Jump to content
Hvolute

Please Fix the visibility.

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, FIXXXER said:

dude, don't get me wrong, i absolutely agree that SQUAD does not look as "sharp" as other games but the solution is NOT in adding things like  "zoom" to the game, that's it.

 

by increasing the screen size and resolution you can optimize the visibility, which can not be denied either.

People shouldnt have to change their screens in order to play the game. Even a 4k 50 inch TV does not match human vision fidelity. I dont remember the exact specifics but to "match" human vision you need something like a 32 mega pixel screen that is the size of a move theater screen. 

 

Besides this, not everyone can afford to run high resolution or absurdly huge screens. I have both 4k and 1440p 27 inch screens. Neither fixes squads issues, or any other games for that matter. 

 

In fact, higher resolution in some cases leads to worse vision because of the corresponding pixel size. 

 

The game needs to developed from a software side to give realistic vision for a range of common displays. Its completely silly to insist that the user buy some monster screen that wouldnt fix the problem anyhow. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I cant stand war thunder, but I will give credit where credit is due. Despite not being a sim, the dev team for war thunder blew everyone out of the water when in comes to fixing vision in games. 

 

To be clear, I am not saying we need need any of the things WT did to fix vision. Im just linking this because it is a concise explanation of the general problem. 

 

https://warthunder.com/en/devblog/current/836

 

Some quotes:

 

Nonetheless, practically 100% of games have a game resolution in the region of around 90 degrees. This is something of a compromise between the ~130 degree view of the human eye and the 30-40 degree view at which a human will correctly perceive the size of an object. The most noticeable thing that this compromise leads to is the corruption of perception of all sizes. For example, in the popular game Counter Strike, the size of the majority of maps does not exceed 200 meters, which is significantly less than the distance of an aimed shot from the majority of rifles, and even less than the use range of sniper rifles.

 

As you probably realize now, the task of showing things in the game “like in real life” is extremely difficult. This is because technically realizing the quality of an object as perceived by the sharp human eye is impossible by more than a factor of two without sacrificing the angle of view (“zooming in” in the game does exactly that – turns the game camera’s viewing angle into one that roughly corresponds to the real resolution of the human eye). For this reason, most games use certain tricks for in-game objects.

Edited by Hvolute

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, virusman said:

there is common standard  of how image should look on FullHD .

i have 30' desktop and i play all my games on fullHD  (PR , GTA5 , COD , BF , HITMAN ) they all looks sharp and clear . ( and almost no one complain on there forums  )

in this game there is a problem and some people address the problem as it is . washed out blury visuals .

and instead of acknowledge the issue people looking for some poor excuses why it good as it is now ( more real , u cant see in real life that war  & much more ).

we as the costumers have the right to complain when the product is not delivering the standards .

( and running the game on 4K to get something that u should get on FULLHD is not an answer ) .

 

i myself working the blury visual with NVIDEA saturation and my inbuild screen Sharpness .

but it not how its should be in the begging 

 

The insurmountable obstacle is that the physical rendering that engines like UE4 specialize in have serious aliasing problems without multisampling due to the strong contrast produced. The 'AAA solution'? Blur the **** out of it through bloom, phony DOF and FXAA. Not great options for Squad where you actually need to see things at long distances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Hvolute said:

-With regards to engaging enemies at 200m: Absolutely. 200m isnt even all that far. basic rifle qual is a 300m. It is relatively easy to hit a sub-man sized target at 300m with a M4 (from the prone that is). Qualifications for machine guns get out past 800m. Etc Etc. Typical combat ranges are dictated by terrain more than anything else. 

With 800m around MGs, do you realy mean accurate fire or you mean just supressive or simple support fire? And if you mean accurate fire, with or without scope or other help beside the sight itself? That the major combat distances is something dictated by the terrain is quite known for nearly everybody here :D

 

13 hours ago, Hvolute said:

-The binos arent a substitute for a zoomed freelook, or vision fixes in general, because you have to get off your weapon and it takes too much time. Its turns spotting things into a weird meta game. 

At the moment the System that Squad used to make the euipment usable are maybe a bit to slow. At the moment every weapon seems to be carried in a bag like also any type of equipment. I cannot image that a soldier would carrie everything in a bag while he is suspecting every moment to get in contact.

 

I'm sorry, I do not know the english word, but as far as I know its a common thing to carrie at least the weapon in a way were you can easiely just drop it out of your hands and grab to something else because there is a... leash? ... so your weapon will be haning around your front. The combination of security lock and a much slow animation overall making it a bit odd and like you say, its blow up the whole time you need to use what ever you want to use. I agree with you its a bit to slow and a bit to unintuitive to use. Even me as non soldier on walking trips and hunting help, I can draw my binos much faster and switch back to my signal flag.

