Originally Posted by Xyntech
Let's see how far this derails the thread with bitter hatred for me:
You know what these aircraft really need? Iron sites.
Alright, now on to my actual idea (which people may still hate me for  )
Here we see an image from inside an F18. If you were to center the camera a little, it would be pretty close to what the pilot would be able to see, and would take up maybe half as much of the screen space as the current Mosquito cockpit view. More over it provides a much clearer view of the ground except in the middle of the picture.
One problem with this view, if it were what we saw inside the Mosquito, is that it has too broad a viewing angle and would make it much harder to engage targets at longer range. This is actually one of the issues that iron sites (when done well) seeks to solve. Allowing players to have a wider viewing angle when dealing with closer targets, then zooming in a little bit to simulate focusing on more distant targets.
What I would propose is that pilots be given two in cockpit views to toggle between. One view would be more like the F18 picture (with more viewable area than the current skeeter cockpit view), and the other being more zoomed in, like this:
Only with the cross hairs more centered and without that big red thing.
By default, the same control that toggled iron sights could be used to toggle between these two views, so it would be easier for new players to learn, although it should be able to be customized separately. Maybe the zoomed in view would be the default position, while the pulled back view would automatically switch you to free look.
If the free look were good enough, it may cut out a lot of (not all of) the need for a 3rd person view.
Obviously the viewing angles would have to be adjusted so that the zoomed in view wasn't quite as bad as it is in my hastily cropped example, but essentially what it would hopefully do is give a in cockpit view that was almost as good as a completely unobscured view.
Most of the work for the idea should already be done if the devs already have freelook inside the cockpit included. All it would require is figuring the best positioning the the camera inside the cockpit and the best viewing angles for zoomed out and zoomed in. |
I gotta say, I like and respect you Xyntech.
But... Why bother with this? It's the same trade off as everything else suggested. Why couldn't we just keep the cockpit and people who want to avoid looking at it can play at x2 zoom while flying? And just not use the free look?
People just want more visibility for the sake of personal performance. I couldn't care less how they want to spin it, that's what it boils down to.
Originally Posted by elfailo
@blackwolf
How's that not a real counterpoint? It may be a cliché you've heard before, but that doesn't make it any less valid.
You're saying it doesn't make sense to have it this or that way because it would be inconceivable or improbable in real life and therefor we shouldn't have it. I'm saying that these decisions shouldn't be weighed against whether it makes sense in real life, but whether it makes sense in-game, which is a completely different realm because it's built entirely on rules we created.
More generally, if you limit video game design by what's possible or probable in real life, you're pretty much destroying it as an art form. You're creating a smaller and smaller box with fewer possibilities for creativity. That's why you see that cliché so often, because a lot of people are getting pretty tired of seeing Battlefailed clones dominate the FPS genre.
If realism had always dictated video game design, Doom would have never existed. Without Doom, Tribes would have never existed, and without Tribes, Planetside 1 would have never existed.
|
Name several key similarities that virtually all games have. I promise you that every single one of these similarities are based on realistic values.
Ranged weapons require ammo, or some other issue that prevents them from being able to sustain fire (heat, whatever). Armor provides protection but doesn't make you invulnerable. There are little inconveniences and problems everywhere you look in games. Challenges that must be met and overcome. All of them are based on realistic values and realism in general.
Games that aren't based on these values are typically made for 6 year olds. And every time we ignore one of these realistic values, the game dumbs itself down for younger or less mature crowds.
It's not whether the game is real or not. You, like everyone before you who have used the same argument, need to stop confusing "realistic" with "real".
I'm not saying it's inconceivable or improbable. I'm saying reality doesn't work like that. Things aren't suppose to be perfectly optimal for your ability, taste, or preference. You can't get rid of certain irritations and yes they will cost you your life at times.
Which brings up a derp-a-derp check for you. I play and will play a game where soldiers are immortal, and you are questioning my reasoning on reality. Could it be there's more to this concept then just whether or not something is inconceivable or improbable?