I can see why fov decreased, because of console players sitting further away from their telly, than pc players from their screens. But why did this happen to viewmodels?
>>335023860
Less resource intensive when you can block half the screen with a gun.
>>335023860
>>335023941
Jesus christ you are retards
It's the other way around, giant gun models because you are sitting far away and low fov because seeing less means using less power
>>335023941
That's not how it works in the majority of FPS games, the gun is added on top of a complete rendering of the background, so you still have to render what's behind it. And even if you didn't render what was behind it you'd still need information about it for indirect lighting and similar.
Because, if you're further away from your screen, the viewmodel needs to be proportionally bigger, otherwise you wouldn't be able to see your weapons a few meters away from the screen.
>>335023941
/thread
Could be because of Widescreens, you can technically take up more room of the screen with your weapon model but would you really be taking up as much as an older game would on a 4:3 resolution?
>>335023941
retard
>>335023941
>this
>>335024040
Regardless of having a low fov, devs could still use a higher viewmodel fov. There is no real reason for blocking half of the screen with the gun model, except it being a fad or something?
>>335023941
COMEDY GOLD.
>>335024040
The amount of performance you save on low FOV is so negligible that you may as well target something else for your performance, like removing one bush from every scene that contains bushes or something. I mean, people were saying this for the Doom closed beta and they changed it in the 4 days or so between tests to include FOV settings even on consoles because it isn't exactly a big deal. It really is because people using consoles are sitting so far from the screen, since the higher the FOV is the less screen space stuff occupies as it gets towards the center of the screen. It's the same reason everything has giant fucking reticles now.
>>335025509
>The amount of performance you save on low FOV is so negligible
you really don't know anything about rendering an image do you
>>335025662
>Deflection
Do you? Because I can never get a straight response from anyone who goes "You don't know about x" without actually elaborating, and when I do it's fucking retarded 99% of the time.
>>335023860
Because gunporn, fuck you i like it
>>335023860
The better question is, what the fuck happened to crosshairs?
It seems every new FPS out there has to have a fancy, more elaborate looking crosshair than the last one, and at this point it's getting kind of silly how confusing they tend to be.
>grenade launcher has that trajectory crosshair
>ignore it and shoot like a maniac
>>335026546
>grenade launcher has a trajectory crosshair
>shooting it further than 20m reduces the damage output by 75% and it strays more than an AKM held between your buttcheeks, making the trajectory crosshair absolutley useless
>>335026546
>grenade launcher has a trajectory crosshair
>lists 10km, 20km, 30km, etc
how the fuck am I supposed to know how far away 10km is
>>335026389
This has been developing over a pretty long time, even UT2k4 had stupid looking crosshairs you could assign to each individual weapon. It's down to making everything cool and "Sci-fi" most of the time, but it has really gotten out of control. Now with the UT4 HUD they've decided that everyone clearly wants their health/armor/ammo stats floating in hexagons right in the center of the screen where you're trying to aim.
>>335026389
Even fucking quake 3 had fancy crosshairs, what are you complaining about? They are fine.
>>335027091
I remember playing The Division a while back. From memory the crosshair in that game looked something like this (for one weapon type, every weapon type had it's own equally stupid crosshair).
>>335027245
>not wanting a ripped angry psychic television with an 8-pack as your crosshair
>>335025509
>The amount of performance you save on low FOV is so negligible
That's fucking bullshit.
Lower FoV means fewer models to draw, less sorting, fewer different textures, fewer particles, shadows etc.
More details also means more overdraw, more sorting, more clipping things to drawing area, more reflections, reflections of larger area etc.
The only things that don't change are the number of output pixels and upper cap on the frame rate.
>>335027245
your memory is shit
>>335027391
That is an absurdly old bullshot of the game before it actually went into real development. Nothing in that picture is actually part of the game.
Funny thing is, no matter how much I look I can't actually find a screenshot of The Division with a visible crosshair. I think when you take screenshots of the game the crosshair is hidden.
>crosshair is big
>weapon is actually accurate
>>335027245
>>335027552
>>335026948
>lists 10km, 20km, 30km, etc
>grenade launchers that have enough range to cover small cities
>>335027353
That's a lot of words for "You're rendering a few more inches worth of stuff", which I never denied. Adding a few more inches of extra stuff to render is isn't as big a deal as people make it out to be in most cases and kind of assumes games are built around a specific amount of detail being applied to every imaginable position the camera can be in. It just reveals more stuff that needs to be rendered, you're just as likely to kill performance in a scene by looking at it from the wrong angle.
>>335030884
>you're just as likely to kill performance in a scene by looking at it from the wrong angle.
kek
>>335024040
>>335024115
>>335024331
>>335024857
But he's right
>>335030884
>Adding a few more inches of extra stuff to render is isn't as big a deal as people make it out to be
It is, if you have to render it all at the same level of detail.