13 hours ago, Hvolute said:

-The big problem with incorrect viewing distances (whether you shoot or not) is how it affects tactics. People in squad right now are far too aggressive over open ground. They can also move too freely over areas because they cannot effectively be observed. It also creates a stupid effect where the squad leader is basically leading his squad of merry blind mend around. The squad leader right now is more of a forward observer for his 8 direct fire artillery than he is a infantry leader. 

I think Squad is at the moment wuite good at portraying the whole problem of soldiers on the ground. It isnt realy easy to observe everything, while we have here mostly wide open fields where you can easiely watch everything on it moving, in other landscapes there is so much forest so your whole line of sight is just short, to short to be effective at observing. I think its just something where every modern soldier have also some issue with that, so the whole observing of a region is not only doing by some soldiers running around, they also use everything the can get, drones, binos, scopes, infrared sights, satelite pictures, maps and logical thinking.

 

At the moment I would realy like to see that even a... is it called grunt in english? ... carries a monucular around with a less magnification compared to the binos of the scout, marksman and squad leader, but able to use it while holding a key like your zoom you suggested. Just while the palyer avatar is holding his weapon just with one hand he can just use a one the leash fixed monocular to get a quick peek on further distances. I would prefer it this way much more than just this *wosh* zoom *wush* thing. (Just a simple suggestion, it would be clear the usage of the weapon in this moment needs to be tweaked and so on... ^_^ )

 

And before somebody comes with "hey thats maybe not official equipment for a US army member our what ever"... ehm.... If I would be a soldier who knows he is going somewhere while I'm suspection contact or even I know there is maybe whatever, I just would buy it by myself on of those monuculars or small binos and ask my squad leader or who is responsible there, if I can take it with me. And as Insurgent that would probaly appearing much more.

14 hours ago, Hvolute said:

-You cant fix the vision properly without a zoom. contrast and lod adjustments and AA adjustments will solve much of the default FOV issues, but not others. These fixes would for example, general spotting at range, but only to a point. They would not fix at all the much needed ability for people to pick out details at realistic ranges. Like uniforms, gear, cover etc. 

Even the zoom will fix something or not, whatever, would it not be better to start on from the bad lods, renders, lighting, contrast, anti aliasing and so on before implement some zoom? Bad lods is still bad on higher magnification, bad lighting is also bad under zoom, bad render is stil bad under less FOV and so on. For myself I try it out today, there is plenty much space behind our house and over google maps I know that the range from our fence up to the next group of trees its ~300m. My dad was out in bright red clothes and if he would wear something like camouflage, I have sure trouble to even spot him just with my eyes even if he is moving. At least I have seen him but also I know on what I have to look to find him on this distance. At the moment I think Squad portrays this very well at the moment even if there is much more space above what we have now.

 

But to get details, I'm honest, I would pick on this distances just my old Zeiss Optic to get a clue of whats going on. And no, I do not wear glasses.

14 hours ago, Hvolute said:

 

-The issue of reflex sniping is a problem for sure. This is why I advocate a delayed invisible cross-hair like PR had. This forced the player to track the target for a second or so before firing if the engagement wasn't point blank.  It prevented snap shots and alot made reflex sights like the M68 more realistic since they had much faster alignment since they do not really require proper sight picture. 

I'm not sure if a invisible crosshair is the solution. Basically, the croshair compensate the lack of body feeling, because it shows my (as long its a adaptive crosshair) if my avatar is already in the state of clear shots or not. This crosshair is a bridge between you as player on a screen and your avatar because you havent a whole "body feeling", you have only a audio visual feedback, not more, the crosshair ports the event in the game on a noticeable level for the player. Creating and than just making it invisible is a game mechanic that fits in PR due the technical limitatios of the engine.

 

But now we play with the Unreal Engine, not as Mod, as native game executable. There are better ways. Also what you mean is mostly called in several games as "Deploy"-time and "Draw"-time together with calculations along a spread base level and there modifications around events in the game. Draw time is mostly used for the time between the insert of the weapon choosing key and the first time the weapon reached its base state. Deploytime is mostly used for the time between base state and ADS. Like Battlefield, it used the term "Deploytime" for weapon switching and do not have a timer between offset/hip and ADS.

 

I think, at the moment, every weapon at Squad is highly accurate and you do not have at least a spread, while in real life there are many things they affect a accurate shot, some of those things are still leading to a common expection of how accurate a weapons is and its at least in a practical way just random. Squad can simulate as much as possible and will running over of informations while the whole practical effect even for the palyer is much more of a random even.

