Jump to content
Han

Developer Diary, Part 151 - Discussion

Recommended Posts

Like Sshadow claims to have..?

 

I think it's also a poor idea to limit customers who have made the capital investment to own the latest hardware.

 

Would you agree to the principle of having an aircraft available with better performance compared to every other one, yet at such a price that excludes 90% of people who own BoS? but say it is fine for those who made the capital investment

 

I fully agree with an improvement to draw distance, but if it is only accessible/available to a limited few with playable FR's then this is not a level playing field

 

There is always a certain advantage with better equipment, but to have a physically greater view distance only for some, is a far bigger thing than achieving better quality with higher hardware

 

Parity with view distance must be achievable with low, mid and high end computers, just with a low end computer compromises should/will have to be made regarding graphic quality and FPS to a reasonable level

 

having an adjustable view distance available to only a few makes as much sense as a Racing Sim where the cars go faster only if you have a top end PC, it is that much of a fundamental part of combat sim

 

Cheers Dakpilot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You want more draw distance, expect framerate drop.

 

Jason

We could buy some draw distance with the framerates gained in DX11 upgrade. I agree it should be optional like a slider or something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is all why I suggest we compromise and go with a 10km cylinder.

 

It will give us the same draw distance at ground level as we have now, but a longer one at higher altitudes where frame rates are usually lower anyway and rigs can take the framerate hit.

 

It also helps out bombers, which was the original reason for starting this particular discussion.


But it also keeps everyone the same, so there won't be the issue of one person having a better spot distance than anyone else

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

-snip-

 

I fully agree with an improvement to draw distance, but if it is only accessible/available to a limited few with playable FR's then this is not a level playing field

 

-snip-

 

Sorry Dak but that's a little melodramatic.

 

Also, the comparison between a unique aircraft or w/e is an apples to oranges comparison.

Edited by Space_Ghost

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You want more draw distance, expect framerate drop.

 

Jason

I have plenty of them after dx11 upgrade as most of us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree Gambit. (Also with Blitz Pig).

Again it comes down to what we want and are we willing to Pay for It ? I don't just mean money.

The Devs are a small team. They don't have a huge Budget. They have to write the Sim to run on all kinds of Rigs.

I am very lucky to be one of the community that can afford to have a 2017 Rig that is pretty much "Top of the Range" at the moment...(I hope I said that with Humility).

So, like you, I would be glad to lose FPS to extend the "Bubble"...I don't like the "bubble" as it is.

But one thing that annoys me is when Pilots Demand that Devs Make Improvements that "Must" be Backward Compatible. So they have a 3 year old Rig and they want Devs to improve Draw distance for them...When the FPS drops, They will call it a Slide Show.

These Pilots Don't look at their own Hardware....They just want the 2017 Software to Run Flawlessly with 2014 Hardware.... After-all , they paid for the Sim in 2014 , they want all the Improvements in BOX going forward...They Want VR Now !

I think some Pilots need to "Get- Real".

EDIT, I have an Old Nokia phone in the Drawer...Maybe I should ask the why I cant see any Video in 1080 on it ?

Those with older pc-s If they choose draw distance to max might have to reduce other tasking gfx option or go from ultra preset to balanced. Some like il2 attackers would choose gfx instade draw distance - all will be happy. Edited by 307_Tomcat
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wouldn't multi-player then devolve into "pay to win" where those with the best video cards have a significant competitive advantage?

Nonsense, but if you have full hotas and Uber smooth PC and versing against poor guy with old PC and duck taped joystick are you best suited for win? If this guy is Mr.X - not :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

40 FPS is not really acceptable or a standard to even consider aiming for in 2017

 

Dumbing down graphics quality in 2017 is not a recipe for commercial success either

 

In a combat flight sim where identifying your enemy first is the biggest advantage, having a situation where owners of mid range equipment are at a disadvantage and people with $700 GPU and latest and fastest CPU can spot targets earlier will lead to disaster, and only owners of top range equipment playing online, of course online is only a part of the big picture, but if the majority are constantly out flown because of better spotting not better flying/tactics the backlash will be justifiably huge

 

currently owners of mid range equipment can turn down many graphic niceties, but still get the same core experience/equal playing field at acceptable frame rates

 

having a slider or option allowing for enhanced view distance only for 'some' with playable frame rates is not a good idea at all, it is no different than having a "beneficial Hack" available for use by only a select few

 

Cheers Dakpilot

 

Come off it, RoF has exactly this feature, I am aware of loads of MP complaints - there are so many - but not this one. 

