>2016
>DICE still get away with this.
Ill bite(not that I care about BF, Istoped plaing this game at BF2)
Whats wrong in this one?
>>341012173
Rehashing the exact same game for the 4th or 5th time? Or the horrible scope in?
>>341012959
single scope rendering
>>341012959
I'm going to assume rendering the entire scene once and then blurring out the area outside the scope instead of rendering a scope
>>341013209
>>341013282
and the issue with this is?
Literally who gives a shit?
You should be thankful games have come this far. There used to be a time when a "scope" was just a zoomed in view with a shitty "scope" sprite rendered to cover half the screen.
>>341013689
>You should be thankful games have come this far
12 years ago
>>341013209
>>341013282
I don't play these game, nor have I ever owned a weapon, but isn't that kinda realistic as you don't close you other eye when looking down the scope right you just focus only one. It probably is them just being lazy, but it's not the end of the world.
>>341013209
>>341013282
3D scopes are incredibly taxing on performance
all the games that do it don't have graphics anywhere close to the BF series
>>341013929
It really isn't
The games that have it are made for military autists who get mad at that type of shit though
should be an option, but it is taxing on performance
>>341014049
Since when is Killing Floor for military autists?
Even KF1 has that feature
>>341013824
No. It isn't.
>>341013929
That was true 10 years ago and it is 2016, not 2006. They just don't do it because they're shit.
>>341014049
>>341014657
it really is
They probably already tried it and it sucked. Single scope render is better for fast paced fps games.
>>341012173
I've read the whole thread and I really don't get whats wrong? Is it that its not zoomed?
>>341015696
look at
>>341014657
then
>>341012173
>>341013527
Are you dumb ?
>>341016046
So the problem is that its just a scope rendered over the screen and the perspective is continous? I mean I don't really get it. Especially because technically looking through a scope with one eye closed looks more like the zoomed screen with a sprite drawn over it thing from fallout and old cods.
>>341013929
no they aren't
devs are just too stupid to render them correctly
>>341013929
why red orchestra, insurgency, escpae from tarkov and tons of other fps can do it ?
>>341016595
Because they look like shit in comparison to any recent battlefield?
>>341016850
how does that excuse shitty scopes?
>>341016212
is this bait? nobody can be this retarded
It's an intentional design decision. Rendering the scope as a separate render camera is very jarring when you're playing and it forces people to slow right down to use the gun.
With BF generally being a run and gun franchise it goes against that.
>>341016595
tricks, smokes and mirrors mostly.
People underestimate teh cost of a double rendering in moder screen resolution greatly.
>>341017527
or, you know, DICE are incompetent idiots
Game will still be fun as fuck and all the people that took the time to come in here and whine will still be there day one.
>>341017282
But people are often this retarded and more.
Actually this is the kind of people games like battlefield are aimed at. This is their target audience.
>>341017527
that's a pathetic, retarded excuse. rendering the scope separately has never slowed me down in red orchestra.
>>341014049
RO2 is for military autists?
I just want to shoot some slavs with my k98 or torch some japs with a flamethrower
>>341017721
Could be that too.
>>341018031
That's because Red Orchestra moves at the pace of an old woman on a zimmer frame with no arms.
>>341018087
Nope. Feels like a slower CoD.
>>341016046
Not the anon, but I too dont get this. Whats going on?
>>341016850
Battlefield 1 looks shit compared to any game
Kill yourself
>>341018248
The out side of the scope is zoomed in
>>341018114
>That's because Red Orchestra moves at the pace of an old woman
lol what the fuck are you talking about, retard?
RO is about as fast paced as battlefield, since both ostfront and HoS had a lot of smaller maps with a lot of automatic weapons, long sprint times, and whatever mouse sensitivity your preference was.
still a retarded excuse
>>341018430
Go to bed RO drone, no one cares about your dead game, it's slow, janky and boring.
>>341018384
Oh! I thought it just lines with the scope zoomed in image. Now I get why people are mad. Fuck.
>>341018509
>implying I excuse the buggy mess that is RO2
go to bed mental defective shitter
>>341016850
Battlefield 1 uses almost the same techs as battlefield 4. I expected them to work on this kind of details since the graphics didn't improve since 3 years.
