUs are hardly used anyway, there isn't much of a hit to begin with.
If you're curious, PVS is also used for networking information - it's why you can't use the smooth tool to see the rest of the map in a POV demo.
So how about that diagonal cap so that people with 21:9 monitors don't have a rare and inherent advantage?
So how about that diagonal cap so that people with 21:9 monitors don't have a rare and inherent advantage?
wareyaSo how about that diagonal cap so that people with 21:9 monitors don't have a rare and inherent advantage?
How about a FPS cap so people with good computers don't have a inherent advantage? 30 FPS for everyone!
[quote=wareya]So how about that diagonal cap so that people with 21:9 monitors don't have a rare and inherent advantage?[/quote]
How about a FPS cap so people with good computers don't have a inherent advantage? 30 FPS for everyone!
every time you post i wanna slam my head into a wall
every time you post i wanna slam my head into a wall
ScrewballHow about a FPS cap so people with good computers don't have a inherent advantage? 30 FPS for everyone!
High framerates are inherently good for shooters, ultra widescreen is not.
The fov cap could be what it is now or it could be higher, I don't particularly care.
Just don't try to justify outright giving an advantage to people who happen to have a particular subjectively different setup, when balancing it for other subjectively different setups is outright easy.
[quote=Screwball]
How about a FPS cap so people with good computers don't have a inherent advantage? 30 FPS for everyone![/quote]
High framerates are inherently good for shooters, ultra widescreen is not.
The fov cap could be what it is now or it could be higher, I don't particularly care.
Just don't try to justify outright giving an advantage to people who happen to have a particular subjectively different setup, when balancing it for other subjectively different setups is outright easy.
Do you actually get higher field of view with custom resolutions like 1280x600; 1920:850 etc, or it's just a placebo?
Sorry for kind of offtopic question.
Do you actually get higher field of view with custom resolutions like 1280x600; 1920:850 etc, or it's just a placebo?
Sorry for kind of offtopic question.