Project Reality Forums

causticbeat wrote:yes, it is fair. BF2 has minimum and recomended system requirements for a reason.

True, to $ell as many BF2 DVD to as many as humanly possible.

*LuNa*Coyote wrote:Ok so in your eyes someone who downloads a no fog hack is fair aswell ? Cause you can simply download it aswell right ? Just like other people could upgrade their PC's aswell... You don't want to play with no fog ...just don't download it ....

Please, we are talking about a game here, which means everything has to be the same for everyone, giving no advantages to anyone.
Looking at the minimum specs needed to play this game means limiting the viewdistance for everyone so everyone can have a fair game. Not really rocketscience now is it.
Seriously what do you think these low end pc users will do if they implemented your plan, seeing how all the high end users, can pick them off before they even saw the high end user. They would stop playing all together and move to a game where skill=skill and not good pc > skill. And how is it in your eyes that limiting the viewdistance for highend users (just like everyone else) isn't fair exactely? You still see as much as everyone else, unlike the other way around.

People with superior computers already have numerous advantages, not least of all the ability to run the game at a persistently high framerate.

*LuNa*Coyote wrote:Ok so in your eyes someone who downloads a no fog hack is fair aswell ? Cause you can simply download it aswell right ? Just like other people could upgrade their PC's aswell... You don't want to play with no fog ...just don't download it ....

Please, we are talking about a game here, which means everything has to be the same for everyone, giving no advantages to anyone.
Looking at the minimum specs needed to play this game means limiting the viewdistance for everyone so everyone can have a fair game. Not really rocketscience now is it.
Seriously what do you think these low end pc users will do if they implemented your plan, seeing how all the high end users, can pick them off before they even saw the high end user. They would stop playing all together and move to a game where skill=skill and not good pc > skill. And how is it in your eyes that limiting the viewdistance for highend users (just like everyone else) isn't fair exactely? You still see as much as everyone else, unlike the other way around.

I am a low-end user, I think that I would lower my video settings to low from medium, like I lowered them from high to medium when PR became more graphics intensive around v0.4. Technically speaking, I would have an advantage over the highend players because while I could sneak around in the shadows, they would stand out like sore thumbs, as there will be no shading effects. Really, it all balances itself out. Please do not try to inhibit longer viewing distances on my account.

Hail_831 wrote:Looks like its time to upgrade. I want the sickness.

He might be waiting for the GeForce 8600 cards to debut like I am.

Shining Arcanine wrote:I am a low-end user, I think that I would lower my video settings to low from medium, like I lowered them from high to medium when PR became more graphics intensive around v0.4. Technically speaking, I would have an advantage over the highend players because while I could sneak around in the shadows, they would stand out like sore thumbs, as there will be no shading effects. Really, it all balances itself out. Please do not try to inhibit longer viewing distances on my account.

Id gladly set my textures and terrain down a notch to have some nice view distances, but when youre saying "well the low end users can turn their view distance down in their graphical settings" its crossing the line between aesthetics and functionality. You are putting users with a higher end PC at a clear advantage, and that is simply not fair. And, to put it bluntly, to say "well maybe they should just upgrade" is just greedy and selfish. Not everyone can afford to put as much money in to our computer as you can.

A more expensive computer should give you nicer shadows and sharper textures, not the ability to see me before I can see you.

Also, Why would you want such a high viewdistance? Bf2 maps are so small that it looks bad. Honestly, basrah looks like shit with the viewdistances posted.

Shining Arcanine wrote:I am a low-end user, I think that I would lower my video settings to low from medium, like I lowered them from high to medium when PR became more graphics intensive around v0.4. Technically speaking, I would have an advantage over the highend players because while I could sneak around in the shadows, they would stand out like sore thumbs, as there will be no shading effects. Really, it all balances itself out. Please do not try to inhibit longer viewing distances on my account.



He might be waiting for the GeForce 8600 cards to debut like I am.

So how exactely are you a low end user, when you are playing on medium settings right now ...

I had low profile graph configs from the beginning of my BF2 experience, I still have a integrated graphic card Geforce 6100.
I have never seen a thing like this, but playing with no fog it's not fair.

800 metres would be fine!

Well, the current view distance in the game is, what, like 400m? And vehicles pop up at about 350 then... I'd say 1000 is enough really. Indeed snipers would be a problem; if it was possible, I'd suggest bullet travel time, but the BF2 engine...
And of course that would mean making the NO GO area at least 1000m wide so players wouldn't see the edge of the map, which would lead to a feeling of cheapness.

I don't know what distance would be enough, the right thing it's set the real view distance on that conditions: desert, usual wind,..

800 to 1000 would be great. the 5000 view distance looks a little ugly.

jerkzilla wrote: I'd suggest bullet travel time, but the BF2 engine...

Why do I see so many nubie statements so often? Even BF1942 had bullet travel time.