 

Spotting is influenced by frame rate, screen resolution, graphics options, use or otherwise of TiR, or even by having friends on teamspeak. A huge range of options that people can use or not as they wish - without causing "a disaster" for MP.

 

More importantly, the majority of payers - who never play MP at all I understand - should not have the capabilities of their game ruined by arbitrary restrictions imposed so that a few e-sports prima donnas do not make a fuss about a largely imaginary disadvantage. As the team has already said, the engine can render to any distance. I take most design/theatre/plane choices in my stride - it is only a game - but one thing that does make me genuinely angry is having MP people lobbying to force me to accept limits to how I can use the capabilities the game already has, particularly when they do it using arguments as fatuous as this.

 

I play mostly fighters or ground attack, so I am less affected than the bomber boys, but any thought of bothering with medium altitude bombing missions is immediately discarded since I know that will be unable to line up on the targets. Jason and the boys have to get this sorted in some way or finding ships in the Pacific will be a joke.

  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd take slightly worse trees, rivers or whatever in order to be able to see the bombers target buildings.

 

Personally, the visibility of aircraft I can live with, even if not realistic, but what is the point in there being level bombing in the game if you can't use it effectively?

 

PS. Play to win surely only can be thrown at MP. What if I want to simply fly my he111 offline. This game is not only about MP, or is it?

It's not about trees or other terrain futures making any difference in performance because at that distance they are replaced by lod texture. Edited by 307_Tomcat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is only two things going to increase the multiplayer numbers and that is PTO and VR, A slight increase in Kuban map maybe, There will not be a decrease in numbers caused by demand of better pc, for my sake I keep the old mill until I have to replace it. As long as I can fly DCS and BOS in adequate settings I keep it. You might find servers for mediocre settings in the future also.

Personally I might stop flying BOS for a while if graphic improves, but that would just be temporary, and I think that goes for many. I can see why dogfight enthusiast go for new equipment, I lagged in TrackIr if tings go to dense , really not that much of a problem in a bomber

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to agree with unreasonable.

The devs have said that the goal here is to get as close to realism as possible and "game balance" is not a pillar of their design philosophy.

 

If a server wants to go for "game balance" using the tools the devs provide, then they're free to do so, but it is not the simulator's concern.

 

People that are here for esport competition type air combat gameplay are in the wrong place

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

40 FPS is not really acceptable or a standard to even consider aiming for in 2017

 

Dumbing down graphics quality in 2017 is not a recipe for commercial success either

 

In a combat flight sim where identifying your enemy first is the biggest advantage, having a situation where owners of mid range equipment are at a disadvantage and people with $700 GPU and latest and fastest CPU can spot targets earlier will lead to disaster, and only owners of top range equipment playing online, of course online is only a part of the big picture, but if the majority are constantly out flown because of better spotting not better flying/tactics the backlash will be justifiably huge

 

currently owners of mid range equipment can turn down many graphic niceties, but still get the same core experience/equal playing field at acceptable frame rates

 

having a slider or option allowing for enhanced view distance only for 'some' with playable frame rates is not a good idea at all, it is no different than having a "beneficial Hack" available for use by only a select few

 

Cheers Dakpilot

Way to exaggerate, this won't work like that, I know many who dumb down all gfx option to have better spotting - like they blure out terrain for contacts to be more in contrast and pop out . Any way that draw distance option wouldn't be costing 75 % of current fps on all systems then it would be just for few. Go from ultra to high in my opinion. We just need 5-6 km more not 60..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we should have a full controller like RoF. So anyone can set up graphics to their preference.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we should have a full controller like RoF. So anyone can set up graphics to their preference.

 

That would certainly be very nice, especially with support coming for VR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we should have a full controller like RoF. So anyone can set up graphics to their preference.

