Forum: <IoW> silEnT Server Topic: Request: Increase the FOV limit on the server ----------------------------------------------------- Jayd: I now have an ultrawide (21:9) monitor and would like to have the FOV limit increased from 140 to something higher...maybe 160, not sure of the number yet. The reason for this is that ET, in order to give you an ultrawide resolution without stretching the image, actually cuts the top and bottom of the image (a scaling method known as vert-) which is obviously undesirable. In order for me to achieve an FOV that allows me to see about the same amount of visual data in the vertical axis as everyone else, I will need a higher FOV. There's an impression out there that this higher FOV combined with my wider than normal resolution will provide me with an advantage over everyone else. This is incorrect. As you will see in the screenshots I will be providing below, at any given FOV, I will always have less visual data on the vertical axis (while seeing the same amount on the horizontal axis) than everyone else using that FOV. Here's some screenshots to showcase what I mean (shout out to Taukima for "featuring" in all these screenshots lol): 105 FOV at 1920x1080: https://i.imgur.com/Har8iYt.png 105 FOV at 2560x1080: https://i.imgur.com/RgNnQqM.png 140 FOV at 1920x1080: https://i.imgur.com/TacJtrp.png 140 FOV at 2560x1080: https://i.imgur.com/IoD9bzT.png Bonus picture of a rare Taukima not being a medic: https://i.imgur.com/m4RVrNA.png Thanks for reading! Sin: We should also get rid of the gay 125 fps cap for those of using 144hz monitors. Jayd: I think that's an engine limitation actually. I might be wrong but I seem to remember looking it up once. BECK: This is what we can change: Code: › docWrite("code") forcecvar snaps 20 sv_cvar cg_fov IN 90 140 forcecvar r_ambientScale 0.5 forcecvar r_colorMipLevels 0 forcecvar r_lightmap 0 sv_cvar r_depthbits IN 24 32 forcecvar cl_freelook 1 forcecvar cl_pitchspeed 0 sv_cvar cl_yawspeed IN 0 140 forcecvar cl_timenudge 0 forcecvar r_zfar 0 sv_cvar cl_maxpackets IN 60 100 sv_cvar com_maxfps IN 43 125 sv_cvar rate IN 25000 45000 sv_cvar r_rmse EQ 0 forcecvar r_softwareGL 0 sv_cvar r_clamptoedge EQ 1 sv_cvar cl_nodelta EQ 0 sv_cvar cl_packetdup IN 0 1 So we might be able to up FPS. The main thing is that these settings are done to prevent "cheats" or else stretching the engine to a point where graphical glitches give a user an advantage over others.Granted, anyone can configure these settings. I just want to be sure what we're doing here before making any sort of change. Overall, I'm fine with bumping it up, but we need more feedback from others on this. tAukima: Jayd wrote (View Post): › docWrite("quote")I think that's an engine limitation actually. I might be wrong but I seem to remember looking it up once. I had a friend that was testing out 200hz or so in his et server, I think its something extra you have to download. not entirely sure, but I know its possible to get passed 125. ontheqt: I have no issue with changing FOV. BECK: To clarify - yes we can change both FPS and FOV ranges. The question is if anyone has any reason not to at this point. Jayd: tAukima wrote (View Post): › docWrite("quote")I had a friend that was testing out 200hz or so in his et server, I think its something extra you have to download. not entirely sure, but I know its possible to get passed 125. Oh man, I had given up on ever seeing 144 FPS in ET. I'm excited now lol. if the difference is not too big though I might come back down to 125 for the extra jump distance it provides. BECK wrote (View Post): › docWrite("quote") The main thing is that these settings are done to prevent "cheats" or else stretching the engine to a point where graphical glitches give a user an advantage over others. In my opinion, we're not providing any one user an advantage over another. Even if it turns out that a higher FOV causes a graphical glitch of some sort that provides an advantage, these are server-wide settings we're talking about here; all users will have access to this same glitch. It's like FPS. We allow a range from 43 to 125. A lot of people know that certain FPS values offer an advantage over others (the so-called "magic numbers") and we still allow them. I don't see why we couldn't do the same for FOV. Sir Sux-A-Lot: If there was a hack that would take advantage of higher fov, it's probably long gone Sin: And that's even if a rudimentary hack like that somehow gets by silents cheat detection. Those types of hacks were back in unreal 2004, where map control was way more important than aiming, I never saw one in ET. BECK: Okay, so propose some numbers here :) Jayd: 360, for the full fisheye effect. O_O Definitely 144 on the framerate if it's possible. Sin: 160 for fov and at least 144 for maxfps. allagor: 360 fov, so it's possible to see everything & hit nothing. 333 fps I remember that was another magic fps number years ago ontheqt: 140 FoV max I really don't know about a FPS increase.Does that give players with a more powerful computer an edge?But whatever you do, I'll live with it. NOITOM: 333 fps will give u far jumps, makes it feel like the gravity isn't completely on tAukima: ontheqt wrote (View Post): › docWrite("quote")140 FoV max I really don't know about a FPS increase.Does that give players with a more powerful computer an edge?But whatever you do, I'll live with it. 140 fov is the max already, the point of this thread was to hopefully raise it to 160 Sin: ontheqt wrote (View Post): › docWrite("quote")140 FoV max I really don't know about a FPS increase.Does that give players with a more powerful computer an edge?But whatever you do, I'll live with it.Not an edge. Just a quality of life improvement if you have a monitor that can run at 144hz+. ontheqt: tAukima wrote (View Post): › docWrite("quote")ontheqt wrote (View Post): › docWrite("quote")140 FoV max I really don't know about a FPS increase.Does that give players with a more powerful computer an edge?But whatever you do, I'll live with it. 140 fov is the max already, the point of this thread was to hopefully raise it to 160 Sorry, I meant 160 Sin: I also