Vision nerfed yet again?!

[freethink 984]

Also I don't see how artificially zooming in "better represent(s) human vision"

 

My eyes don't have zoom. If I want to see this screen better I have to move closer. That's all there is to it. I can't concentrate really hard and see better, I can only lean forward or get closer.

Edited May 31, 2015 by freethink

[stinkenheim 249]

Also I don't see how artificially zooming in "better represent(s) human vision"

My eyes don't have zoom. If I want to see this screen better I have to move closer. That's all there is to it. I can't concentrate really hard and see better, I can only lean forward or get closer.

You mean earth's yellow sun doesn't allow grant you supervision like it does to us normal folk??

Maybe it's a side effect of the survivor's immunity to the virus lol

It is what it is, it makes scopes and binoculars far more important now and also explains why a lot of effort went in to making scopes usable in your hand as a spy glass...

[Coheed_IV 381]

Experimenting sounds great to me. That all part of the fun, just as we keep friendly about everyone's opinions.

Camera perspective is a good example, people make it a competition??? Or a realism battle. What matters isn't what you personally think is best, but what's best for the game. And not what's more realistic, but what's best for the game. Most times that's the same, but not always.

Edited May 31, 2015 by Coheed_IV

[freethink 984]

You mean earth's yellow sun doesn't allow grant you supervision like it does to us normal folk??

Maybe it's a side effect of the survivor's immunity to the virus lol

It is what it is, it makes scopes and binoculars far more important now and also explains why a lot of effort went in to making scopes usable in your hand as a spy glass...

 

I'm talking about right clicking zooming in (sans scopes)...I don't see why that's a thing

Edited May 31, 2015 by freethink

[Hicks_206 (DayZ) 4297]

I'm talking about right clicking zooming in...I don't see why that's a thing

 

Besides it being a familiar mechanic from the mod, it functions as an compromise that emulates the action of focusing on something in real life which is inherently easier and more rewarding than trying to focus on an LCD monitor.

[freethink 984]

Besides it being a familiar mechanic from the mod, it functions as an compromise that emulates the action of focusing on something in real life which is inherently easier and more rewarding than trying to focus on an LCD monitor.

 

I just don't think it emulates anything apart from zooming in further than reality.

 

It's a crutch people have become used to and now rationalize it's existence. It makes no sense.

 

If you wanted to emulate aiming down sights then make the stuff clearer not bigger.

Edited May 31, 2015 by freethink

[blackberrygoo 1416]

I honestly don't know where I stand on this one ... I often use my smaller tv to play to get better frames and without zoom that makes it pretty rough , but then again I'm all for realism and making this game parallel real life at all times ...

So I'm not entirely sure, I do agree with gews that a balance between realism and gameplay must be struck , but then again I do like ricks suggestion of making things sharper when you "right click zoom" on them instead of making the image zoom. But I think we'd need to give whatever gews would suggest and ricks idea a chance as we can't really be sure until we play both ways .

[Bororm 1156]

No one discouraged feedback, I was answering his frustration and confusion as to why these variables have been changed frequently.

 

Maybe if the team would tell us the purpose of these types of experimentation there'd be less frustration.

 

 

 

I just don't think it emulates anything apart from zooming in further than reality.

 

It's a crutch people have become used to and now rationalize it's existence. It makes no sense.

 

If you wanted to emulate aiming down sights then make the stuff clearer not bigger.

 

And how do you make stuff "clearer" on the resolutions we're playing at?

Edited May 31, 2015 by Bororm

[pilgrim* 3514]

.//..

If you wanted to emulate aiming down sights then make the stuff clearer not bigger.

 

 On a computer screen how do you make something clearer without making it bigger ?

 

Switch off anti-aliasing ?

Put it on a contrasting background ?

[brzator47@gmail.com 524]

I just don't think it emulates anything apart from zooming in further than reality.

 

It's a crutch people have become used to and now rationalize it's existence. It makes no sense.

 

If you wanted to emulate aiming down sights then make the stuff clearer not bigger.

