Cockpit View - [Now Forced per Higby]

[Erendil]

Originally Posted by Xyntech

One thing this makes me wonder is if we will see something similar with anything other than vehicles. Like will the screen look different when we are inside of a MAX suit, or any armor for that matter.

Also, have we heard whether we will see our own legs when infantry look downward?

Well for one the weapon you use will have a different model on your screen. So that could have a differing effect on your visibility as well, esp when using ADS. I also know there was talk from the Devs about possibly making the HUD itself look different depending on the empire you play, but that would be something that would happen well after release if at all.

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.

Originally Posted by Malorn

Its already been noted and I'm sure we're all going to make big long threads about how one faction's cockpit is more advantageous than another. My bet is that VS will have a cockpit with almost no obstructions and it'll be the focus of attention.

I suspect the obstruction in the VS cockpit will be different, but not necessarily better. Those forward-swept wings have the potential of obstructing your view from the sides as this image suggests:



They would certainly block your L/R views while using mouselook.

Originally Posted by Zulthus

The cockpit view must be forced or it must not be there at all. Otherwise it's a waste of resources since most will turn it off anyway. What makes it worse is that they'd have a visual advantage over the people who do decide to use the cockpit aesthetic. Smed already told us that flying in PS2 will separate the men from the boys. If you want to be a boy, that's fine. Flying should be difficult and you shouldn't be able to see everything without restriction. Otherwise they might as well put in a gun toggle too. That gets in the way on the screen.

Forgive me if you've answered this already, but if turning off the cockpit meant that your view was zoomed in and you had no mouselook ability, would you be okay with that? That way having the cockpit enabled would mean you'd get a wider FOV and mouselook ability to balance the loss of view caused by the cockpit's obstruction.

[Zulthus]

Originally Posted by Erendil

Forgive me if you've answered this already, but if turning off the cockpit meant that your view was zoomed in and you had no mouselook ability, would you be okay with that? That way having the cockpit enabled would mean you'd get a wider FOV and mouselook ability to balance the loss of view caused by the cockpit's obstruction.

But what would be the point of using it at all then? You lose the cockpit, but you also lose your FOV and mouselook ability. I don't really see how it would make sense to put that in. I'd assume the zoomed in view would show everything you could see through the cockpit without the actual construction of it on the screen. Would it be worth the tradeoff just to have the HUD?

Originally Posted by elfailo

It's not really grasping at straws. I just keep making the mistake of assuming people are intelligent enough to remember the progression of a discussion. You clearly haven't, because you forgot I even made that point in one of the posts I addressed specifically at you. That is why I could only conclude that you were somehow taking pleasure in seeing other people not get what they wanted. I realize now that this was a mistake on my behalf, and that it was due to your stupidity instead.

Ouch!! That really hurt!! Damn, you sound like Skitrel. He's cool though. I assume this is where we agree to disagree as there really is nothing left to say here.

[SKYeXile]

Originally Posted by Zulthus

But what would be the point of using it at all then? You lose the cockpit, but you also lose your FOV and mouselook ability. I don't really see how it would make sense to put that in. I'd assume the zoomed in view would show everything you could see through the cockpit without the actual construction of it on the screen. Would it be worth the tradeoff just to have the HUD?




Ouch!! That really hurt!! Damn, you sound like Skitrel. He's cool though. I assume this is where we agree to disagree as there really is nothing left to say here.

i loled,

[Blackwolf]

Originally Posted by Erendil

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.

I'd agree to this, but I also agree with Zulth that it should either be forced, or not be bothered with, whether in MAX suits, vehicles, aircraft, infantry, or all of the above.

Forgive me if you've answered this already, but if turning off the cockpit meant that your view was zoomed in and you had no mouselook ability, would you be okay with that? That way having the cockpit enabled would mean you'd get a wider FOV and mouselook ability to balance the loss of view caused by the cockpit's obstruction.