>>341012173
Is the barrel bend to the left? How does he hit?
>>341013824
It depends entirely on eye dominance. People who have an eye that is much stronger than the other will not be able to have both eyes open due to the dominant eye taking over and fucking with your focus. I have an extremely strong dominant eye and I can not shoot with both eyes open if the sight radius is too long.
Some people also have issues depending on magnification. Like those 1x optics that aren't quite 1x, but more like 1.2x or something.
This of course doesn't matter at all in vidya.
Oddly enough, I'm hype for this shit.
I haven't played a Battlefield since 3 (what a fucking mess) but goddamn this shit looks good
>>341019029
Would this effect be present when not using magnified scopes or anything like that?
I notice that I cannot get a good sight on something when looking down my sks, but it doesn't have any scope mounted to it but I don't have a way to test my vision with a scope because I'm poor
I gotta say, the gameplay was better than I was expecting, but I'm still not sold on it.
>>341018858
The scope is mounted offset to the left of the bore. You compensate by zeroing. You adjust it to hit point of aim at certain distances, and you compensate or dial in when you are shooting at difference distances.
On this case, if you shoot at a closer target, the point of impact will be to the to the right. Too far and it'll be to the left.
I don't think this game actually takes into account windage though, only elevation.
>>341019268
It does fore me. The only time I can shoot with with both eyes open is when I am shooting with only a front bead (certain shotguns) or when I am shooting handguns (short sight radius of just a few inches)
Can't have both eyes with rifle irons or optics (even if it's 1x, I think the housing fucks me up).
If you can't get a good sight picture even when you're closing one eye, that just means you need rx glasses.
>>341019685
When closing one eye I get a perfect picture. I just can't get one through my sks with both eyes open.
Haven't thought to try with my shotgun and don't own a handgun though
>>341017282
>nobody can be this retarded
If people actually knew about guns and how they worked we wouldn't have people crying out for gun control every 30 seconds.
>>341017062
>why do they keep doing A?
>because doing B is more graphically demanding
>why did these games do B then?
>because they were overall less graphically demanding
>what does that have to do with A?
are you actually fucking retarded
>>341014049
Yes it is. It means you have to render the scene twice. For the same reason, mirrors are very rare in modern games.
![415eg%2Bc%2BKfL[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/UHiBmCz.jpg "415eg%2Bc%2BKfL[1].jpg")
>>341019874
Well, you can't get a totally clean picture with irons. You should be focusing on either your front sight or the target itself. you could also try using peep sights, which tech sights make for the SKS.
Of course it ain't cheap, so you can simulate it with something like this sticker here.
>>341020163
considering insurgency and RO2 had way lower budget, it's actually no excuse for DICE to drop that feature
>>341019384
Why is Eddie Guerrero in the front cover?
They probably hired Valve's Special Needs playtesters and learned that the total lack of peripheral vision/tunner vision makes it hard to figure out where the hell you are aiming at. You wouldn't be able to snap-shot people with an high-mag scope anymore. Boo fucking hoo- that's the whole point of low magnification sights and scopes existing. Instead they balance it around the animation taking for-fucking-ever to bring it up to your eye if it has a big zoom.
tl;dr their game designers don't want to take any risk and cater to the dumbest of the dumb and the baddest of the bad.
>>341018205
CoD does not have forced rifles
>>341016595
Unturned as well.
Freaking roboblox inspired DayZ started by then 16 year old kid has more realistic scopes than big AAA games.
Really makes you think.
>>341018087
>RO2 is for military autists?
Fuck no.
It's a tactics based FPS that doesn't go anywhere near full milsim. But when your only experience is Call of Battleduty then your opinions are a game is either CoD or ArmA and there is no in between.
>>341014657
>That was true 10 years ago and it is 2016, not 2006
It's still true, you basically render the same image twice
>>341020742
it's not a matter of budget it's a matter of engine optimization for efficient publication to discrete hardware specifications in a much larger development pipeline.