 

A lot of us have been saying this for years.

 

Loft was against it. As far as I'm concerned, this position needs to change sooner or later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Way to exaggerate, this won't work like that, I know many who dumb down all gfx option to have better spotting - like they blure out terrain for contacts to be more in contrast and pop out . Any way that draw distance option wouldn't be costing 75 % of current fps on all systems then it would be just for few. Go from ultra to high in my opinion. We just need 5-6 km more not 60..

 

I fully agree that if it were possible to turn down some graphic options and access a new further draw distance is no problem

 

however if you are unable to get a playable frame rate at the max setting of draw distance on a moderate PC this IS a big issue

 

In RoF you will get decent playability at max draw distance setting..it is not an issue for any reasonable PC

 

My only point is if you allow a setting whereby people with top line PC's to have visibility at 15k and mid range PC can only see at 10K this is a very fundamental issue, as always there are PC spec limits/recommendations, and if you play on a netbook your experience will be less

 

But people who want to have the option to access a longer view range than others can achieve on the average PC is a strange attitude

 

currently some play on ultra and others low, but the finite useable view distance is the same for everyone

 

If there is possibility for a longer view range it has to be useable for the vast majority of all players even if it is at reduced graphic quality, but the 'new' render distance cannot be only for a few, as some people seem to feel is acceptable

 

Cheers Dakpilot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If there is possibility for a longer view range it has to be useable for the vast majority of all players even if it is at reduced graphic quality, but the 'new' render distance cannot be only for a few, as some people seem to feel is acceptable

 

Cheers Dakpilot

 

Well I guess people could choose a lower graphics level and a higher draw range and play with alright frames if they want it that way. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

But people who want to have the option to access a longer view range than others can achieve on the average PC is a strange attitude

 

 

If there is possibility for a longer view range it has to be useable for the vast majority of all players even if it is at reduced graphic quality, but the 'new' render distance cannot be only for a few, as some people seem to feel is acceptable

 

 

Why is it a strange attitude? Like many people I have spent loads of money on kit for gaming in order to enjoy the best possible experience I can have. I do not do it so that it is "longer than others" - but purely for my solitary enjoyment. If other people wish to make different trade offs that is their concern.

 

When ULTRA settings were introduced they were only usable by a few. VR is only usable by a few. Why should higher view distance be usable immediately by the "vast majority" of players? No doubt in 2-3 years they will be, tech advancing so quickly.

 

This is whole line of reasoning totally illogical. Nothing is fair in MP, and it is absurd to limit everyone to a manifestly unsatisfactory limit that can easily be increased.

 

BoS needs to deal with the problem of inadequate view distances.  The obvious way to do it is the method that worked perfectly well for RoF, but if it takes some other method that is fine.  I have supported this title through all the nonsense of unlocks, player levels and the "all must have the same experience" nonsense in the hope that the developers would come to their senses, which they did.   But I am not going to continue to subsidize MP play if the SP part of the market is not given due consideration.

 

edit - rant over - time for bed :)

Edited by unreasonable

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we should have a full controller like RoF. So anyone can set up graphics to their preference.

 

A lot of us have been saying this for years.

 

Loft was against it. As far as I'm concerned, this position needs to change sooner or later.

 

Well I guess people could choose a lower graphics level and a higher draw range and play with alright frames if they want it that way. 

 

+1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The guy with the old PC and duc taped joystick has either learned to compensate for his disadvantage or stopped playing the game. You are now proposing to introduce a serious very serious competitive disadvantage to people who own old rigs. They will either be forced to upgrade or quit playing. Take a look at the server numbers for the TAW campaign to see what happens when people feel they are forced to play at a competive disadvantage. You may get a nice experience for yourselves if this change is made but you may.not have enough people to fly against. I can afford a new PC and video card but I am very nervous about what this would do to multi-player numbers, particularly in my time zone.

 

This should not be considered until Full COOP missions are supported. Then people could set the playing field parameters for the private game. Public servers should support the lowest supported denominator.

