Forums | Chat | News | Contact Us | Register | PSU Social |
PSU: Geez, how many of these are there?
Forums | Chat | News | Contact Us | Register | PSU Social |
2012-04-18, 06:11 PM | [Ignore Me] #211 | |||||
First Lieutenant
|
It does kinda make sense that your view might be slightly different when in a MAX suit. It'd certainly add to the "you're in a giant suit of armour" feeling. I wouldn't want something like that as a softie though, if only because I don't think I've ever played an FPs that has done so in your "normal" view.
They would certainly block your L/R views while using mouselook.
Last edited by Erendil; 2012-04-18 at 06:20 PM. |
|||||
|
2012-04-18, 06:22 PM | [Ignore Me] #212 | ||||
Colonel
|
|
||||
|
2012-04-18, 06:26 PM | [Ignore Me] #213 | |||
Major General
|
|
|||
|
2012-04-18, 06:31 PM | [Ignore Me] #214 | ||||
First Lieutenant
|
The "trade off" thing is a broken concept itself. Last edited by Blackwolf; 2012-04-18 at 06:35 PM. |
||||
|
2012-04-18, 07:15 PM | [Ignore Me] #215 | |||
First Lieutenant
|
I can use imagination to come up with literally thousands of ways to hide that cockpit. I could also use my imagination to come up with reasons why you don't need the aircraft at all. Nanotechnology is in the game, shoot a rocket filled with nanites programed to break everything down into base materials and you have a planet killing WMD. The Apache is specifically designed for a role in the military, and the F22? Nope no helm cam. Cargo plains? Nope no helm cam here, how about tanks? Gee that'd be useful, but no helm cams. Chinooks? Nope. You have 1 example of helm cams, and not a very good one considering Apache's aren't exactly air superiority fighters. They are gunships, and I doubt the Liberator gunner is going to have a wide open view either. Frankly, military tech advances as it regresses. Cost is a huge and very limiting factor, and expensive equipment like helm cams aren't going to be thrown onto every vehicle and aircraft for shits and giggles. It has been pointed out by better minds that the tech level in Planetside is pathetic compared to the real world. Constant war and increasing costs for materials are very good reasons for this. Rather then developing thousands of vehicles, weapons, mines, and whatever else you can think up for every possible situation. The 3 factions limit themselves to a much smaller number of choice equipment that are "good enough" for most jobs. Centuries of war will cripple any nations tech level. I offer Africa as an example. Hence, instead of having 3 types of helicopter and 8 varieties of aircraft, you have 1 VTOL universal fighter, a cargo plane, and a gunship. Instead of 4 kinds of APCs 3 varieties of tank/tank killers, and a multitude of long range artillery, you have a light tank, a battle tank, and a sunderer. So while yes in 1200 years we could potentially have the ability to fly in wonder woman planes, chances are we won't. Especially if 1000 years of it were spent in endless combat. So instead of you telling me to use my imagination, I'll advise you to use your common sense. The world isn't perfect. It never will be. Why should you get things tailored to you just because you want them to be? This isn't realistic, this is nonsense. And in the end, the polls vastly outweigh your personal desires. Last edited by Blackwolf; 2012-04-18 at 07:27 PM. |
|||
|
2012-04-18, 07:26 PM | [Ignore Me] #216 | ||
Brigadier General
|
Let's see how far this derails the thread with bitter hatred for me:
You know what these aircraft really need? Iron sites. Alright, now on to my actual idea (which people may still hate me for ) Here we see an image from inside an F18. If you were to center the camera a little, it would be pretty close to what the pilot would be able to see, and would take up maybe half as much of the screen space as the current Mosquito cockpit view. More over it provides a much clearer view of the ground except in the middle of the picture. One problem with this view, if it were what we saw inside the Mosquito, is that it has too broad a viewing angle and would make it much harder to engage targets at longer range. This is actually one of the issues that iron sites (when done well) seeks to solve. Allowing players to have a wider viewing angle when dealing with closer targets, then zooming in a little bit to simulate focusing on more distant targets. What I would propose is that pilots be given two in cockpit views to toggle between. One view would be more like the F18 picture (with more viewable area than the current skeeter cockpit view), and the other being more zoomed in, like this: Only with the cross hairs more centered and without that big red thing. By default, the same control that toggled iron sights could be used to toggle between these two views, so it would be easier for new players to learn, although it should be able to be customized separately. Maybe the zoomed in view would be the default position, while the pulled back view would automatically switch you to free look. If the free look were good enough, it may cut out a lot of (not all of) the need for a 3rd person view. Obviously the viewing angles would have to be adjusted so that the zoomed in view wasn't quite as bad as it is in my hastily cropped example, but essentially what it would hopefully do is give a in cockpit view that was almost as good as a completely unobscured view. Most of the work for the idea should already be done if the devs already have freelook inside the cockpit included. All it would require is figuring the best positioning the the camera inside the cockpit and the best viewing angles for zoomed out and zoomed in. |
||
|
2012-04-18, 07:30 PM | [Ignore Me] #217 | ||
Colonel
|
Does have a bubble canopy though, with zero obstruction to view. That mossy canopy needs to be reworked badly. As does the reaver canopy.