>>341018087
As someone who actually collects WWII guns, RO2 drives me mad with some of their guns inaccuracies. Especially the SVT.
If you really want to know if double rendering will impact the game, then wait until the beta, and just scale the resolution up to the appropriate percentage and see what happens
>>341021546
yeah, and disregarding such a logic and nice feature showcases the incompetence of DICE and the retardation of their fans
>>341021606
What inaccuracies? Could you name/show them?
Genuinely interested.
>>341012173
>Still using dorito based headshot assists
Why? At the very least you could have put them on center of mass instead right above their fucking head DICE.
>>341021606
>As someone who ACKSHUALLY collects WWII guns,
Fuck off with your nugget poorfag nobody gives a fuck
>>341016850
What? Escape from Tarkov looks better than any Battlefield to date.
>>341012173
>Sniper scope
>Only zooms 10 meters
>>341021814
Shitty picture, but you see that bolt on the SVT? It's purple, like in the game. That's not period correct. The color is a result of post war refurbished and the bolts were blued.
Period correct WWII SVT bolts were in the white.
>>341016595
which of those games has destruction you stupid ugly virgin?
>>341013209
>expecting anything more than single scope rendering
Nigga, that shit killed FPS like motherfucker in COD Ghosts, you wanna have practicly negative FPS on Battlefield?
>>341021776
JESUS CHRIST HOW ARE YOU THIS RETARDED
>>341017527
>muh jarring gameplay
It's not jarring you fucking idiot they don't do it because it's extremely taxing on systems to have to render a screen twice.
>>341020287
Acshalluy, you dont.
You are rendering 1 full picture like normal, and a small part of that is covered with a zoomed up version. You dont have to render two separate running versions of the game like a mirror, its the same picture.
>>341016595
Because they're based on antiquated technology that can run on toasters.
>>341013209
https://www.google.com/search?q=single+scope+rendering&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
https://www.google.com/search?q=single+scope+rendering&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=%22single+scope+rendering%22
Nobody says this, you dumb faggot.
>>341016048
Are you dumb ... ?
>>341024086
great argument
>>341023795
Red Orchestra 2 has destructibles
>>341024505
unreal engine 4 is for toaster ? Also my toaster can run BF4.
>>341017062
>>341020742
>>341021776
how can anyone be this stupid
>>341024086
>>341024891
nice samefag you desperate fanboy
calling someone retarded is not an argument
>>341025263
it's a much more graphically demanding game than all of those you listed, so they can't feasibly do #D scope rendering
get it through your thick fucking skull
>>341012959
you can see its clearly a swat mask the guys wearing
>>341025528
>graphically demanding game
For consoles maybe
>>341025528
It has better graphics, so what? why should it sacrifice features for some fancy bloom? half life 2 back in 2004 had both better graphics AND better features than most games
>>341025695
>why should it sacrifice features
except it isn't sacrificing anything because it never had it in the first place
you don't have a leg to stand on
>>341025638
Yeah, all new games should require a 1080 to run at >60 FPS on a 1080p monitor.
>>341025796
>it was always shit so it doesn't have to get better!
yeah ok
>>341023070
Gee Anon, two nuggets?
>battlefield 1
>filled with WW2 stuff
bravo DICE
>>341025970
developers have to deal with performance constraints
not everyone has a 1080 you fucking spastic
>>341025851
>Games from years ago did it
>Somehow they requisites increase as time because it helps you argument
>>341026241
yeah, and dice isn't very good at dealing with it
and stop the petty insults, it feels like I'm arguing with a 13 year old
>>341026203
>skipping history classes
>>341026360
games that are substantially less demanding
neither ArmA or Squad do it for the exact same reason
>>341026369
>yeah, and dice isn't very good at dealing with it
have you seen BF4 or Battlefront?
they make the best looking shooters on the market and the optimisation is generally pretty good
>>341026436
im sorry but america wan't even a country till half way through world war 2 so I dont know what the fuck you're talking about
if it was Britain and Spain fighting then this would be on point but no they're focusing on a fake battle because of hittlers popularity.
Dice is so shit.
When are we going to stop making games about male power fantasies?