 

I think Offworld should get here some better spread mechanics to involve "grouping" of shots on certain distances even if the shooter makes everything 100% right, there should be still some kind of spread. And with this spread there can by implement modifications under what circumstances this spreads goes up or down and combined with animatios along the weapon handling to give the player the need feedback to know how close his group would be if he starts shooting now. An invisible cross hair like you mentioned lacks of feedback and will lead at least much more just to couting down from ADS, the result will just be much more sniping because now everybody just wait a sec before he shoots and will stop moving with the goal to get a better situation so he can be sure his shoot will hit.

 

If the player knows that even under best conditions he may be misslead his shoots, he will think twice if he starts an engagement on further distances by picking up headshots and maybe starts moving in a way that fit a way better to his own weapon or he will stop aiming for the head starts to aim for the biggest target he can engage, the whole body, so he can be sure his shoots will hit. And no, I do not mean that the whole spread goes up to the huge groups that you can see at BF, CoD or whatever. There is a other thread where already even real firearms shooter complain about the laserbeams with bulletdrop because it doesnt fit well creates a for less realistic behavior in firefights in a round of Squad.

14 hours ago, Hvolute said:

-I still dont get really why you dont like the zoom.

I do not like the zoom because it isnt intiutive, everytime you used, it would remember why in a very ugly way it is not just a game, its also not more than a workaround, its not a feature, its a work around, a hotfix, not a part of the game. This is the reason why I do not like it, its outstanding among other solutions to fit reality in gamerules in a very ugly and near also lazy way.

 

15 hours ago, Hvolute said:

You seem to be fine with a more substantial ADS zoom, just not one outside of ADS. The problem with this is that you could not freelook, and you would be stuck ultra zoomed in ADS.

The reason why I'm fine with ADS + Magnification is, because its much more near to reality, you have your front sight to focus on, you have your reflex to focus on, you have at least something where you can look at, you performing around a game an active action to get something what you want to intend to get, the zoom is just.... it just happens, there is nothing that comes close to this zoom in real life, everytime I sketchup up something and make my grids to copy things and bring them down in relation to another to create at least huge paintings on facade and walls I use different simple helps to helping me focus and get the details I want or may need. And I do not see why I should use free look to scan on further distances for enemy movement. If I'm in the situation that I need to use free look, than it isnt my task to observe my surroundings over that what I can clearly see, this is the task of the scout, marksman, SL and so on, this is the task of the guy on the roof and watches out. At the moment where I use free look its just, like in real life, to observer my closer surrounding. If I want to look further, and in the intention to get more details, I just use an optical device.

 

Even in real, is there something beside my actual doing that get my attention, I stop whatever I do and take a closer look with everything I can use to take a closer look. Its one of those things newbies on buildingssite will at first learn: If someone want their attention, they have to stop whatever they did and coming along so you can clearly communicate. Like a soldier have to listen to his SL and than he can go back to what ever he have to do and so on. So in this case, free look should not be the reason to introduce some zoom or focus, because in real life you also do not focus on freelooking while performing a task you focus on your task and your free look is on a "smaller" level to perform. And I wouldnt say that a good tweaked ADS is a "stucked ultra zoom".

 

There is a reason why most regular forces have more and more optical devices as standard on their rifles, maybe not home on the schooting range, but mostly more and more in the "hot zones". Since 1996 the G36 used as standard even home a magnified 3x scope in the first edition, now, with the G36A3 there is a picanntiny rail on the top on commonly equipped with a scope an reflex. Even with the old 3x scope, the intended range to engage targets is around a maximum of 500m. See even under the goal to bring up a realistic overall tactical movement of Player and Squads, a Zoom from nowhere wouldnt fit realy good to the game. So clearly, even official forces doesnt trust just in focussing around, the used a help and thats it.

15 hours ago, Hvolute said:

Which means I can use unzoomed ADS when im close to the enemy. I still fail to see what seems so unnatural to you about a toggle zoom for observation. To me it seems like a fairly standard game feature.

It isnt a standard game feature, its a work around in the ArmA Series and also in the old operation Flashpoint. And if you are close to the enemy, why should you get a disadvantage from a 1,25 or maximum of 2,0 magnification (yeah 2,00 is a bit much ^_^ )? In Battlefield its works pretty fine, also in CoD or soemthing else, and those shooter are much more something around a fast paced shooter than squad wants ever to be. Also here is a reason why most modern troups using a scope and a reflex visor. Or at least a secondary Iron sight.  And beside this, I'm also able to get very fast hits in CQB while using even a 6x or 8x magnification in Battlefield. The whole zoom doesnt limits me, the lack of realistic handling of magnified scopes makes it possible to doing well even on distances under 5m with a 6x scope. Its also a trade off for a magnified scope, you can look further and engage targets more easiely but you give up some comfortable usage on closer distances. Both of them leads at least to the point, that you shouldnt able to shoot with a iron sight like you have a magnified scope. There should still be a difference, a noticable difference

 

15 hours ago, Hvolute said:

It also makes alot of sense from the perspective of the human eye. Your eye has a small focus area (I think its like 30 degrees or something) and like 160 degrees of perifperal vision. So to me it makes perfect since to simulate this with two different FOV. 

