Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:FOV limitations are just silly. (Score 1) 148

I know one person who played with 120deg horisontal FoV view per monitor on three monitor setup. He basically had a 360 degrees panoramic view compressed into approximately 160-170 degrees around himself.
It was almost impossible to surprise him in games where he would hack FoV to be like that. He would see someone approach in his peripheral vision even if you came from behind. It was utterly silly, and for him it was playable enough to be worth it. I could never get over the whole fishbowl look, but it worked for him.

As for the other claims, remember that FoV is actually a function of your screen size and distance from your eyes to display surface. The further away you are, the smaller FoV would look "right" and not get "fishbowled". As a result, most console games, where people sit at TV several meters away can often get away with FoVs as low as 60 degrees and look just right, while many PC games have to go well over 100 degrees for some setups.

Personally mine is around 100-105 degrees horizontal on my current gaming PC.

And it's not just FPS games where this matters. I'm currently playing a third person space shooter called Star Conflict a lot, someone I know who plays it got it to work on a 3 monitor setup with very wide FoV. It gives him a huge horizontal awareness advantage, but since I know this I've learned to hit him from above or below when possible instead. That works in full 3D space of space shooters. Not so much with ones on the surface.

Comment Re:FOV limitations are just silly. (Score 2) 148

Judging by your response, you do not understand the issue at all. Our peripheral vision and our field of view is in fact irrelevant in the discussion of game balance/fairness.

The point is that it's possible to project a much wider field of view onto the screen, up to full 360, giving you complete awareness of your surroundings. It would be uncomfortable to use initially until you trained yourself for it, but after you train your eyes and brain to accept it, you would become vastly superior in any game where advantage can be gained by flanking or hitting from behind.

Field of view of a player as in comparison to field of view projected on the screen is usually a formula of screen size and distance from your eyes to the screen to create the most "realistic" view, i.e. the field of view that screen covers in front of your eyes equals the natural field of view from your eyes at the distance where your screen is located.

But when you're competitive, and you need to maximize your advantage (i.e. how much of your surroundings you can view at once), you want to use as wide field of view as possible without completely disorienting yourself. If you train yourself, even fully panoramic 360 is doable without massive disorientation. People who play in competitive fields train for thousands of hours.

That is why most games have a fixed maximum field of view, and hacking your client to give wider field of view gives you same cheating ban as wallhacking would.

Comment Re:Multi-Monitor Gaming Just Sucks (Score 1) 148

That depends. If you can adjust field of view in game, or game automatically adjusts it for you, it's of tremendous advantage as it does in fact give you a wider field of view.

If not, then it is indeed useless.

As a point of comparison: it's considered cheating in most first and third person shooting games multiplayer to increase your FoV beyond certain limit. This is so because it gives you vastly superior awareness of your surroundings, making it much harder to surprise you with flanking. Multi-monitor setups allow for huge fields of view.

Slashdot Top Deals

ASCII a stupid question, you get an EBCDIC answer.