 

The whole point is it doesn't zoom in further than in reality, or it least it shouldn't. It's amazing how many people seem to have trouble understanding this. You can't make things "sharper" either, that's again the whole point. The resolution/size of a computer monitor is way too low to simulate human vision. If there was NO zoom at all, to display things anywhere close to reality the FOV would have to be ridiculously low.

[joe_mcentire 2074]

i think this is a prime example where you have to draw a line between reality and authenticity.

- Is it realistic to zoom in? NO.

- But does a computer screen with given resolution and diverse post-processing effects going on realistically represent the human eye: also NO. Hence, the best middle ground is a subtle feature to provide an authentic approach to this issue, as Brian mentioned before.

 

 On a computer screen how do you make something clearer without making it bigger ?

 

Switch off anti-aliasing ?

Put it on a contrasting background ?

 

the only option which comes in my mind: higher resolution, more details. But of course that's a completely nonsensical alternative for obvious reasons.

 

What many also fail to see (again for the sake of authenticity), given the parts sitting in your rig some can see much much farther, with more details available than others with less means, leading to a disadvantage for ppl with weaker rigs. 

The RMB zoom can actually make up for this distinct imbalance, at least in many scenarios. I think a "slight" zooming option therefore is, gaming-wise, an absolute reasonable if not necessary decision imo.

 

edit:

 

or maybe "just" a high-pass filter:

before

 

after

only problems here:

- what's the trade-off of using such a filter in comparison to rendering the picture via zoom?

-  the sharper/ harder the contours the more you feel like trippin' :D

Edited May 31, 2015 by joe_mcentire

[brzator47@gmail.com 524]

The RMB zoom can actually make up for this distinct imbalance, at least in many scenarios. I think a "slight" zooming option therefore is, gaming-wise, an absolute reasonable if not necessary decision imo.

 

It is absolutely necessary. Being used to most other fps games people have probably never thought about this, but the default, "unzoomed" view is actually zoomed out. RMB "zoomed in" view is the view closer to reality but obviously no one would be able to play like that. It's one of the best things about ARMA series and I have no idea what they're really trying to do here. Probably reducing KOS which is really silly.

[gibonez 3633]

Part of the problem is people don't associate it with a game mechanic that is put in to combat some of the limitations of PC gaming compared to how human vision actually works.

 

People simply see it as hey I can zoom by pressing right mouse I must have binocular vision.

 

Perhaps blurring of the edges or darkening the edges while zooming would push forward that thought that you are focusing on a specific object in the distance and not that you have bionic eyes.

 

As for the zoom when aiming perhaps an entirely 3rd perspective when aiming is ideal. How about an alternative mode that simulates how one would focus on the front post of a rifle or pistol in order to try to hit a distant object. I personally always found the extra zoom while aiming to be a bit clunky a 3rd iron sight mode for precision shots might work. One that offers the precision for shooting objects at distances but with all of the disadvantages when engaging at medium and short range. (blurred peripheral vision, Lowered sensitivity allowing for fine movements, etc)

Edited May 31, 2015 by gibonez

[joe_mcentire 2074]

It is absolutely necessary. Being used to most other fps games people have probably never thought about this, but the default, "unzoomed" view is actually zoomed out. RMB "zoomed in" view is the view closer to reality but obviously no one would be able to play like that. It's one of the best things about ARMA series and I have no idea what they're really trying to do here. Probably reducing KOS which is really silly.

it is often a necessity to get opinions and views from outside "one's own isolated bubble". you could also call it organizational blindness in some way. some ideas may make perfect sense in the dev's pov but maybe prove to make a lot less sense in a wider/different pov. hence experimental. it is important that people like Gews make qualitatively valuable threads like this one while at least trying to keep out polemics. Devs then see and acknowledge concerns from these different pov's. ...i hope so at least.

Edited May 31, 2015 by joe_mcentire

[Bororm 1156]

I dunno about anyone else but I already tunnel vision hard when zooming in, especially in ironsights.  I don't think extra fuzziness in the peripheral is necessary.  In fact, disciplining yourself to pay attention even while zooming is one of those gameplay kinda "skills" that is a good thing, something the player has to do rather than a mechanic taking over.