And those simulation can only managed to give everybody a "magically" instand zoom of everything, with not restriction of draw and deploy times? It doesnt simulate the focus ability of the human, the human eye can only focus on something what it can see, there is no focus from the offset to nothing. At this point about the FOV: I'm running a bit out of time, so maybe I make later another post about the difference between magnification (or "zoom") and FOV, both are different and not just the same. Even on screens.

 

Up to this point I'm in some way thankfully that we can still discuss.... sadly, in most other forums something like are always leading to hate on both sides, like the BF1 CTE Subreddit, we are already up to the point where people start to complain because a tripwire mine is able to kill somebody and isnt spotted with a huge Icon in the 3D View. Like also people starts to complain about the "nonsense of eisting on-shot-weapons", and they realy mean tank shells, headshots, shotguns, TNT and so on... this is so sad :(Thank you... xD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, DerGepard said:

With 800m around MGs, do you realy mean accurate fire or you mean just supressive or simple support fire? And if you mean accurate fire, with or without scope or other help beside the sight itself? That the major combat distances is something dictated by the terrain is quite known for nearly everybody here :D

 

At the moment the System that Squad used to make the euipment usable are maybe a bit to slow. At the moment every weapon seems to be carried in a bag like also any type of equipment. I cannot image that a soldier would carrie everything in a bag while he is suspecting every moment to get in contact.

 

I'm sorry, I do not know the english word, but as far as I know its a common thing to carrie at least the weapon in a way were you can easiely just drop it out of your hands and grab to something else because there is a... leash? ... so your weapon will be haning around your front. The combination of security lock and a much slow animation overall making it a bit odd and like you say, its blow up the whole time you need to use what ever you want to use. I agree with you its a bit to slow and a bit to unintuitive to use. Even me as non soldier on walking trips and hunting help, I can draw my binos much faster and switch back to my signal flag.

I think Squad is at the moment wuite good at portraying the whole problem of soldiers on the ground. It isnt realy easy to observe everything, while we have here mostly wide open fields where you can easiely watch everything on it moving, in other landscapes there is so much forest so your whole line of sight is just short, to short to be effective at observing. I think its just something where every modern soldier have also some issue with that, so the whole observing of a region is not only doing by some soldiers running around, they also use everything the can get, drones, binos, scopes, infrared sights, satelite pictures, maps and logical thinking.

 

At the moment I would realy like to see that even a... is it called grunt in english? ... carries a monucular around with a less magnification compared to the binos of the scout, marksman and squad leader, but able to use it while holding a key like your zoom you suggested. Just while the palyer avatar is holding his weapon just with one hand he can just use a one the leash fixed monocular to get a quick peek on further distances. I would prefer it this way much more than just this *wosh* zoom *wush* thing. (Just a simple suggestion, it would be clear the usage of the weapon in this moment needs to be tweaked and so on... ^_^ )

 

And before somebody comes with "hey thats maybe not official equipment for a US army member our what ever"... ehm.... If I would be a soldier who knows he is going somewhere while I'm suspection contact or even I know there is maybe whatever, I just would buy it by myself on of those monuculars or small binos and ask my squad leader or who is responsible there, if I can take it with me. And as Insurgent that would probaly appearing much more.

Even the zoom will fix something or not, whatever, would it not be better to start on from the bad lods, renders, lighting, contrast, anti aliasing and so on before implement some zoom? Bad lods is still bad on higher magnification, bad lighting is also bad under zoom, bad render is stil bad under less FOV and so on. For myself I try it out today, there is plenty much space behind our house and over google maps I know that the range from our fence up to the next group of trees its ~300m. My dad was out in bright red clothes and if he would wear something like camouflage, I have sure trouble to even spot him just with my eyes even if he is moving. At least I have seen him but also I know on what I have to look to find him on this distance. At the moment I think Squad portrays this very well at the moment even if there is much more space above what we have now.

 

But to get details, I'm honest, I would pick on this distances just my old Zeiss Optic to get a clue of whats going on. And no, I do not wear glasses.

I'm not sure if a invisible crosshair is the solution. Basically, the croshair compensate the lack of body feeling, because it shows my (as long its a adaptive crosshair) if my avatar is already in the state of clear shots or not. This crosshair is a bridge between you as player on a screen and your avatar because you havent a whole "body feeling", you have only a audio visual feedback, not more, the crosshair ports the event in the game on a noticeable level for the player. Creating and than just making it invisible is a game mechanic that fits in PR due the technical limitatios of the engine.

