212 replies to this topic

[Buck]

That's no different really than us adding an FOV slider and for the reasons explained it's not a good idea for us. It's pretty much impossible to cater to people's every preference and we would be foolish to try and do that. If we do our job right the vast majority will be happy with the choices we make. 

 

 

This is really frustrating (likely for both us - my apologies).

 

Could you at least explain who was asking for this change or some of why it was needed, especially at this time in PG1's lifecycle?

 

We are fans of the game.  We are customers.  We bought it and continue to support it when you release new paid course DLC and after all this time and with a somewhat slower development cycle (relative to other games), we are all still here.

 

I just find it frustrating that changing something as key as the main player cam, without any recourse or option to choose or discussion or even polling to see what the reaction might be, just "happens".  

 

I understand that larger development studios sometimes do that sort of thing, but I just always felt we had a different situation here given the smaller size of the PP team and the very niche but passionate fans of PG, especially here on the forum.

[Ted_Ball]

Absolute rubbish Mike. 

[Dazmaniac]

If this revised FOV is actually seen as a correction by the Dev's, could this have not been held off until PG2 (working title) as the previous FOV that was in PG didn't seem to be causing any problems for anyone?

 

I don't have a problem with the revision, but from the comments it seems quite a few folks do.

[Buck]

Was the change simply a developer preference?

Did someone in the testing group ask for it?  (Doesn't sound like it based upon this thread at least)

 

I can't imagine it is helpful to performance (it's likely fairly neglible as it's not a 10-20+ FOV degree change, etc), and if anything would be a performance detractor, at least it tends to be in every other game.  More stuff on screen usually means worse performance, not better.

 

Nice FAQ about FOV/Performance impacts in Destiny 2 here:

 

https://www.geforce....2-field-of-view

[Crusher]

Here's the "rub".  No one ever requested MJ or AJ to change the FOV.

 

So my speculation would be that they found an exploit and cannot discuss what it is they found. In that regard, it's logical.  However, if this is suppose to simply "add some polish" to the game, it's nearly ruined the FOV for players who must or want to play at 1366 x 768 or lower resolutions. After all, the game was made for nearly all resolutions.

 

Bummer.

[Buck]

So my speculation would be that they found an exploit and cannot discuss what it is they found. In that regard, it's logical.  

 

Can you elaborate on what you mean?

What sort of exploit could result from the FOV changing (or not) a few degrees?

 

Are you referring to the Console tweaks through the Autoexec file?

Those are still working fine for the FreeCam sensitivities - I really hope that doesn't change to!    

[Buck]

So is this change down to a default FOV of 42 happening at some point at least?

 

 

Oops didn't realise the build had been released to the public until I checked the forum earlier.

 

The FOV increase is probably a little too wide in this build and the sweet sport is around 42. You can test this by using the FOV command in the console but until we push a change it will revert back when the camera moves. The close up view would also benefit from this FOV (42) too as at the moment it's probably a bit too close so the current situation is you have the main view which looks a bit too far away from the golfer and the close up view which is a little too close.

 

 

It sounds like the original Player cam was 40, and the current 1.4.3 build has it at 45 based upon Mailman's console testing

[Acrilix]

I'm as bemused as everyone as to why this FOV change has been brought in at this late stage. It doesn't affect my ability to play, it's just not quite as enjoyable for me, and also makes some things harder to see now.

My guess is that it could have something to do with simulator play on the game as PP seem to be pushing this currently with the release of the simulator trial pass.

[✠ davef ✠]

i'm finding the stormy weather to work nicely looks and feels real nothing to far out of wack

seems to play between 23 and 30 mph. the new head winds are something i have reclubed for

replaced the 7wood with the 5 wood to keep the ball lower to the ground starting to hit a lot of low spin and using the draw and fade to help combat the side to side, also starting to club up a few clubs full lowspin and punching the shots to the green and rolling them up rather then shooting for the pin on the fly. this new wind can be adjusted for in this range but when you get above 35mph it just seems way out there.

[Greensboronclion]

Reboot question.  Is it possible to reboot your PC to lets say Dec 28th before this update and then disable updates in Steam for JNPG and just play the game the way it was before the changes single player not in events?  I know this sounds crazy but it just is no damn fun anymore since this wind crap.  Just want to play the game the way it was and not get anymore updates to the game and yes that takes me out of tournaments but hell at least it will be fun.  Just asking.

[✠ davef ✠]

just don't set the higher winds and play on.

i'm not playing those krazy winds in tourneys either.

looks like just more MP on lighter winds, ok by me can have some fun with it

[Greensboronclion]

Well Dave I just did some changes to my game and we will see what that does and first I scrapped the Caliber and second I scrapped the MS swing.  I went back to my Xbox 360 as I have a natural draw with it but with the shot shaper I seem to play the wind a bit better than the mouse with the MS swing.  I like the MS swing as I have more control with the short game and might play it during calm rounds but when wind is in play I just seem to be able to control the ball off the tee better with the controller.  Its give and take with each swing but that is my advantage of being able to play all the swings that we have pretty well and I have used both during tournaments before so no big deal.  Lets just say if I got to deal with it there is no rule against multiple swings during events so lets have at it.  

