Joystick and Multi-Monitor Support

[Tycho]

I have seen others post that they would like to see multi-monitor support in PS2. I dont think anyone has actually responded to say if that is something that is in or out. I would like to make a plea to the Devs to support multiple monitors in game. I would also like to see joysticks allowed for flying vehicles. In PS the mouse and keyboard worked great, but PS2 is supposed to have realistic flight characteristics. Can we ask the devs at one of the Q&A sessions?

[Traak]

I think that PS2 will have support for simultaneous mouse and joystick, so you can hop out of a plane and go back to using a mouse, hop into a plane, and use your joystick.

[Talek Krell]

Probably a good thing to slip into the next Q&A. Joystick seems like a given, at least.

[Zulthus]

Multiple monitors is fine for a map on another screen. You should NOT however be able to use them if they increase your FOV. It's an unfair advantage that not everyone (maybe 2% of anyone actually does) can use, so it needs to be normal for everyone.

[Tycho]

I completely agree. I should have clarified my intent. I just want to be able to manage my maps, chat, and other information on a second screen. I agree that you should not be able to increase your FOV.

I asked about the joystick because I didnt want to take it for granted that it would be supported. I know Higby and the crew actually look at these forums so I thought I would throw it out there.

[Traak]

Multiple monitors is fine for a map on another screen. You should NOT however be able to use them if they increase your FOV. It's an unfair advantage that not everyone (maybe 2% of anyone actually does) can use, so it needs to be normal for everyone.

No kidding. Imagine a 300 degree FOV with six monitors.

[Coreldan]

I would love if PS2 would support secondary monitor to be used as a full screen map or similar stuff to that.

I would not get 3 monitors just to have eyefinity stuff, but I would get a secondary monitor if any of my main games would support one as a full screen map for example. Especially in PS2, the map plays a bigger role than in most other games.

Seriously, I beg you to do support for that lol. I would love to have a sort of "overlay" monitor, but not gonna get one before something supports it. Outside PS2 I could use it for stuff like chats, TS/mumble GUI, etc.

[SKYeXile]

screew that, i pay the big bucks gimme the FOV.

[Zulthus]

screew that, i pay the big bucks gimme the FOV.

Why? Eyes don't extend around the sides of your head. Use those bucks elsewhere!

[SKYeXile]

Why? Eyes don't extend around the sides of your head. Use those bucks elsewhere!

well oviously 6 monitors spread around the sides of your head would be mega retarded, but 3 certainly work.

[Oryon22]

Although I don't know how much flying I plan on doing, but I certainly hope the game includes some form of joystick support.

[Zulthus]

well oviously 6 monitors spread around the sides of your head would be mega retarded, but 3 certainly work.

Believe it or not, people do it. That's why it shouldn't be in the game.

[SKYeXile]

Although I don't know how much flying I plan on doing, but I certainly hope the game includes some form of joystick support.

the game would be designed around mouse / k/b im sure, but im sure they would have joystick support, they did in PS1.

ill give it a try with joystick, but i think mouse will be more accurate firing, while the joystick will provide better movement..or rather easier movement. if the game includes rolling that is.

[Coreldan]

Wonder if the engine will support TrackIR :D A bit overpriced gadget for my taste but I would deffo consider it for PS2. Friend of mine has it and swears on its amazingness on ARMA2

[RedKnights]

Believe it or not, people do it. That's why it shouldn't be in the game.

Sorry, I really don't think my 5760X1080 setup should be restricted to the same FOV as someone playing with an 800x600 IBM CRT they stole from a garage sale in Bangladesh. Games have always had a small advantage given to those with wider monitors, it's like that with every modern shooter, I don't see why it should be any different here.

[Talek Krell]

Sorry, I really don't think my 5760X1080 setup should be restricted to the same FOV as someone playing with an 800x600 IBM CRT they stole from a garage sale in Bangladesh. Games have always had a small advantage given to those with wider monitors, it's like that with every modern shooter, I don't see why it should be any different here.People shouldn't be able to give themselves a wider field of view for the same reason they shouldn't be able to turn off the clouds and the grass.