 

But now we play with the Unreal Engine, not as Mod, as native game executable. There are better ways. Also what you mean is mostly called in several games as "Deploy"-time and "Draw"-time together with calculations along a spread base level and there modifications around events in the game. Draw time is mostly used for the time between the insert of the weapon choosing key and the first time the weapon reached its base state. Deploytime is mostly used for the time between base state and ADS. Like Battlefield, it used the term "Deploytime" for weapon switching and do not have a timer between offset/hip and ADS.

 

I think, at the moment, every weapon at Squad is highly accurate and you do not have at least a spread, while in real life there are many things they affect a accurate shot, some of those things are still leading to a common expection of how accurate a weapons is and its at least in a practical way just random. Squad can simulate as much as possible and will running over of informations while the whole practical effect even for the palyer is much more of a random even.

 

I think Offworld should get here some better spread mechanics to involve "grouping" of shots on certain distances even if the shooter makes everything 100% right, there should be still some kind of spread. And with this spread there can by implement modifications under what circumstances this spreads goes up or down and combined with animatios along the weapon handling to give the player the need feedback to know how close his group would be if he starts shooting now. An invisible cross hair like you mentioned lacks of feedback and will lead at least much more just to couting down from ADS, the result will just be much more sniping because now everybody just wait a sec before he shoots and will stop moving with the goal to get a better situation so he can be sure his shoot will hit.

 

If the player knows that even under best conditions he may be misslead his shoots, he will think twice if he starts an engagement on further distances by picking up headshots and maybe starts moving in a way that fit a way better to his own weapon or he will stop aiming for the head starts to aim for the biggest target he can engage, the whole body, so he can be sure his shoots will hit. And no, I do not mean that the whole spread goes up to the huge groups that you can see at BF, CoD or whatever. There is a other thread where already even real firearms shooter complain about the laserbeams with bulletdrop because it doesnt fit well creates a for less realistic behavior in firefights in a round of Squad.

I do not like the zoom because it isnt intiutive, everytime you used, it would remember why in a very ugly way it is not just a game, its also not more than a workaround, its not a feature, its a work around, a hotfix, not a part of the game. This is the reason why I do not like it, its outstanding among other solutions to fit reality in gamerules in a very ugly and near also lazy way.

 

The reason why I'm fine with ADS + Magnification is, because its much more near to reality, you have your front sight to focus on, you have your reflex to focus on, you have at least something where you can look at, you performing around a game an active action to get something what you want to intend to get, the zoom is just.... it just happens, there is nothing that comes close to this zoom in real life, everytime I sketchup up something and make my grids to copy things and bring them down in relation to another to create at least huge paintings on facade and walls I use different simple helps to helping me focus and get the details I want or may need. And I do not see why I should use free look to scan on further distances for enemy movement. If I'm in the situation that I need to use free look, than it isnt my task to observe my surroundings over that what I can clearly see, this is the task of the scout, marksman, SL and so on, this is the task of the guy on the roof and watches out. At the moment where I use free look its just, like in real life, to observer my closer surrounding. If I want to look further, and in the intention to get more details, I just use an optical device.

 

Even in real, is there something beside my actual doing that get my attention, I stop whatever I do and take a closer look with everything I can use to take a closer look. Its one of those things newbies on buildingssite will at first learn: If someone want their attention, they have to stop whatever they did and coming along so you can clearly communicate. Like a soldier have to listen to his SL and than he can go back to what ever he have to do and so on. So in this case, free look should not be the reason to introduce some zoom or focus, because in real life you also do not focus on freelooking while performing a task you focus on your task and your free look is on a "smaller" level to perform. And I wouldnt say that a good tweaked ADS is a "stucked ultra zoom".

 

There is a reason why most regular forces have more and more optical devices as standard on their rifles, maybe not home on the schooting range, but mostly more and more in the "hot zones". Since 1996 the G36 used as standard even home a magnified 3x scope in the first edition, now, with the G36A3 there is a picanntiny rail on the top on commonly equipped with a scope an reflex. Even with the old 3x scope, the intended range to engage targets is around a maximum of 500m. See even under the goal to bring up a realistic overall tactical movement of Player and Squads, a Zoom from nowhere wouldnt fit realy good to the game. So clearly, even official forces doesnt trust just in focussing around, the used a help and thats it.

