tunabreath

Member
  • Content count

    303
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About tunabreath

  • Rank
    Pop up Target

Profile Fields

  • Platform
    None Selected
  1. Will Ground Branch support AMD/ATI Eyefinity ?

    All the nay-sayers obviously aren't involved in any flight sim communities. High cost peripherals are a staple of that genre - all in the name of immersion and realism, something that I think would greatly benefit ANY game which purports to be realistic. I'd honestly like to see things like this implemented into more games. It's like head tracking. You just don't get it until you've tried it, and then you simply can't play without it Have you guys never used a dual-monitor work station before? All the extra desktop space is incredibly useful. It carries over directly into games. Your field of view is much more realistic, natural, and usable than when it's all crammed into a narrow single monitor. Now goggles, those are a different story. Most of them are immediately 3D compatible, and they'd be absolutely amazing with working 1 to 1 scaling head-tracking. The problem is that resolutions aren't that high yet, so you end up with the same boxed in narrow field of view. Also, the cost is waaaay more than triple-monitors, considering how easy it is to get used/cheap monitors. In my opinion, 3840x1024 with three cheap-ass monitors is better than 1920x1080 on one really expensive monitor. It's about twice as many pixels, twice the field of view, if you can ignore the two lines in the way. It would probably cost less too.
  2. The Pixel Factor

    That pretty much flies in the face of the very essence of NORG... Definite no-no here. @WhiteKnight quoted, I agree, but on the fly FOV control need not be complicated. Galzohar's proposed system is quite elegant, and ArmA's simple push A to zoom in a bit, push B to zoom out a bit is, at the very least, adequate. If we have the opportunity to make reasonably long range shots, we should also have the ability to make reasonably long range identifications and hits (realistically), which I don't feel is possible under a system without player controlled FOV (until monitor resolutions hit real life). An ACOG should not be 'mandatory' equipment.
  3. Character customization

    What about prying the door inward if it's blocked (perhaps after blowing out the hinges?)
  4. Yep, it is quick, and ArmA's is overstated, but I just wanted to make it clear that it is there I'd also like to point out another thing - looking into a bright light will mess up your natural night vision for quite a while, but it doesn't affect your eyes quite as much if they're behind an NVD. The NVD will white (well, green) out, but it won't get so bright that you won't be able to see the amplified image after you look away. Your natural eye will have a significant recovery time though. I think Hollywood has provided the perception that people wearing NVDs are susceptible to getting seriously blinded from bright lights and it isn't true with any modern tube I've held. The autogain will simply stop amplifying the light so that it looks like you're just looking though plain glass, and in fact, will only produce as much light as the screen can, which is less than a torch and is less damaging to your natural night vision. That said, older generation night vision will get messed up pretty badly by bright lights, but nothing I've used. But again, if you remove your night vision, the eye under the night vision will not be adjusted to the ambient light level. I've always worn my monocular over my dominant eye, so it ends up that I have good peripheral vision, but really messed up/darkened center vision for a while. Another thing which I'm not sure was covered was the use of IR illuminators. I've found that these often light up the foreground to such a degree that the NVG will dim out and you won't be able to see any of the background. IR lasers placed near you will have a similar, though lesser, effect.
  5. NVGs do adapt like that as well though, at least ones with an autogain feature (pretty much every NVD past gen1). Granted, it's quite quick, but it's very noticeable and especially annoying when you have a lot of glare from a bright source.
  6. Fully Destructible Environment

    Semi-related, I think it would be great if you could temporarily 'part' foliage, for example to get a better view through tall grass or thin bushes.
  7. Character customization

    Sounds good! Just curious, will we be able to use scans of our own faces for in game?
  8. This probably belongs in the NVG thread, but I'm quite interested in this: http://vimeo.com/4532787 It also gives some good shots of what muzzle flashes and tracers look like through what I assume to be Gen3.
  9. VOIP in game or external program

    Well, the thing is, even if you're speaking into a radio and not directly to people around you, that doesn't mean that people around you can't still hear what you're saying
  10. Language issues

    I like the radial system, but it would be even better if it were in conjunction with a list menu-based keyboard shortcut system for extremely fast access of common/memorized ones, like roger, aff/neg, etc. If anyone's played Allegiance, I'm thinking of the BF2 style radial menu, but each of those having a `(letter/number)(letter/number) keyboard shortcut like the voice-chat system in Allegiance. Just as an example, in Allegiance you can go `1 for affirmative, `2 for negative, `rr for roger, `yv for "Thanks for the lift," just all the quick ones that you've memorized. Less often used ones are easier to navigate through with a radial menu than a list menu like Allegiance though.
  11. VOIP in game or external program

    I would be most interested if in game VOIP were applied with in game effects, such as all sides hearing you speak (at a reasonable volume in a reasonable radius). Otherwise, it doesn't matter much to me.
  12. Experiment: ACOG 4x - Bindon Aiming Concept

    Interesting. I like where this is heading. I'm curious about combining this with free look and the weapon inertia aiming system. @galzohar, while I understand what you're saying, yes, the view through the optic will already be naturally blurred by the movement, but the optic body and sight picture still have to become more transparent for the effect to work, so adding blur to the sight picture isn't really that important anyways. Blurring the background a little is necessary though, since that should be in effect when stationary. A couple issues, at the moment, this seems a lot easier to do on screen than in real life. That said, most of the optics I've used have been fairly poor quality, so take my opinion with a grain of salt. I've found magnifying optics tend to have slight parallax error when doing this compared to non-magnifying reflex sights. That is, when you bring the superimposed dominant eye reticule over the non-dominant eye viewed target, once you focus back on the sight picture through the optic with your dominant eye, I find myself aiming a little low and left, which again has to be compensated for. (I'm left hand left eye dominant, by the way) Additionally, I find it's often much more difficult to pick up high contrast through magnifying optics than just with the naked eye. This is often because of intervening foliage is picked up to a high degree by the optic, which your naked eye simply ignores with the larger field of view/frame of reference (regarding area colour and contrast). I'm not sure how to get around this, but it seems a little too easy in your simulation there. Then again, you're using a fairly high contrast target as an example.
  13. Acceleration-based aiming system

    Not having played Killzone 2, I have to ask about the system they used. Was AIMING delayed, or was WEAPON MOVEMENT delayed? It would obviously be frustrating if aiming were delayed, but that's not what we're talking about here. Manipulating the point of aim should still be crisp and responsive, just the weapon itself will drag (not the point of aim). Calling it aim acceleration is not accurate. This system is adding inertia/acceleration to the weapon only, not the point of aim. If Killzone 2 did it with actual aim acceleration (as in you have to wait for your reticule to respond to control input, then that's understandably annoying, but this system is not that one. Control response is instant, weapon response is not. The weapon movement is independent of the point of aim in this system. I think people are still not getting that is a system that (as far as I can recall) has never been implemented in a first person shooter before, just vehicle shooters, and are unfairly comparing it to other games that use completely different systems. Think of it like the exact opposite of the OFP/ArmA free-aim system: instead of your weapon moving crisply and your view responding clumsily, your view/point of aim/crosshair moves crisply (your control input is instant) and your weapon catches up at a realistic rate.
  14. The Pixel Factor

    Yeah, I don't see how anyone can think this (or that aiming system in the other thread) is over-complicating things. They're really quite elegant and simple to use solutions. Then again, I AM here for the Falcon 4 of the fps world.
  15. free look and trackir

    I dunno how much your intended build costs, but mine ended up being around $10 + $20 for the webcam. That's 3 LEDs, 3 resistors, a foot of wire, and a battery case in that $10.