29 replies to this topic

[Buck]

I guess the only issue with the new FOV is the apparent distance of the golfer to the cam and not the actual wider visual. I have already stated that we are looking at moving the FOV to 42 which will be much better. As I'm not coding it however I cannot say when that will be.

 

Just depends who you ask.  Wider FOV has a different "look" to it when the camera moves/follows ball.

It's a subjective preference on one end all the way to deal breaker for some on the other end, as shown by comments so far.

 

It's great that some love the new FOV.  

If anything these comments show that a "wide/pano" player cam should be an additional view option from which you can choose, but please don't replace the old camera with this and leave those that preferred a tighter and narrower FOV from before out in the cold.  

 

The preference for a narrower FOV is just as valid as that of a user who prefers a wider FOV.

[Mailman]

We now have only 3 views from the tee  - player, panoramic and the low cam view.  Only 3 presets essentially.  I fired up Links just now to remind myself of the cam options in this 'ancient' game - Closeup, Normal and Panoramic (in 3 varieties) so 5 in total you might argue.  I know that some of us are crying out for an additional preset as a variable FOV is out of the question it seems.   

 

How about leaving the present FOV setting as 'Normal', having another option with original FOV values and call it 'Closeup' and leave panoramic as it is now?

 

If PP cannot get the issue of FOV sorted out to please all of the punters then how is all the more complex/additional coding ever going to be done for PG2?

 

As a total aside in one of my other games, Train Simulator, I can alter the FOV 'on the fly' just be using the scroll wheel on my mouse - and this is another ancient game coding-wise!  

[Buck]

How about leaving the present FOV setting as 'Normal', having another option with original FOV values and call it 'Closeup' and leave panoramic as it is now.

 

That would be perfect - Great idea Mailman

[Buck]

Here's a forum post that might have been nice to see and read from Perfect Parallel at some point in the last couple weeks...

 

"Hey guys, really sorry about the view change and any frustrations it's causing.  We totally understand that it's not preferable to everyone and we should have maybe realized that in testing.  We like the wider FOV on our end, but since we definitely want everyone to be happy and have a view that they enjoy for playing the game, we'll be adding back in the original player cam FOV as an option in the near future.  Not sure on timing, but we'll hopefully get it in the next PG1 bug fix or update.  Thanks so much for your patience and our apologies again for springing this change on everyone unannounced - PP"

[vainte]

Here's a forum post that might have been nice to see and read from Perfect Parallel at some point in the last couple weeks...

 

"Hey guys, really sorry about the view change and any frustrations it's causing.  We totally understand that it's not preferable to everyone and we should have maybe realized that in testing.  We like the wider FOV on our end, but since we definitely want everyone to be happy and have a view that they enjoy for playing the game, we'll be adding back in the original player cam FOV as an option in the near future.  Not sure on timing, but we'll hopefully get it in the next PG1 bug fix or update.  Thanks so much for your patience and our apologies again for springing this change on everyone unannounced - PP"

 

+1

[Ted_Ball]

I guess the only issue with the new FOV is the apparent distance of the golfer to the cam and not the actual wider visual. I have already stated that we are looking at moving the FOV to 42 which will be much better. As I'm not coding it however I cannot say when that will be.

 

Good Lord!!  How long did it take to change it to the new view? (Always blue.)

 

The views have always been less than Perfect mainly because there is no slider for personal preferences. PP could actually do something that's been in place in other games for 15 years (or more). Please don't let them put this off till PG2 otherwise it might never be updated.

[Mailman]

Player view FOV from previous build was 36 and has now gone to 45 (a 25% increase).  Low cam FOV has stayed at 36 in both builds it seems.  If 42 is all I am ever likely to get from an adjusted Player Cam then I can see my time playing the tours or just casual rounds being nowhere near as extensive as it was in the run-up to Christmas.  Sorry PP but that is how I feel     

[Arsam]

I have always been useing the Low Player Cam playing RTS-M and find it the most desirable for me.  I have tried the new FOV for several rounds, but have switched back to the Low Cam.  Although the new FOV was playable I just cannot get the same feel for my swing in RTS especially when putting.  If then, as MJ has suggested in his previous post, that they plan to adjust the FOV Cam setting to 42 for both Normal AND Low view it will decrease my enjoyment in JNPG also.

Please consider an option choice for FOV or at the very least leave Low Player Camera alone.

[vainte]

My final word on the matter.

 

Devs please stop deciding what view Is best for us and just let us choose.

 

There are so many different monitors/TV's/screen resolutions/aspect ratios/controllers/swing methods being used.

 

How on earth can FOV 42 be right for all of them?

[Acrilix]

Player view FOV from previous build was 36 and has now gone to 45 (a 25% increase).  

 

Although I currently play 3-click and the change in FOV does not affect my ability to play, just my 'enjoyment factor', I think I was the first person to register my dislike for it on the forum.

I play with a controller on a tv from my recliner, and this post got me wondering as to what my actual FOV is for the tv at the distance I sit at. With one eye closed I marked out the angle on a piece of paper and was surprised to find that it was 35, just 1 degree from the original default. I thought that my dislike for the new FOV was just down to the smaller graphic, making me feel less connected to the golfer that represents me, but I am now wondering if it is simply because the original was almost exactly correct for the distance I sit from the screen.