It isnt a standard game feature, its a work around in the ArmA Series and also in the old operation Flashpoint. And if you are close to the enemy, why should you get a disadvantage from a 1,25 or maximum of 2,0 magnification (yeah 2,00 is a bit much ^_^ )? In Battlefield its works pretty fine, also in CoD or soemthing else, and those shooter are much more something around a fast paced shooter than squad wants ever to be. Also here is a reason why most modern troups using a scope and a reflex visor. Or at least a secondary Iron sight.  And beside this, I'm also able to get very fast hits in CQB while using even a 6x or 8x magnification in Battlefield. The whole zoom doesnt limits me, the lack of realistic handling of magnified scopes makes it possible to doing well even on distances under 5m with a 6x scope. Its also a trade off for a magnified scope, you can look further and engage targets more easiely but you give up some comfortable usage on closer distances. Both of them leads at least to the point, that you shouldnt able to shoot with a iron sight like you have a magnified scope. There should still be a difference, a noticable difference

 

And those simulation can only managed to give everybody a "magically" instand zoom of everything, with not restriction of draw and deploy times? It doesnt simulate the focus ability of the human, the human eye can only focus on something what it can see, there is no focus from the offset to nothing. At this point about the FOV: I'm running a bit out of time, so maybe I make later another post about the difference between magnification (or "zoom") and FOV, both are different and not just the same. Even on screens.

 

Up to this point I'm in some way thankfully that we can still discuss.... sadly, in most other forums something like are always leading to hate on both sides, like the BF1 CTE Subreddit, we are already up to the point where people start to complain because a tripwire mine is able to kill somebody and isnt spotted with a huge Icon in the 3D View. Like also people starts to complain about the "nonsense of eisting on-shot-weapons", and they realy mean tank shells, headshots, shotguns, TNT and so on... this is so sad :(Thank you... xD

-Yes accurate fire at 800m. Both with and without optics. Its really not remarkable at all. 

 

-The way squads work right now is not highly accurate. It functions like I said before, with a squad leader acting more like a forward observer than anything else. Everything the squad does is highly restricted because everything is so hard to see. 

 

-A zoom is not lazy. It is simply a fact of life when it comes to video games. Quite frankly a zoom takes me out of the game far less than being completely blind all the time to things that I should have been able to see. Squad right now feels alot like you are walking around in a haze compared to reality. The zoom is a analogue to things in the real world. Your eye does this without you noticing. See my above posts. There is no other way to fix this problem other than a zoom. The other things that need done like the LODS are also needed, but not because the zoom can be disregarded. Rather all of the fixes are needed to fix the problem as well as it should be. They all work together. The zoom is simply the thing with the biggest single effect that is the easiest and quickest to do. 

 

-People put optics on their rifles because optics give a number of advantages, especially depending on optic. BUT they do not have anywhere near the effect they do in squad. In squad a person with a 4x is a god and a person with irons is helpless. This is not the case IRL at ranges under 300m. And Squad does not show at all the advantages of red dots. 

 

-I have seen groups of people in different camo patterns moving and standing at distances of over a 1km. Its not that hard to spot them if they are just standing in the open. Concealment from camoflage does not at all work as well IRL as it does in squad, where a person who is simple the right color might as well have active camo. 

 

 

 

 

 

-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/15/2018 at 7:25 AM, Hvolute said:

Please fix the vision in this game. We need either a ARMA like zoom that can be used at any time or we need major adjustments to rendering scale at range. The current game makes seeing distant enemies, especially when standing in the open, way too difficult. Contrast needs work as well. The degree to which camo works right now is absurd. 

 

All of these things combined are creating a game where the combat is being compressed into much smaller areas than it would be for a given terrain type. It additionally makes the value of optics FAR too great. In real life optics are a huge factor, but personnel with iron sights are not next to useless like they are now. 

 

This is not a small deal. The current state of vision in the game alters tactics to a great extent from what they would be in real life. 

 

I also what to make it clear that my view on this is not a matter of opinion, at least with regards to how this game currently stacks up to real life vision. The developers view on how to make their game IS a matter of opinion, and one which they obviously have every right to do as they please. BUT if you want to make this game CORRECT, then vision needs fixed. ----My source regarding my views on vision is that I do this in real life as a 12B. It is several orders of magnitude easier to see distant contacts in the real world than it is in squad right now. Not just slightly easier, WAY easier. As in Night/Day difference. In real life, a target at 1000m is easier to see than a target at 300m in this game. 

Just buy a monitor with a hardware based zoom feature, like reshade but better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry for «bad» english

Guys, some info for you:

-Full HD monitor resolution is about 2 MP, humans eye is equivalent to 120-130 MP, and brain combine both eyes frames in 576 MP panorama ;

-human eye angular vision is something between 1-2 degrees, that means you can spot a 1,8 meters human figure form a distance between 3000-6000 meters;

-human vision FOV is 210 degrees horizontal, and 130 degrees vertical;

As you can see developers cant simulate «realistic» soldier vision for mass PC-games orienteered to personal PC’s not supercomputers.