[Zulthus]

Sorry, I really don't think my 5760X1080 setup should be restricted to the same FOV as someone playing with an 800x600 IBM CRT they stole from a garage sale in Bangladesh. Games have always had a small advantage given to those with wider monitors, it's like that with every modern shooter, I don't see why it should be any different here.

I'm sorry that you decided to dump all of your money on a completely useless setup instead of something much more important. Seeing 180 degrees around you or more is not a "small advantage". It's unfair to everyone else and the FOV should not be alterable for my reason and Talek's. I use a 1680x1050 monitor and that's more than fucking big enough for me.

[Coreldan]

In that case it would also be unfair for people to have 60 FPS when some people only have 30 fps due to their crappy systems :D

Also, I believe that is only 3 screens, doesn't quite cover 180 degrees.

[Zulthus]

In that case it would also be unfair for people to have 60 FPS when some people only have 30 fps due to their crappy systems :D

Also, I believe that is only 3 screens, doesn't quite cover 180 degrees.

Not the same thing at all. You can both have an equal chance against each other with very different frame rates. Someone with 20FPS might be much better than someone with 200FPS. Someone with a larger FOV will see people before they can see them, get the drop on them. I played games effectively at 20FPS before I got my new video card. Comparing FOV and FPS isn't even the same book. :p

[SKYeXile]

1920 x 1200 monitors are hereby banned as they give more view than a standard 1920x1080 monitor.

also, 3 screens =/= 180

also while you have a large FOV, everything in your crosshair is smaller so its harder to aim, I always play planetside on the lowest 16x10 resolution available, so everything is fucking huge and i can hit it much easier than if i was playing at 1920 x 1200.

extra FOV dont mean shit when your accuracy is twice as good.

[Chaff]

1920 x 1200 monitors are hereby banned as they give more view than a standard 1920x1080 monitor.

also, 3 screens =/= 180

also while you have a large FOV, everything in your crosshair is smaller so its harder to aim, I always play planetside on the lowest 16x10 resolution available, so everything is fucking huge and i can hit it much easier than if i was playing at 1920 x 1200.

extra FOV dont mean shit when your accuracy is twice as good.


ENVY is not a legitimate reason to hate on others. If someone can afford a better system with better FOV, FPS, it's relative to the real world. I think someone's crying without sufficient fact to support their rant. People are too quick to cry over perceived or imaginary imbalance. chillax. Stuff gets worked out in-game.

In some instances I'm sure better FPS or FOV yields some measurable advantage. I doubt it's enough to worry about. In situations where LOTS of bullets are flying across your screen from EVERY angle - it's solely about hand-eye, reflexes, and game skill/knowledge.

My assumption is that not many of the best players in PS (1 or 2) also have gaming rigs in the top 1% of the gaming population.

I've never run 3 monitors. I'm not sure a 180 FOV would benefit me - "seeing"
more threats (or targets) may cause me to hesitate more. The more you hesttate - the more you die.

This is much ado about nothing. I want a good system, lots of memory, nice video card, nice monitor(s) .... NOT so I can kill or survive better - but so I can have A DEEPER IMMERSION INTO THE AURAXIAN WORLD.

I'll still die a lot -because I'm just not anywhwere near on par with the upper-eschelon or elite players of PS. Maybe some of them have ultra-extreme rigs. Whatever. More power to 'em.

The things that MOST bring down my enjoyment of PS are WHINERS, CHEATERS, and ARROGANT A-HOLES.

I hate getting POWNER over-and-over by the same guy(s). I've gotten somewhat used to it. I still have fun - especially when I play with others who aren't wankers, but also don't settle for stupid or lame teamwork.

............and, YES TO JOYSTICK (and multi-monitor) support.
.