Murder and guns are not "cool"
>>341019405
I wonder when will this shit be all automated. Probably have Judge guns by then too.
Someone will probably make a movie about a guy and his waifu the gun AI. Call it "Her 2: Electric Boogaloo".
>>341021527
Yeah, that's how it used to be done. Unreal engine has its own special way of doing it that kept it from fully rendering two frames at once, there's no reason why frostbite can't develop its own techniqueoh wait the engine is garbage and the devs incompetent.
Will this have battlelog?
>>341026930
then why can't the devs of Squad do it?
>>341026515
>best
not really, battlefield is very shallow. it's just really easy to get into, hence why they don't spend much time making features. everyone (including you) are too busy praising them for their graphics
>>341026991
no its battle book this time
>>341027173
So I need to snail mail them my signature before I could log-in and play using my typewriter?
>>341026991
how else will I upload my anime emblems to put them on my horse?
>>341027170
I'm talking about the graphics
fucks sake you people are really obtuse
>>341027251
bingo
you need the battlefield logo wax stamp seal too or they don't open it, something to do with too much spam mail reaching them
>>341027389
well the discussion was about features and you kept going on about graphics, so I pointed out that graphics are the only thing people like you care about
>>341027558
I literally said "best looking"
3D scoping is a graphical feature anyway
>>341027785
you've really gone off topic here
it's the best looking, what does that have to do with lack of features?
>>341027902
it doesn't lack features?
>>341027952
we were talking about scopes behaving realistically
I would call that a feature
>>341012173
It looks fine, stop being a little cry baby bitch about literally nothing.
>>341026203
name some
>>341028174
it's a graphical feature
you're literally just asking them to remove some other graphical features so you can have this one instead
once again there's no comparable shooter that has 3D scoping
>>341028585
it looks like shit and I'm pretty sure that dice would've been able to do it been for fans not giving a shit about it
>>341028761
>I'm pretty sure that dice would've been able to do it
so it's completely pulled out of your arse?
Squad can't do it, ArmA can't do it, CoD can't do it
>>341028585
Red Orchestra 2 and Insurgency has it
>>341028903
none of those games are graphically impressive
again, it's just laziness
>>341014657
That looks dumb as fuck, not fun to have in a competitive game.
It's also not realistic for people to come back from the dead and re-spawn but you don't complain about that do you?
>>341029308
and they aren't comparable
>>341029334
>none of those games are graphically impressive
they are the best looking FPS on the market and BF1 is going to look better
if they can't do it, why do you think BF1 can?
Squad literally had them in but had to take them out because it was killing FPS
you people are honestly lobotimised or something, you can't follow basic logic
>>341014657
>That was true 10 years ago and it is 2016, not 2006
so what advancement has been made to improve the efficiency of rendering in this way? Hardware improvements don't justify using inefficient methods.
>Hear Dice are making a WW1 game.
>Get the feeling it's gonna be nothing like WW1
>See all this bullshit validating my worries.
Why even live, what's the point.
Why even live, what's the point.
>>341012173
>Those gigantic rectangles above spotted enemies
Please tell me they are there so the niggers know who to shoot and will be reduced by 100% in the release version?
>>341031021
yeah it looks like any other battlefield, but with a ww1 skin. Sad.
There was the early ace of spades, version 0.20-something (before autoclimb and sub-machinegun), that felt like ww1, with all that trenching and digging. It was a blast.
That would be my starting point for any game that wants to be a ww1 game. And it was developed by one dude; imagine what the production values of a big studio like dice could do on top of it.
>>341029812
it doesn't cause fps drops in Insurgency or RO2
devs today are lazy and incompetent, and squad is a mess
>>341012173
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1YVrxFmheSc
>>341023070
That's probably because their modelers were given the more widely available guns as source material and no one really thought about such a minor detail.
>>341014657
>one eye can see the entirety of the area surrounding the other eye
>>341013737
Halo 4. 2012
>>341012959
I just find it awful that it zooms in the whole fucking screen, even with acogs. It often takes much more time to "render" than actually feeling where the aim is in real life would, not to mention the awareness from the eye not on the scope that shouldn't be zoomed in 8x.