Many years ago in 2001 developers from Bohemia Interactive already solved this problem (remember the average monitor resolution in 2001!) with narrow fov. In Operation Flashpoint: Cold War Crisis- horizontal FOV 55 and vertical 43 by default and horizontal FOV 31 and vertical 32 in iron sights mode.

According to my calculations when you use this values you can spot soldiers form 1.5 kilometers in Operation Flashpoint (or ARMA: Cold war Crisis) in bright day conditions, of course, when you play this game on full HD monitor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/15/2018 at 11:19 AM, Hvolute said:

Balance is not relevant. I could care less how badly off a team is due to their weapons systems. It it ends up being a curb stomp because one side has optics and another does not, then so be it. There is zero point what so ever of modeling real world military forces if you are not going to model them as true to life as can be done. You might as well just make up fictional nations if your not going to flavor a nation corresponding to its real world character. 

 

 

 

 

And now we know why you're not on the design team. It's a video game. It's mean to be fun. So while that means balance isn't everything... to even suggest that it doesn't even need to be taken into account is completely asinine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know what DOES need to be changed? That map... the foresty one with the Warehouse and Crucible Alpha as two of the points, can't remember the name. Anyway, fighting against the Irregular Militia forces on that map.... it just hurts, they're the same colour as the goddamn ground, and the grass, and the trees, and the rocks apparently. Yet the US run around with Multicam which is basically just a slightly darker desert camo. Like, really? How about we balance that ay?

 

That's the only visibility change I really want to see. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mestia. Then you should have seen it at release, there was something wrong with the lighting and the US camo was glow in the dark... ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/15/2018 at 2:25 PM, Hvolute said:

The current state of vision in the game alters tactics to a great extent from what they would be in real life. 


Not the fact that you can respawn?
I personally think increasing the min/base FoV to something like 110 would be better in terms of gameplay. 
For one, it'd make using binos crucial to scout out an area before moving through. Already with the addition of bipods there is a marked change to the pace of the game, where if one or two MGs are well setup they can completely lock down an area from unwary enemy players. With a higher minimum fov optics would also be nerfed as a consequence - less screenspace actual optic, more screenspace a blurred outside of the optic.
Especially in very close quarters iron sights would have a more pronounced advantage. Because everyone would be running around with a fov of atleast 110 you'd also get less of one guy being able to sneak up behind a squad and mow them down one by one, as the higher fov would more correctly replicate the spatial awareness of real life.
One thing that I'd hate to see in Squad is zoom eyes. It's already bad enough how you get a slight zoom to ironsights when aiming that you can increase even more when standing still.
Minimum fov needs to be constant imo, otherwise it downplays the advantage of any kind of optical instrument too much - even if you could zoom in optics the same way - if there can be an occasion when an ironsight rifleman sees further than a marksman, even be it because the marksman is zoomed out and the rifleman is zoomed in - at that point the game is broken. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

This is very true. 

 

Like mentioned before, spotting and engaging are two completely different subjects. As for spotting, Squad is horrible. 

 

On 2/15/2018 at 5:01 PM, EA_SUCKS said:

even more zoom? dont kid, they need to remove all the zoom from all nonscoped guns

In reality, what OP is asking for is not zoom. It is the un-warped real-life FOV, as the one they have in e.g ARMA 3. The wide FOV in games is there to emulate peripheral vision, and not giving players the option to focus on something with "real vision" in a game like Squad is pretty weak, imo. 

 

Playing squad at 1920 x 1080 is Mr. Magoo mode at the moment. You can barely see a BTR at 500 m range, which is ridiculous. 

Edited by PuddleMurda
shit grammar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

For everyone reading, and commenting, who does not seem to grasp what OP is asking for: 

 

ug5Gn.jpg

 

UwQgk.jpg

 

The bottom picture is not in any way zoomed in, the FOV just resembles real life more than what picture above does. You are still at the same distance.

 

How anyone can dislike the suggestion / request to have this feature in a game like Squad is beyond me. So I wholeheartedly understand OP's frustration with having to argue with inane arguments similar to "my dad is stronger than yours".

Edited by PuddleMurda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

i would absolutely not mind the perspective of the second pic it if it was fixed all the time

but that zoom in/zoom out is simply stupid sorry.

 

by the way ANY 1st person shooter does this incorrectly, things like perspective, FOV everything is

comnpletely messed up but things won't change because it's exactly what people are expecting

and because they do not know anything else.

Edited by FIXXXER

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
53 minutes ago, FIXXXER said:

i would absolutely not mind the perspective of the second pic it if it was fixed all the time

but that zoom in/zoom out is simply stupid sorry.

How is it stupid? The first picture is the fish-eye lens view, that helps you to navigate nearby surroundings, as a flat screen with constant natural perspective would have you trip over stuff, and shit. The second one is of a natural perspective, for when needed. If you think the option to switch between the two is stupid you have obviously never played a game with such a feature, and does not understand how natural and intuitive it feels, and is therefore no use to a discussion regarding such a feature. 