[RedKnights]

Admittedly, the crosshairs are only much smaller if you have a high resolution small monitor, I guess that all depends on the size of the screens themselves. (AKA Pixel Density)

Either way Zulthus and Talek, if the field of view isn't different depending on people's screen width you get awkward stretching and shapes do not appear as they should the wider, or less wide, your screen is. Heck someone with a single 2.39:1 Cinematic screen will have a wider FOV relative to a standard 16:9 Monitor. If it's not adjusted you'll have awkward shape artifacts, circles being ellipses, that kind of thing. However, seeing as SOE is partnered with Nvidia, I think we are guaranteed multiple monitors will be supported, along with 3D support. And by definition, they have to offer a wider field of view. n the CURRENT planetside people playing at wider resolutions have wider FOV's, so nothing really changes.

However if it's any consolation I think it will be nearly impossible to run Planetside 2 at those large extreme resolutions, at least with current GPU's based on Higby's single GTX 580 having only 48FPS on a single 1920x1200 screen.

In other news I do hope that having a joystick for an aircraft will be more viable than not. I knew a few people who played with a joystick and the way the aircraft behaved, like helicopters, it always seemed like a disadvantage to be using a control mechanism intended for a standard airplane as you could perform maneuvers that are hard to do on a joystick, relatively speaking.

[SKYeXile]

Admittedly, the crosshairs are only much smaller if you have a high resolution small monitor, I guess that all depends on the size of the screens themselves. (AKA Pixel Density)

Either way Zulthus and Talek, if the field of view isn't different depending on people's screen width you get awkward stretching and shapes do not appear as they should the wider, or less wide, your screen is. Heck someone with a single 2.39:1 Cinematic screen will have a wider FOV relative to a standard 16:9 Monitor. If it's not adjusted you'll have awkward shape artifacts, circles being ellipses, that kind of thing. However, seeing as SOE is partnered with Nvidia, I think we are guaranteed multiple monitors will be supported, along with 3D support. And by definition, they have to offer a wider field of view. n the CURRENT planetside people playing at wider resolutions have wider FOV's, so nothing really changes.

However if it's any consolation I think it will be nearly impossible to run Planetside 2 at those large extreme resolutions, at least with current GPU's based on Higby's single GTX 580 having only 48FPS on a single 1920x1200 screen.

In other news I do hope that having a joystick for an aircraft will be more viable than not. I knew a few people who played with a joystick and the way the aircraft behaved, like helicopters, it always seemed like a disadvantage to be using a control mechanism intended for a standard airplane as you could perform maneuvers that are hard to do on a joystick, relatively speaking.

this is where 3 you get 3 gtx 580s.

[MockZero2]

ENVY is not a legitimate reason to hate on others. If someone can afford a better system with better FOV, FPS, it's relative to the real world. I think someone's crying without sufficient fact to support their rant. People are too quick to cry over perceived or imaginary imbalance. chillax. Stuff gets worked out in-game.

I don't think ENVY has a thing to do with this. I think we all just want as BALANCED a game as we can get. That way when you get killed it was because the guy did something better then you. Not because he has more monitors or a nicer machine.

I think buying some badass gun in a cash shop wouldn't be any different then spending the money of some 3 monitor badass rig to give you an advantage. I haven't seen anybody on these forumes saying they want more powerful weapons for purchase in a cash shop. I have seen people saying they would even pay a small monthly fee before paying for better guns in a cash shop. This tells me people want a BALANCED skill based game experience. This tells me we have a playerbase that wants an balanced game.

So if you think you should get better FOV if you have the money to sink into it then do you also think you should be able to buy better guns in game? Atleast with the guns it's getting money to SOE which might help with content, instead of Nvidia or ATI with the card
.



Oh and I really do want multi monitor support for additional hud, map, or command tools. I think it would a huge addition no other game has that I can think of.

[beekergunship]

I play PS on three screens. First with a TripleHead2Go, then a GTX 590.

I get no advantage, just immersion.

I still instantly die at the sight of a Jackhammer.