 

Nonsense, but if you have full hotas and Uber smooth PC and versing against poor guy with old PC and duck taped joystick are you best suited for win? If this guy is Mr.X - not :)

Edited by NO_SQDeriku777

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The guy with the old PC and duc taped joystick has either learned to compensate for his disadvantage or stopped playing the game. You are now proposing to introduce a serious very serious competitive disadvantage to people who own old rigs. They will either be forced to upgrade or quit playing. Take a look at the server numbers for the TAW campaign to see what happens when people feel they are forced to play at a competive disadvantage. You may get a nice experience for yourselves if this change is made but you may.not have enough people to fly against. I can afford a new PC and video card but I am very nervous about what this would do to multi-player numbers, particularly in my time zone.

 

This should not be considered until Full COOP missions are supported. Then people could set the playing field parameters for the private game. Public servers should support the lowest supported denominator.

 

 

I'm being made to play at a competitive disadvantage by not being allowed to increase my draw distance despite the fact that I have the overhead to do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The guy with the old PC and duc taped joystick has either learned to compensate for his disadvantage or stopped playing the game. You are now proposing to introduce a serious very serious competitive disadvantage to people who own old rigs. They will either be forced to upgrade or quit playing. Take a look at the server numbers for the TAW campaign to see what happens when people feel they are forced to play at a competive disadvantage. You may get a nice experience for yourselves if this change is made but you may.not have enough people to fly against. I can afford a new PC and video card but I am very nervous about what this would do to multi-player numbers, particularly in my time zone.

 

This should not be considered until Full COOP missions are supported. Then people could set the playing field parameters for the private game. Public servers should support the lowest supported denominator.

 

 

You can't get it, I don't propose what you said to contrary I propose options to all kinds of hardware. I was trying to showing you that there will be always ones who have better gfx, PC monitor, track ir etc this thing are working in behalf owners, but you can't deny it. Higher Draw distance is needed to all players across all hardware.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a bit disappointing. So we get new water but nothing that interacts with it ?

 

I said elsewhere https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/28013-moar-h16-loadouts/?do=findComment&comment=449399 that we should at least get parachute mines/air dropped sea mines. I think they would be an interesting variation and not incredibly difficult to

 

implement...

 

Imagine trapping the destroyer or other vessels with sea mines....

Come now... our planes will dramatically interact with the water when we they go down in flames into it. :salute:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The logic of this statement escapes me. Anyway, the Devs have said no to this in the past. They won't do anything that would impact the Russian market in such a severe way. The most popular multi-players servers are hosted in Russia and cater to a large Russian player base that may not have high end equipment. Until PTO comes out I doubt we are going to see a view distance change.

 

 

I'm being made to play at a competitive disadvantage by not being allowed to increase my draw distance despite the fact that I have the overhead to do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I consider tanks / boats not necessary in a air combat sim too. I only suggested to work on tanks instead of boats as they already did some nice work on tanks and

for all three theatres (BOS, BOM and BOK) tanks were more involved and key elements in the battle. Just my thoughts...

Agreed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that would be nicely solved by having proper graphics options. Slider to choose drawing distance. More advanced options are still coming, right?

This +++

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where is that decisive disadvantage?Because I don't see it. Literally ;)

 

You can spot perfectly fine enemy planes at 10 km draw distance max. So people with higher view distance MIGHT see the planes a little earlier, but a target that is 10 km away is 10 km away and you don't teleport there.

 

Those who will be affected most by it are bombers and fighters looking for bombers. And this is where this range extension is needed.

 

The only problem I really see is the tracers shining bright in bright daylight 15km away..

 

Apart from that we do not even know how much fps loss we would be seeing.

 

 

I don't want people to experience severe disadvantages, but I think that point is over exaggerated here..

Edited by 216th_Jordan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm being made to play at a competitive disadvantage by not being allowed to increase my draw distance despite the fact that I have the overhead to do it.