 

This discussion kind of falls into the Arma 3 - 3rd person perspective argument that has been going on for years now. 3PP advocates claim that it represents situational awareness, where the 1pp advocate claims that it is unrealistic as you can peek around corners, over obstacles etc. Personally, I'd rather play Arma 3 on a Atari one button joystick than in 3pp. I also rather play a fixed FOV in Squad than having 3pp as an alternative. 

 

However, the advantages of 3pp compared to 1pp is monumental, and not to forget highly unrealistic.

 

Being able to temporarily, with the click of a button, set your FOV to a natural perspective in order to scan a distant tree line is not subject to "abuse", and not in any way unrealistic, as it would just represent normal human eyesight. 

Edited by PuddleMurda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

There is a reason we need zoom in this game even for iron sights and that is because the human eye has a far greater resolution than a silly 1080p monitor simulating iron sights. What this means is that it will be much easier to engage an enemy in real life than in a low resolution video game. Apart from the aiming sway and such of course. Zoom is absolutely necessary. It also gives that extra advantage for someone actually stopping and aiming for once. 

Edited by SpecialAgentJohnson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, PuddleMurda said:

The first picture is the fish-eye lens view, that helps you to navigate nearby surroundings, as a flat screen with constant natural perspective would have you trip over stuff, and shit. The second one is of a natural perspective, for when needed.

so now the only thing missing is the ability to switch from 1st to 3rd person view so you can spot enemies easier who are hiding behind cover etc. ;) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, FIXXXER said:

so now the only thing missing is the ability to switch from 1st to 3rd person view so you can spot enemies easier who are hiding behind cover etc. ;) 

I explicitly explained how I can not stand the idea of 3rd person perspective, so I do not understand why you quoted me, and followed up with a cheeky sarcastic comment suggesting so. 

Edited by PuddleMurda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, PuddleMurda said:

I explicitly explained how I can not stand the idea of 3rd person perspective, so I do not understand why you quoted me, and followed up with a cheeky sarcastic comment suggesting so. 

hmm, when i quoted you, your post did not say anything about 1st/3rd person perspective, i guess our posts overlaped as you were editing.

 

generally speaking, so many suggestions sound like people trying to bend and twist the game so that they can have an easier gaming experience.

SQUAD can be hard and some people seem like they can not manage it properly. threads like "fix visibility", "add more zoom", "reduce recoil",

"enable multiple mouse sensitivities" etc. make me think like that by the way.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Arma 3 had this discussion and they came to the conclusion that having a moderate focus zoom was the most realistic fix for the inherent faults of using a monitor.

 

at 1080p, someone 200m away is only 8-10px high (when they are standing), if they are prone they may be 2-3px high.

 

  • If you show the right level of detail for eyesight (FOV of ~25 IIRC) then you have no peripheral vision.

  • If you show the correct screen FOV (as in it is 1:1, like looking through a window) then you still have no peripheral vision (~45-55 degrees)

  • If you show a FOV that represents our binocular FOV (~90 degrees) you get a meh mix of things.

  • If you show a FOV that represents our complete viewing area (~200 degrees) then you can't see anything past 10 meters.

 

the saying tunnel vision does mean something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, FIXXXER said:

SQUAD can be hard and some people seem like they can not manage it properly. threads like "fix visibility", "add more zoom", "reduce recoil",

"enable multiple mouse sensitivities" etc. make me think like that by the way.

IMO, not being able to see heads bobbing behind a wall from across a field, not more than 100+ meters away with 1920 x 1080 resolution, without using binoculars, is not a "difficulty setting". It is just frustrating, from a game play perspective. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2018-03-11 at 6:49 PM, Randall172 said:

Arma 3 had this discussion and they came to the conclusion that having a moderate focus zoom was the most realistic fix for the inherent faults of using a monitor.

 

at 1080p, someone 200m away is only 8-10px high (when they are standing), if they are prone they may be 2-3px high.

 

  • If you show the right level of detail for eyesight (FOV of ~25 IIRC) then you have no peripheral vision.

  • If you show the correct screen FOV (as in it is 1:1, like looking through a window) then you still have no peripheral vision (~45-55 degrees)

  • If you show a FOV that represents our binocular FOV (~90 degrees) you get a meh mix of things.

  • If you show a FOV that represents our complete viewing area (~200 degrees) then you can't see anything past 10 meters.

 

the saying tunnel vision does mean something.

Excellent post. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've always been happy with ARMA's system in 1p. Being able to have a moderate zoom at any time felt more natural to me than any other game, where zoom is tied to a rifle ADS. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×