[Zulthus]

Well, I'll put it this way. If there is no way to change the default FOV, more power to the people who want to use their huge setup. More money wasted on extra monitors should not equal an advantage in who sees who first.

[Justaman]

I don't have a problem with there being multi-monitor support. As long as they have a free look feature with hot-key able controls, so that someone with a single monitor will have almost equal of an advantage using their free-look hot-key or 3rd party peripheral to look around.

[beekergunship]

If joytick support is coming, I request a profile be created for the HOTAS UI.

If the aero model is going to separate the men from the boys, support it that way.

[VioletZero]

Fine with it as long as it doesn't increase field of view.

Large monitors and using multiple monitors aren't in regular enough use to justify letting richer people have a notable advantage over others.

As for Joystick support, I feel that this is not only good, but necessary.

Trying to control an aircraft with mouse and keyboard, while not impossible to do it well, but is much harder.

And given how there will be dedicated aircraft pilots, this would be a love letter to them.

Right now it is even preferable to control an aircraft with keys instead of your mouse.

[Sirisian]

I honestly don't have a problem with multiple monitors or a large field of view. Take a competitive game like Tribes Ascend which allows any field of view and resolution. Never heard anyone complain about that. Personally I'll just be using the default FOV on my 1920x1080 screen.

Fine with it as long as it doesn't increase field of view.

You kind of need to. Games look odd when stretched over a large horizontal area with the default FOV. I'm reminded of the videos on youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=552lpgUNp3o

[Zulthus]

Well, too bad for them. Your eyes don't wrap around your head so you shouldn't be able to have more than a 70 degree FOV at most. You shouldn't be able to see everything around you at once. Play it normal on one monitor or live with having paid more money for a skewed image.

[VioletZero]

Playing with such a field of view on one monitor is not fun.

Putting it on multiple monitors gives an advantage to people who have better technology that isn't widely adopted.

[Kaotc]

Well, too bad for them. Your eyes don't wrap around your head so you shouldn't be able to have more than a 70 degree FOV at most. You shouldn't be able to see everything around you at once. Play it normal on one monitor or live with having paid more money for a skewed image.

but you can see more than 70deg out of your eyes..... unless you have some crazy tunnel vision.
from the very edge of the left to the very edge of the right your looking through 100deg of vision, if not more. why not allow us to have a realistic FOV

The reason games are set to a narrow field of view is because we play them on 1 monitor, and if they had a standard FOV, it would look all shit and compressed, just like running 70FOV on a triple monitor setup looks all shit and stretched

having 3 monitors doesn't allow you to see everything at once, as you like to keep trying to point out.... it just enhances immersion, and allows your peripheral vision to be part of the game


ps. i dont have a triple monitor setup

[VioletZero]

Yes, because being able to see more people out of the corner of your eye than others is TOTALLY not an advantage.

[Kaotc]

did i say it was not an advantage? no, I said it does not let you see everything at once, as you portray.

think about 3D quality sound. games support 7.1 surround sound these days, that is a DISTINCT advantage over those using their monitor's speakers. Allowing users to pin point exactly where those footsteps came from, just using the sound available? i think that is the same advantage as using a triple monitor setup to utilise the users peripheral vision.

[Zulthus]

did i say it was not an advantage? no, I said it does not let you see everything at once, as you portray.

think about 3D quality sound. games support 7.1 surround sound these days, that is a DISTINCT advantage over those using their monitor's speakers. Allowing users to pin point exactly where those footsteps came from, just using the sound available? i think that is the same advantage as using a triple monitor setup to utilise the users peripheral vision.

Yet it's still an advantage. The default FOV in most FPS nowadays is 60, and even then you can see plenty. The thing about sound is, it isn't a DISTINCT advantage like you say it is. Being able to see much more than the next person because you have three monitors is a much, much more obvious advantage, and even more still since some games don't even have footstep sounds. PS1 didn't. Not even in the same ballpark kind of advantage.