Those things are annoying as hell every game I've ever played. You've driven a car, right? Those huge frames blocking your vision? You can lean/turn your head and look beyond them. Furthermore your eyes are 3 inches apart. Simple parallax will ensure one eye can see past them. You are 100% forbidden from doing this in a game. There are simply not enough controls to control your head position, and without 3d tech, parallax cannot have any effect. |
||
|
2012-04-18, 07:40 PM | [Ignore Me] #218 | ||||
First Lieutenant
|
But... Why bother with this? It's the same trade off as everything else suggested. Why couldn't we just keep the cockpit and people who want to avoid looking at it can play at x2 zoom while flying? And just not use the free look? People just want more visibility for the sake of personal performance. I couldn't care less how they want to spin it, that's what it boils down to.
Ranged weapons require ammo, or some other issue that prevents them from being able to sustain fire (heat, whatever). Armor provides protection but doesn't make you invulnerable. There are little inconveniences and problems everywhere you look in games. Challenges that must be met and overcome. All of them are based on realistic values and realism in general. Games that aren't based on these values are typically made for 6 year olds. And every time we ignore one of these realistic values, the game dumbs itself down for younger or less mature crowds. It's not whether the game is real or not. You, like everyone before you who have used the same argument, need to stop confusing "realistic" with "real". I'm not saying it's inconceivable or improbable. I'm saying reality doesn't work like that. Things aren't suppose to be perfectly optimal for your ability, taste, or preference. You can't get rid of certain irritations and yes they will cost you your life at times. Which brings up a derp-a-derp check for you. I play and will play a game where soldiers are immortal, and you are questioning my reasoning on reality. Could it be there's more to this concept then just whether or not something is inconceivable or improbable? Last edited by Blackwolf; 2012-04-18 at 07:55 PM. |
||||
|
2012-04-18, 11:02 PM | [Ignore Me] #221 | |||
Lieutenant Colonel
|
The trouble with having these tradeoffs as a toggle is that the optimal playstyle is now to constantly switch between views every time you need to look around/see through your dashboard. Rather than introduce a situation where everyone can pick what they like, you've introduced one where everyone now has to deal with a pointlessly obtuse control scheme in addition to being shoehorned into a view they don't want to use. The potential solution then is make it a vehicle customisation, chosen on creation. That doesn't work well either though, since each view is best suited for a given role. Consider my situation: I'm a Lib pilot, so I will be doing ground bombardment. HUD is better for that, since it removes the dash. I prefer cockpit view. I'm now back in the situation of deciding between personal enjoyment and a higher performance ceiling. There may be some merit in the vehicle customisation line of thinking though. Perhaps the long term plan could include a variety of cockpits with outward representation on the vehicle and appropriate tradeoffs. Bubble cockpit might give excellent visibility but cause your aircraft to be especially vulnerable around the cockpit. |
|||
|
2012-04-19, 08:49 PM | [Ignore Me] #225 | |||
Contributor PlanetSide 2
Game Designer |
lol
edit: I'm laughing with you, not at you, the Nietzsche masses thing was funny, and I think this below is funny.
In this instance the masses have gravitated around the correct solution. Last edited by Malorn; 2012-04-19 at 09:19 PM. |
|||
|
|
Bookmarks |
|
|