I have a higher end PC and I get stuttering at the beginning of maps quite often (takes a few secs to process I guess) but after I fly around for awhile it smooths out. Is it more or less the same deal here? Or is the hit quite considerable?

if you see in the second shot is where i had to aim the rifle.

Matt23 wrote: if you see in the second shot is where i had to aim the rifle.

Umm that means the ballistics in PR aren't realistic after all :/

maybe we could set up a server just for people with comps able to run large view distances.

Sounds like a plan to me

Make it a 40 player server, not 64 lol. Irony my cpu can't handle that many people that good.

But i can do large view distances and medium graphics 4AA perfectly

danthemanbuddy wrote:Sounds like a plan to me

Make it a 40 player server, not 64 lol. Irony my cpu can't handle that many people that good.

But i can do large view distances and medium graphics 4AA perfectly

any fries with that.

causticbeat, I will respond to your post in pieces:

causticbeat wrote:Id gladly set my textures and terrain down a notch to have some nice view distances,

Good.

causticbeat wrote:but when youre saying "well the low end users can turn their view distance down in their graphical settings" its crossing the line between aesthetics and functionality.

I agree.

causticbeat wrote:You are putting users with a higher end PC at a clear advantage, and that is simply not fair.

How? They will stick out like sore thumbs while lower end users like myself will be able to see them clearly. How does my saying that we should have longer viewing distances put higher end users at any advantage?

causticbeat wrote:And, to put it bluntly, to say "well maybe they should just upgrade" is just greedy and selfish.

Higher video game requirements have always spurred technological advances because they created economic demand. Encouraging this is by no means selfish; inhibiting it is.

causticbeat wrote:Not everyone can afford to put as much money in to our computer as you can.

I am a college student attending a state university where the tuition is one of the lowest in the nation. Many people here can afford to put much more into their computers than I can. My inability to upgrade my desktop so that I can have the same nice graphical detail that they enjoy should not inhibit the experiences of everyone else.

causticbeat wrote:A more expensive computer should give you nicer shadows and sharper textures, not the ability to see me before I can see you.

I never said that it did.

causticbeat wrote:Also, Why would you want such a high viewdistance? Bf2 maps are so small that it looks bad. Honestly, basrah looks like shit with the viewdistances posted.

Realism. I should have to dodge snipers that are a mile away and I should be able to see jets that are high in the sky. Human vision does not suddenly cease to perceive objects upon gazing at things that are beyond a certain distance; otherwise, we would be unable to see the stars at night. Factors other than distance affect a person's ability to see things, such as resolution (the human eye has an approximate 150 megapixel resolution), magnification, line-of-sight, and signal strength (light is electromagnetic radiation and therefore it operates on the same principles as radiowaves). If my ability to see something is not limited by one of those natural factors, then I should be able to see it.

Not to mention, Al Basrah looks stunning with a 5000 meter viewing distance set.

*LuNa*Coyote wrote:So how exactely are you a low end user, when you are playing on medium settings right now ...

I was unaware that there was a formal definition of what it is to be low end. To me, last generation mid-range video cards are low-end, last generation high-end video cards are mainstream and this generation high-end video cards are high-end. Keep in mind that prior to my GeForce 7600 GT, I was gaming on an ATI Radeon 9700 Pro.

'[R-PUB wrote:Garabaldi']Yeah, I mentioned to DF last night that with such a large view distance, you notice how flat and empty the majority of the map is, hehe.

Is the world not like that, especially in the deserts?

Most of the current PR ballistics wrt bullet drop are as per BF2 and are only typically tested out to a few hundred meters. We'd need to take a look at that and tweak them into proper MoA type deviations at longer ranges.

For a good combined arms experience (which is what BF2 brings to the table in terms of engine capabilities) I think PR needs 4km maps and 800m + view distances.

There are issues we'll need to resolve there .. can't have a guy parking a vehicle behind a building that is not rendering to his opponent. Once the "draw range" issues have been sorted out for vehicles, soldiers, trees buildings etc there will be a further hit to frame rates (because more objects will be drawn on screen than are currently being drawn in the test you are trying).

BUT .. as time goes on .. people with 6200GT video cards will be upgrading and folks will start to have 2gb of ram as common (you need a lot of ram to run lag free with longer view distances). Ram starts to become more important as a frame rate contributor once you start to run objects off the swap file.

Additionally network congestion can become an issue. There's a lot more information to move back and forth if you are within viewing distance of 1km worth of objects than if you are within 400m of objects.

I think you'll probably see us have some large maps and hopefully a large enough library of large maps that servers will run dedicated to "large maps". If that becomes the case, we'll probably look to boost more view range out of them, particularly as folks upgrade their PCs and such.

Don't bother spinning that off into "PMG PR WILL BE TEH SUKC FOR NEBODY WIFFOUT UVBER PC".