There's nothing wrong with playing at 70 degrees. It's a game, not real life, therefore it doesn't have to make sense. It's balance. You can play it on one of your monitors and have a perfect, crystal clear image or you can play it skewed on three monitors because you so choose.

[TheBladeRoden]

90 is the standard FOV I use on a single monitor

[Yetiee]

Higby tweeted a pic of a joystick and some pedals saying he was looking forward to trying them on a reaver.

[stordito]

i'd love to have joystick support (i've a Saitek x52).

[Chaff]

whatever
boohooohooo

....someone has something I can't afford.....waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.....sniffle....

I doubt I'll ever wonder if I died to someone else because they ran more monitors than I was willing or able to. It sure sounds like ENVY.

Guys can deny it, but their crying gives them away. The game is not even running yet.

When we had our satellites running during Desert Storm - it was pretty much like shooting fish in a barrel. Our technological superiority was due to us being a more advanced country in that regard. What ? Was the US Army supposed to be limited to blindfolded homing pidgeons in order to "make it fair" ? War - even a FPS game - is all about finding and exploiting a strength or weakness. Too many perceived advantages are us as players simply being unwilling or unable to accept someone got the better of us.

3-monitors is NOT cheating in my book.

I don't cry when I'm passed by an Escalade or Bentley on the freeway. I assume the person is making more money than me. It's a capitalistic country here in the good ol USA.

The number of triple-monitor rigs in PS2 is likely to be insignificant percentage-wise.

People get powned. Facing a more-skilled player, aimbots, triple-monitors ? ......

I don't know that it's been unequivically proven to be an advantage. Even if it is, it's not like 90% of the player base has it and I don't.

If I'm in a game where 90% can afford a better platform than me - than I should go into Windows and play Solitaire.

If I can't afford it, or if I'm "too smart" to spend my money on it ..... EVERYONE else must dumbdown their system to match mine ? ....... same mouse, same everything......of course, opposing players are allowed to have systems WORSE than mine. I'd be "okay" with that.

"IT"S ONLY A GAME"....therefore, it's undestandable and justifiable that I come unglued over anyone else having something different ..... or God-Forbid even .00021% better than me.

waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aa !

Whiners suck
.

[Chaff]

.
My opinion is that if Zulthus (or anyone else here) won a new PC system with good specs/components and came with a nice triple-monitor setup that:

1) They'd probably dig it and learn to LOVE it
2) They'd feel lucky to have it
3) 98% of their kills would STILL be because the BETTER player won - NOT due to the FOV of 3-monitors.
4) The increased IMMERSION would be what they notice and appreciate the most

How many "AVOIDED DEATH"S a wider FOV might yield a player - that's the only real question I have. I'm curious how that could accurately be measured.

I'd like to play such a system for 2 or 3 months to find out what I really thought of it. I'd have to play such a setup to have any chance at learning how it affected my survival, death, and kill percentages.

My gut tells me that IMMERSION into the Auraxian World would be 98% of my appreciation of a triple-monitor setup. It looks to be a beautiful game. Seeing more of it would be where any increased enjoyment would come from. I doubt my K/D would change much.

I'd probably die MORE while staring at sunsets and all the new special effects and better game mechanics and eye candy.

[DviddLeff]

7.1 surround sound would be far more of an advantage as you can hear what's going on behind you; it's certainly helped me a lot over the years.

I really want a triple monitor setup as well in the future, purely for the immersion.

Obviously it costs more intially but you also have to consider that not all games will support it and if you want to keep playing with them in the future you will have to upgrade your pc sooner than you would otherwise. This extra future cost is what is putting me off the idea at the moment (not that I can afford three new monitors,or the pc I would need to run them!).

[FastAndFree]

Also, I guess triple monitors are not as useful as we expect them to be.
How much space can one watch at the same time, really?
When I was rewatching my recorded PS sessions I was surprised just how much one can miss even on a single 24" screen

But hey if people want to turn their heads instead of their mouse when they want to look slightly left or right, who am I to stop them


Excited about the joystick news, Higby delivers again!