remember trying 333 maxfps out on our server way back and just getting connection errors sum1else: I'm all for upping the values. I as never really sure why those were even limited as low as they are in the first place. Jayd: FOV was originally capped at 300-something until we pointed it out and then it got capped to 140 XD Dweeb: the thing with the fps cap is there are effects on apparent recoil above 150...some testing we did a while back on our old server there seemed to be some definite no recoil benefits above 150 and above 200 recoil seemed to be almost non existant that was with both jaymod and silent...your mileage may vary... Jayd: I'm down for testing that. sum1else: I'm not familiar with the specifics in silEnT, but I suppose that could be a strange thing of the mod. I don't believe etPub had any benefits when we had it before. Was that with all weapons or just with large recoil weapons like snipers? I don't particularly want the playing field leveled since I'm used to absorbing the normal amount of recoil with my hand. Sin: Well we can set it to 144 and test for any fuckery then. XpLo: my monitor goes to 240hz.Go to 240 fps! joking.144 seems fine.125 is fine with me tbh.theres not gonna be any real visual difference from 125 to 144.Not like there is from 60 to 125. And the 333 fps.You can set your fps to that on my tj server and its broken.It shouldn't be allowed on an obj server lol. You can jump really far although your jump speed is reduced I think..? Dweeb: sum1else wrote (View Post): › docWrite("quote") I'm not familiar with the specifics in silEnT, but I suppose that could be a strange thing of the mod. I don't believe etPub had any benefits when we had it before. Was that with all weapons or just with large recoil weapons like snipers? I don't particularly want the playing field leveled since I'm used to absorbing the normal amount of recoil with my hand. with smgs it was more noticeable than with sniper weps..we were pretty sure it was client side effect tho teets did notice from spec I seemed pretty much like I was no recoil cheating at 333 and from a personal viewpoint felt more like I was playing on a lan server than my usual 200+ ping spray and pray Jayd: So are we getting these new settings for tonight's games? We already have 5v5s going on XD bearcat*: Ffingtweakers, I see I'll fall further behind running my stock setting. neurosis: I used to play @120 but now if I play at anything other than 90 I cant see you fuckers.Can we reduce it to 80?:D Jayd: I have no objections to that. More choice is always good IMO. Jayd: Any news on this? BECK: :admin:smt014 Jayd: OK cool, let us know. :D BECK: Settings changed: FPS increased to 144 max FOV increased to 160 max :sign_fixed Jayd: YAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! P.S.: Did you change the low end of the FOV range to 80 for neuro? :) P.P.S: Where's ma 360 FOV O_O Venom: Quote: › docWrite("quote") P.S.: Did you change the low end of the FOV range to 80 for neuro? :) P.P.S: Where's ma 360 FOV O_O Why don't you just shut the fuck up Sin: Venom wrote (View Post): › docWrite("quote")Quote: › docWrite("quote") P.S.: Did you change the low end of the FOV range to 80 for neuro? :) P.P.S: Where's ma 360 FOV O_O Why don't you just shut the fuck upIf he did that, maybe QT would still want to play here Jayd: Lol goddamn. Et tu, Sin? BECK: No other changes will be made.You can't seriously want 360 FOV.... bearcat*: Not sure why you want to go past 110. Past that becomesdistorted. Jayd: BECK wrote (View Post): › docWrite("quote")No other changes will be made.You can't seriously want 360 FOV.... lol I was joking about the 360 FOV. But not about the 80 for Neuro. Fair enough though. bearcat* wrote (View Post): › docWrite("quote")Not sure why you want to go past 110. Past that becomesdistorted. The distortion is barely noticeable on ultrawide curved monitors and it never really bothered me on regular monitors to begin with. I always prefer being able to see more even if it means having the outermost edges of the screen be slightly distorted. Shit I'm not even as extreme as allagor is. You should see screenshot comparisons of his FOV in PD2 compared to mine lol tAukima: 160 fov made me nauseous BECK: Jayd wrote (View Post): › docWrite("quote") You should see screenshot comparisons of his FOV in PD2 compared to mine lol !play proveit Jayd: allagor: https://i.imgur.com/LoSPIUg.jpg me: https://i.imgur.com/xCy5SIF.png BECK: So I heard a rumor that increasing the FPS is now allowing some settings that give people less recoil? I went away from my 125 a bit on Friday, it was at 144 or something like that and it did feel that rifle was much more accurate.Am I imagining this? If so, I don't think I want to keep this setting - yes "everyone" can do it - but most people don't and everyone here is already too fuckin good already, so lets not make people even more potent by further exploiting the engine. Am I wrong here? Sin: I honestly didn't notice a difference at all but if you feel there was a difference then go ahead and change it back I guess. There are certain FPS that are already under the cap that influence recoil with the cap we had before and it wasn't an issue then. People already know about the 71 fps crap and it still doesn't seem to effect us because the recoil difference is really minuscule if you ask me. https://dev.etlegacy.com/boards/3/topics/326 Jayd: I thought I noticed a difference in recoil with the rifle shots at 144 (AKA 166? lol) yes. (Side note: Is it really considered recoil when talking about the rifle shots? Isn't it more like spread?) I believe this requires more testing before we can definitely say it has some sort of advantage but I do think the testing should be done. However I don't think if it does turn out to be the case, that the cap should be lowered again. As Sin said, 71 FPS is quite known for reducing pistol and scoped rifle recoil. And IMO it's not minuscule like Sin says, it's quite noticeable. BECK: Cool, I'm not a tweaker so I wasn't aware of the 71. No change needed. bearcat*: Beck you can control the tweakers out there... Introduce bullet drop ;)