 

I think it's fair to point out that if this reduction is to combat killing there's already a ton of other factors in the game that have reduced most encounters down to sub 100m, really more like sub 50m when not using a scoped weapon.  And that this just puts a bigger gap between the haves and have nots when it comes to scopes.  Being able to overcome a sniper with ironsights should be doable to a reasonable distance (lets say 300m or less).  Hardly being able to see a guy at 100m is just going to give that guy with a scope an even bigger advantage.

 

Some of the other factors creating closer encounters in the SA compared to the mod are the damage model (generally soaking more damage), run speeds (going to be reduced but shouldn't something that is guaranteed like that be done before trying to balance other aspects?), the huge increase in cover (enterable buildings especially, but even wilderness areas have more).  Medium range engagements without a scope have taken a huge backseat in the SA for a long time now, even without these last two adjustments.  Now it's to the point where they will be practically nonexistent.

 

Which is a shame, because the map size and some mechanics (lets not forget pretty much every weapon zeros now) really lend themselves to those kinds of engagements, and in the mod they were some of the most interesting in my opinion.  They also do little to curve closer engagements, as getting in close is still a valid strategy.  

 

The SA has been too run and gun imo, and this is just going to increase it.

Edited May 31, 2015 by Bororm

[yazar8 584]

Bahaha, no zoom? Tell me, how far away is this survivor?

 

 

Call that a survivor, there's a rock there, not a survivor!

[St. Jimmy 1631]

Woah about that FoV slider update! Now it's good to give some feedback but it's so awesome that the zoom is now fixed.

[pilgrim* 3514]

Besides it being a familiar mechanic from the mod, it functions as an compromise that emulates the action of focusing on something in real life which is inherently easier and more rewarding than trying to focus on an LCD monitor.

 

well.. totally

 

heres a long text only interesting to nerds and players who look at HOW a game is built for immersion

and for folks so immersed they can't even guess how it works

- sorry dudes, maybe just skip it

 

Check carefully you will see that:

The whole game is on a flat screen a couple of feet in front of your eyes.

3D is an illusion - the screen is completely flat.

Your bifocal human eyes have no distant objects to focus on in the game, everything is at the same distance - human bifocal rangefinding does not work.

If you move your head closer to the screen image you will see larger dots - not a sharper image.

In real life when you focus on something at 15 feet (for instance) everything in front of that distance is out of focus and everything behind that distance is out of focus.

You don't notice this - unless you observe the effect deliberately - because your brain compensates. Human beings are bifocal hunters. We compensate totally and we can rangefind (this is why we have two eyes in the front of our face).

On a computer screen this "focal attention" effect is impossible, the computer cannot blur everything except your point of focus, because firstly it does not know what part of the screen you are looking at, and secondly the screen is flat...

- flat meaning you always focus at the same (short) distance, and the 3D effect is completely faked. You can see and "judge distance" on a computer screen just as well with one eye as with two. Human binocular-vision ranging is inoperative in a computer game.

These differences are radical.

Some games - space shooters for instance - save processing time and imitate human "focal attention" by using more detailed textures center screen and less detail off center (if you didn't ever notice that you're out of the discussion). DayZ can't do this for obvious reasons. You would have to move the center screen to sweep your whole field of view, continually, or you would be at a disadvantage.

So how do you imitate "focal attention" in a combat game ?

Please don't say "human eyes don't work like this" - that is an extremely naive argument showing you have zero game design understanding, and have not noticed what your eyes are doing IRL and In-Game.

It's great to be so immersed you don't ever notice that your eyeballs are at short focal length and never focus at more than 3 feet from your head at any time in the game - but if you don't understand this you shouldn't talk about how the game works. Game design is NOT intuitive.

A very good way to imitate "focal attention" is to have a zoom effect. It can not be a fixed magnification of the center screen - for the reasons explained - and because a magnified area would drive you nuts. So a push-to-zoom is an workable imitation of "look at object". Players find it natural, they use it without thinking about it, and it simulates an important human attribute.