And since FoV makes you see a lot more of the stuff near you, it means drawing a lot of high detail stuff, not trees simplified to billboards.
tl;dr read up
Wide FOV is usually pretty terrible on games because the image is almost always far too distorted too close to middle of the screen.
Like it's geometric distortion that's way too noticeable at the center, instead of a logarithmic distortion that's only apparent on the outer 1/8 of the screen.
Either way, having FOV distortion on a 2D plain is not an ideal situation, IMO. It's there for it's own sake. It doesn't really add anything unless the display is very large and curved, or perhaps wearable and tracks eye movement, but I really think the latter is not quite sustainable, and is going to be a fad. People like tradition. They want to sit on a couch with a controller, or in a chair with a KBM, and stare at a flat screen. And I'm okay with that.
>>335034179
It's not about looking pretty and being cinematic.
Wide FoV is for visibility. A game where you have to be aware of your surroundings needs wide FoV (or some tricks like radars everywhere) not to be shit.
>>335034420
>Wide FoV is for visibility.
It's also for not getting a fucking headache if your screen isn't 20 meters away.
>>335033247
How often is stuff at its highest LOD going to be revealed by a higher field of view to begin with? I don't feel it adds anything significant to consider in the realm of optimization that isn't pretty much covered by the mere act of being able to turn and relocate your camera, though if there's any actual research on the effects of FOV on performance I'd like to see it.
>>335034420
I get that. I've got no problem with that. It just looks like shit on a 2D screen because of the reasons stated above.
Again, It would be ideal on a large, curved display. Moreso on a wearable display that actively tracks eye movement and changes the focal point of the environment depending on where you look, to simulate 270° and peripheral vision. But THAT technology is expensive, if it even exists in a commercial capacity yet. Not only that, this VR thing hasn't caught on before. I don't think it will catch on ever. It will be a fad that will live an die in waves, because no matter how good it gets, until you can literally plug-in matrix-style, people will always prefer the tradition screen+controller setup.
It's nothing to do with being cinematic and everything to do with simulating natural human vision. And currently it's simulated wrong 99% of the time. Like I said, the distortions tend to be geometric from the center out, instead of logarithmic, and it completely destroys the illusion on current display tech because as it stands, we are still looking through a window into the game. We aren't actually IN the game.
>>335027313
lol'd
>>335023860
ftfy
>>335034986
>I don't feel it adds anything significant to consider in the realm of optimization that isn't pretty much covered by the mere act of being able to turn and relocate your camera
Camera placement can affect the time to render a scene too. This is taken into account when designing levels.
The problems generally start when you have a ton of distinct objects you can't subdivide, which need a certain level of details and have to be drawn. This is also part of the reason why open world games look shittier than linear ones.
>How often is stuff at its highest LOD going to be revealed by a higher field of view to begin with?
If you're playing an FPS and not a RTS, pretty much all the time. Gets much worse if it's an "action FPS" like Serious Sam, rather than boring, slow "tactical" crap where ambushes are rare.
>>335035441
>mfw we will live to see the times where you cover half of your screen with a gun to increase your fps in order to aim properly
>>335024115
Do you even know what culling is
>>335026389
yeah, this annoys me, as well. I just need a bright purple circle in the middle of the screen. dynamic crosshairs and weird looking circles can eat a dick
>>335036272
Culling the shit behind the gun model in an FPS is the last place anyone would go looking to optimize. I know you want a world where graphics and performance are the villains behind every bad thing to happen to gaming since the dawn of time but that's really pushing it.
Actually Cowadoody 4 and WaW had pretty low-carried guns like OP's pic.
>>335036704
>Culling the shit behind the gun model in an FPS is the last place anyone would go looking to optimize.
A modern FPS gun is a giant solid block of crap that can be drawn before 90% of the scene.
More: you can draw it unshaded just to get the mask of the area you certainly won't need to draw, then draw it after everything else (to get lighting etc.)
It is a very easy trick not to draw 20% of the screen.
>>335037045
Doesn't invalidate all the games that have had massive viewmodels for no apparent reason since then. Clearly Crysis 2 guy has just been trained to hold his handgun an inch from his face.
>>335037082
Even if they did do it (They don't), it wouldn't be so significant that they'd go around inflating the size of the viewmodels since that'd be passively tying the game's performance to the size of the weapon you're holding.
>>335037429
>Even if they did do it (They don't), it wouldn't be so significant that they'd go around inflating the size of the viewmodels since that'd be passively tying the game's performance to the size of the weapon you're holding.
Performance isn't a static thing. It all adds up.
Bigger viewmodels are just one of the many tricks that are actually used to lower the cost of drawing a frame.
>>335037578
>Bigger viewmodels are just one of the many tricks that are actually used to lower the cost of drawing a frame.
>actually used
>Source: My ass
>>335028963
What the fuck is this crosshair supposed to represent.
>>335023860
Hello.