You didn't address this to me but I'll answer anyway. Simply put, no. You can't turn the cockpit off in RL, nor can you put yourself in a position where you can't look around in it. The idea of giving some kind of "trade off" is lame. What if the offer was unlimited ammo or some other completely out there idea in exchange for enough sacrifices to "keep it balanced"? Would this be acceptable to you? Maybe invincibility, but while invincible, you can't affect others or move.

The "trade off" thing is a broken concept itself.

[Blackwolf]

Originally Posted by elfailo

To the guy whose main argument is that it isn't realistic: How can you call yourself a realist when you expect current-day realism out of a video game set in a fictional universe, 1200 years in the future? Is your imagination so limited that you can't think of a way to make this work? I can think of an example instantly: Camera's on the aircraft feeding an in-helmet screen and providing HUD. Oh wait, they already have that in Apache choppers. In that case, maybe you're on the wrong forum. This is a gaming forum. Why not combine your passion for realism and cockpits in a real life scenario by signing up here: http://www.af.mil/

I expected this. The "it's fantasy! blah blah blah!" argument that people fall on when they have no real counter point.

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.

[Xyntech]

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.

[CutterJohn]

Originally Posted by Blackwolf

F22? Nope no helm cam.

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.

[Blackwolf]

Originally Posted by Xyntech

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.

I gotta say, I like and respect you Xyntech.

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.

Originally Posted by elfailo

@blackwolf

How's that not a real counterpoint? It may be a cliché you've heard before, but that doesn't make it any less valid.

You're saying it doesn't make sense to have it this or that way because it would be inconceivable or improbable in real life and therefor we shouldn't have it. I'm saying that these decisions shouldn't be weighed against whether it makes sense in real life, but whether it makes sense in-game, which is a completely different realm because it's built entirely on rules we created.

More generally, if you limit video game design by what's possible or probable in real life, you're pretty much destroying it as an art form. You're creating a smaller and smaller box with fewer possibilities for creativity. That's why you see that cliché so often, because a lot of people are getting pretty tired of seeing Battlefailed clones dominate the FPS genre.

If realism had always dictated video game design, Doom would have never existed. Without Doom, Tribes would have never existed, and without Tribes, Planetside 1 would have never existed.

Name several key similarities that virtually all games have. I promise you that every single one of these similarities are based on realistic values.

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?

[Baneblade]

Here's a thought, let the 'nose cam' view be what the cockpit view has in the box. So you use the 'iron sights' of the aircraft hud, but sacrifice field of view and flight instruments.

[raykor]

I think they should use first-person view (HUD only, no cockpit) and get rid of the option to switch to third-person view.....for all vehicles.

[Talek Krell]

Originally Posted by Erendil

Forgive me if you've answered this already, but if turning off the cockpit meant that your view was zoomed in and you had no mouselook ability, would you be okay with that? That way having the cockpit enabled would mean you'd get a wider FOV and mouselook ability to balance the loss of view caused by the cockpit's obstruction.

I realise it's been a whole, what, 5 hours? I'd like to also respond to this though.

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.

[EVILPIG]

The masses have spoken.

[SKYeXile]

Originally Posted by EVILPIG

The masses have spoken.

When you ask the question in a biased way as you did, expect a biased result.

Nothing to see here with this pole.

[SKYeXile]

Originally Posted by elfailo

You quote Nietzsche in your sig. You may want to check what the man had to say about "the masses". I assure you it's not pretty if you apply it to this thread.

Omfg, I'm laughing IRL...well not any more, but I still have a large grin on my face. Probably not the dude to be quoting when you lead a zergfit lol.

[Malorn]

lol

edit: I'm laughing with you, not at you, the Nietzsche masses thing was funny, and I think this below is funny.

In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule.

That's one of his quotes on the masses. Even so, being crazy does not mean you are incorrect.

In this instance the masses have gravitated around the correct solution.