 

The point is that you are not being made to play at a competitive disadvantage, it is a level playing field, even when comparing Ultra to low, everyone has the same draw distance

 

If you have computer overhead you can use it to get a better graphical experience and smoother FPS in all situations or upgrade to a higher resolution, the draw distance will remain the same though

 

What you are asking for is the ability to have a competitive advantage 

 

The draw distance needs to be addressed in such a way that some people don't see at  15Km and some only at 10km, just like with  the current ultra and low situation we have now, with a new max draw distance (whatever it is) it must be playable for everyone, (within reasonable 'current' recommended min computer specs-which should be updated every few years) be it at ultra or low quality settings

 

Cheers Dakpilot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have 100 FPS+ all the time in CloD, with a mid range system. And there it is 16km draw distance, which isn't optimal, but definitely ok.

Can't be that hard to hit the same performance in BoX, especially with Dx11 now, given that the shaders and overall graphical quality is pretty similar. Otherwise there is some serious issue with the code.

 

DCS 2.0 is way ahead in graphics, has rendering objects over 30km and a draw distance that is long enough to show the curvature of the earth, with minimal haze on the horizon (like it is in real life). And even there i have a constant 60FPS + when i tone some graphics down to "high".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the MP folks are all bent out of shape about how making the draw distance bigger might be some sort of "unfair advantage" for people with better rigs, then why not just make it a lockable setting for MP servers?  That way, we (primarily) SP players can reap the benefits of the hardware we've purchased in order to be able to max out the benefits of the newer games/technologies, but the playing field will still be level for the MP folks regardless of what type of rig they have.  Win-win :)

Edited by TG-55Panthercules

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the MP folks are all bent out of shape about how making the draw distance bigger might be some sort of "unfair advantage" for people with better rigs, then why not just make it a lockable setting for MP servers?  That way, we (primarily) SP players can reap the benefits of the hardware we've purchased in order to be able to max out the benefits of the newer games/technologies, but the playing field will still be level for the MP folks regardless of what type of rig they have.  Win-win :)

 

Would be an idea, but to be honest it's never a level playing field anyway. It's people flying with 40€ flight sticks and keyboard throttle control against 400 bucks Warthog and 300 bucks flight pedals. That makes for a lot bigger advantage then a few km more of draw distance. Don't listen to the hysteric people

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The guy with the old PC and duc taped joystick has either learned to compensate for his disadvantage or stopped playing the game. You are now proposing to introduce a serious very serious competitive disadvantage to people who own old rigs. They will either be forced to upgrade or quit playing. Take a look at the server numbers for the TAW campaign to see what happens when people feel they are forced to play at a competive disadvantage. You may get a nice experience for yourselves if this change is made but you may.not have enough people to fly against. I can afford a new PC and video card but I am very nervous about what this would do to multi-player numbers, particularly in my time zone.

 

This should not be considered until Full COOP missions are supported. Then people could set the playing field parameters for the private game. Public servers should support the lowest supported denominator.

 

 

Hi SQ, Are you saying a Pilot with a Pentium 4 and Riva Tnt should be catered for by the Devs when writing the game ?

"Forced to Upgrade or Quit"....Yes..... I  would have loved to stay with DOS. I didn't like this "Windows" Thing. But games were no longer written in DOS. So I Had to upgrade or Quit.

Windows XP I loved and didn't want to upgrade ! Guess what, I upgraded or Quit !.. I upgraded..

I have had to upgrade my Tv, my Phone, my Banking, my Bill Paying and all the things we have to do in 2017....I could have Quit and I would be watching my Sports on a Cathode ray Tube TV for example.(And I would have to get up out of the chair to Click the Channel Over.)And whilst I am there I may Fiddle with the Antenna to try and get rid of the Snow)....So YES, if You choose to Play Computer games as a Hobby, you are going to have to  upgrade very 3 or 4 years... or you could Quit.

Whats this  about MP and "Competitive Advantage". Thousands have purchased BOX. Hundreds (at best) fly MP...The Bubble affects the SP Playing a Mission the same as it does a MP in the Server.

 

Man,you want to stay in the Dark Ages and you want every one else to stay there With you.

"Nervous About you Time zone" ? I live in the Quietest Timezone for BOX. (Australia). I don't know how improving BOX is going to change that one way or another.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a bit funny considering some of the points made here regarding 'upgrade or quit' were of little concern when Dx12 and a forceupgrade to Windows 10 was in discussion.