[clubcaptain]

If this revised FOV is actually seen as a correction by the Dev's, could this have not been held off until PG2 (working title) as the previous FOV that was in PG didn't seem to be causing any problems for anyone?

 

I don't have a problem with the revision, but from the comments it seems quite a few folks do.

Could be a good compromise BUT what happens when we get to PG2. Will there be any long term change on this and will there be any long term change on other things the devs like but customers have no say about. Wouldn't bank on it.

[Kimmer1947]

As we can move the free cam (F5) to any location and then lock that position for each shot, is it at all possible to add an available camera slot for user preference, or is this as complicated as the FOV slider scenario so also becomes a no-no?

Daz, 

I'm not sure I understand your comments about the free cam (F5). I know how to use the free cam, but I don't know how to "lock" a position for each shot. Would you elaborate, please. Thank you. 

[JCat04]

FOV 34 is really 'zoomed' in compared to the human eye and even a normal 35mm camera lens. Typically games that use one screen have a FOV of between 60 and 90. We try and replicate the scale of things as closely as possible to the Human eye which is why we choose a narrower FOV for the normal view but if you're using an FOV of 34 you're really not seeing it the way it 'is' if you were really there on the course.

 

I can appreciate the effort to replicate the scale of things as closely as possible, but in my opinion, the impression I get from the FOV is mostly how close I'm standing to the golfer to watch him swing.  I don't consciously think about how it might be affecting scale and how I'm not seeing it the way it is if I were really there on the course.  I would think if that's the objective, I'd be seeing things through the eyes of my golfer and would never see a hint of how my golfer looks from behind.  All I can say is that in my experimentation, "34" yielded the results I found most pleasing.

[JCat04]

That's no different really than us adding an FOV slider and for the reasons explained it's not a good idea for us. It's pretty much impossible to cater to people's every preference and we would be foolish to try and do that. If we do our job right the vast majority will be happy with the choices we make. 

 

I really don't understand why there's an option to change the FOV with each shot in the Console, versus simply making the value persistent.  There are parameters (like the cam_reverseSnapUp and cam_ landing SnapUp settings that I change at the beginning of each round) that remain persistent for the entire round.  I don't see how that is really any different than changing the FOV setting, and having it remain persistent for the round.

 

In essence, it's like you're making it possible to have people manually cater to their own preference an average of 36 times (the other 36 strokes are from the next to the highest putting camera view which suits my tastes nicely) per round the way things stand with the g_fov setting in the Console.  In principle, I don't see any real difference between that and making the user selected g_fov value persistent for the round, such that the user only has to change it once per round.

[Mailman]

Here's the "rub".  No one ever requested MJ or AJ to change the FOV.

 

So my speculation would be that they found an exploit and cannot discuss what it is they found. In that regard, it's logical.  However, if this is suppose to simply "add some polish" to the game, it's nearly ruined the FOV for players who must or want to play at 1366 x 768 or lower resolutions. After all, the game was made for nearly all resolutions.

 

Bummer.

 

The only sort of games I've seen with FOV exploits are FPS - with excessively long range unrealistic sniping.  I'd be surprised if the devs have seen any advantage to different FOVs within PG.  But who knows ....

 

Your rub is how I view what has happened as well. 

[highfade]

Racing games all have adjustable fov and camera settings. You can move back, forward, up and down. All within a certain range of course.

It would be neat if PG is the first golf game I know of to have this option

[Drrobmiller]

Guys guys guys…

Understand that the programmers MJ and AJ have beed doing this at least to my knowledge since 2001. If the FOV needed to be adjusted its for a good reason.   The golfer yes is a tad forward, but now you are seeing
more of the course.  Im seeing enhanced views of the terrain that I didn’t see before….a little bit more to the left and right.

The wind is cool and I guess much more on par with the real thing.  Say goodby to the 59s,…this is real golf now.

In terms of community modding, AJ was the one who saved Links 2003. he was responsible for the higher resolutions, cloning tool, and all the other cool tweaks that kept the game alive.

You may not realize it, but all the stuff you see in PP is based on links 2003.  there are a lot of similarities,…the ball physics, aiming tool, swing meter, MOPs, game interface.  And unity / course forge takes it to a new level.

So trust me when I say that the right guys are at the helm with this stuff.

Rob
 

[Armand]

I remain curious if this release has made any difference to those with "mouse slides" when 3C-ing.  Anyone care to comment?