Without this there would be LESS simulation in the game (not more). Therefore making the game less "realistic" and less "immersive". Which no one wants.

saying "not how human eyes work" is a stupid as saying the game is unrealistic because when you are sitting on your ass in front of a screen you are not actually running about in the undergrowth - and this is not how human legs work.

.. really ??

xx

 

for the OP - Gews is always logical. He exactly knows the difference between shooting a gun and a simulation. He is interested in making the simulation better and he is objecting to a parameter, not to a concept. - I'm not so methodical, I'll have to play it to judge the feeling, but very often he's right.

Edited May 31, 2015 by pilgrim

[Grimey Rick 3417]

And how do you make stuff "clearer" on the resolutions we're playing at?

By making things in the distance (say 50+ meters away) and in our peripherals blurry. Right click could sharpen them as long as the button is held.

Look at an item, say your television, from ten feet away. When you're looking at the screen, everything around that focal point is blurry. When you "focus" on your Blu-ray player on the shelf below your television, it doesn't magically zoom in, lol.

They really need to shift the focus away from Arma and start focusing on AA.

[scriptfactory 620]

By making things in the distance (say 50+ meters away) and in our peripherals blurry. Right click could sharpen them as long as the button is held.

 

Do you have any examples of a game that forces depth-of-field on players? Not judging, just curious. I would think this would be extremely annoying.

[Bororm 1156]

By making things in the distance (say 50+ meters away) and in our peripherals blurry. Right click could sharpen them as long as the button is held.

Look at an item, say your television, from ten feet away. When you're looking at the screen, everything around that focal point is blurry. When you "focus" on your Blu-ray player on the shelf below your television, it doesn't magically zoom in, lol.

They really need to shift the focus away from Arma and start focusing on AA.

 

Just blurring the edges of the screen all the time sounds like a really awful idea to me.  Read the post by Pilgrim above you, it has some good points.

[brzator47@gmail.com 524]

By making things in the distance (say 50+ meters away) and in our peripherals blurry. Right click could sharpen them as long as the button is held.

Look at an item, say your television, from ten feet away. When you're looking at the screen, everything around that focal point is blurry. When you "focus" on your Blu-ray player on the shelf below your television, it doesn't magically zoom in, lol.

They really need to shift the focus away from Arma and start focusing on AA.

"Focusing" on an item in the distance should not require a button to be held. It only does because it's necessary in a computer game due to already explained reasons. All the zoom in really does is effectively increase resolution and size to make up for the lack of it in the default, zoomed out view.  They could make the "zoomed in" view to be the default one but then you'd have to hold the button every time you wanted to see more world around you which would be more annoying. The zoom in feature is not "magic vision", It's really not that complicated.

[St. Jimmy 1631]

Do you have any examples of a game that forces depth-of-field on players? Not judging, just curious. I would think this would be extremely annoying.

Yeah blurring things is just a no go for me. My eyes already does that. DOF etc effects are the first things I turn off from every game.

[brzator47@gmail.com 524]

Just blurring the edges of the screen all the time sounds like a really awful idea to me.  Read the post by Pilgrim above you, it has some good points.

It is an awful idea, because our character's vision in the default view is already poor enough compared to reality (hence the need for zooming in), blurring the edges and objects in distance would make it even worse.

[Grimey Rick 3417]

Do you have any examples of a game that forces depth-of-field on players? Not judging, just curious. I would think this would be extremely annoying.

GTA5 on PS4/XB1/PC does it quite well, albeit automatically -- there's no button to press to initiate it.

And I really have to disagree with Pilgrim and Gews (why do I always feel racist when I read his name? Soft or hard 'G'?) here. Zooming in as a concept to "focus" is a terribly flawed mechanic. It even goes against the very definition of the word.

Battlefield 4 maps, although not nearly as large as Chernarus don't have a zoom button, and for all intents and purposes, someone 300 meters out in that game is just as tiny as someone an equal distance out in DayZ. If you only have a 1X RDS/iron sights, you're probably not going to hit him. You need a scope of some sort, right?

I still don't get why this is such an issue. Arma added a lot of silly mechanics back in its heyday, and unfortunately several of them have stuck, and to the point of it causing an uproar over a mechanic that didn't make sense in the first place.