 

Anyway, most sim games use draw distance settings. Arma does, DCS does, ect. Increasing the draw distance for ground objects for lets say 1km (which would already improve a lot!) is nothing overly ressource intensive while adding much more to the game. Same for the haze, just give the terrain lods a little lift like people in the comunity did already by tweaking the terrain.cfg and you can reduce it. Same for the 'glowy horizon' that renders horizontal view at 5+km useless because all you can see is a glowy stripe.

 

Dx11 has opened the door to graphical improvements, it's just a matter of going threw or staying with the convinient old graphical framework.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just change the sphere to a cylinder?

 

That will keep everyone on the same play field and it will help bombing at higher altitudes.

 

I also think the benefit of it will be well worth losing a few frames, especially since planes at low altitude should keep roughly the same frame rate, and planes higher up usually get higher frame rate anyway so they're able to take a bit more of a frame rate hit.

 

Obviously there's a heavy divide between keeping things the same and making render distance a user editable option, so why not go with this compromise?

Edited by 71st_AH_Scojo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Idk but if you are worried about someone having an "unfair advantage" in MP they probably would beat you regardless. Maybe practice more. Holding back on features just to please a few people who refuse to upgrade their equipment is a recipe for failure and I seriously doubt that factors into the dev decisions about it. If you want to stay at top graphics levels on an old garbage computer stay with '46. It was made for 15 years old computers anyway. If you want to play new modern games get newer modern hardware.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just change the sphere to a cylinder?

 

That will keep everyone on the same play field and it will help bombing at higher altitudes.

 

I also think the benefit of it will be well worth losing a few frames, especially since planes at low altitude should keep roughly the same frame rate, and planes higher up usually get higher frame rate anyway so they're able to take a bit more of a frame rate hit.

 

Obviously there's a heavy divide between keeping things the same and making render distance a user editable option, so why not go with this compromise?

Sure it would help, but of course it would be nice to be able to see the targets more than 10km out. (while the cylinder is an improvement that should in theory be as efficient as the bubble with greater results - it would still not make too much of a difference in total) I'd opt for both. :biggrin: In my opinion if everyone should have the same draw distance for multiplayer it should still be upped (lets say 14km if performance allows). There could be tests before that evaluate the performance loss on different systems and put them into perspective. With a fixed Multiplayer Draw distance there could still be a selectable one for singleplayer.

 

I'd say lets test and see ;)

Anyways I absolutely understand if this stuff needs to wait still.

Edited by 216th_Jordan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure it would help, but of course it would be nice to be able to see the targets more than 10km out. (while the cylinder is an improvement that should in theory be as efficient as the bubble with greater results - it would still not make too much of a difference in total) I'd opt for both. :biggrin: In my opinion if everyone should have the same draw distance for multiplayer it should still be upped (lets say 14km if performance allows). There could be tests before that evaluate the performance loss on different systems and put them into perspective. With a fixed Multiplayer Draw distance there could still be a selectable one for singleplayer.

 

I'd say lets test and see ;)

Anyways I absolutely understand if this stuff needs to wait still.

Yes, but changing it to a cylinder is better than nothing, and it sounds like a lot of people would encourage the devs to go with nothing, so why not just go with the cylinder as it would make some improvements while not stepping on anyone's toes?

 

Then later, we can decide whether to make render distance user changeable

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but changing it to a cylinder is better than nothing, and it sounds like a lot of people would encourage the devs to go with nothing, so why not just go with the cylinder as it would make some improvements while not stepping on anyone's toes?

 

Then later, we can decide whether to make render distance user changeable

 

Because these toes need stepping on good and hard. I am sick and tired of having my options limited by the shrieks of "not fair" from elements of the MP fraternity.

 

Or perhaps "we" should decide what resolution everyone must use while we are at it? And who is this "we" anyway?

 

This whole attitude is unacceptable. It already almost killed the game for SP - now that the corpse shows signs of resurrection the last thing we need is to allow MP to dictate to SP how we should play our game.

 

If the team can come up with some server based visibility limit, fine by me. Let the "we" who are MP based thrash that out the rules of their Hunger Games. But there is no possible justification for nerfing SP just to shut up a few MP whiners.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...