View problems with increased resolution

Balance is fine. Imagining it's even remotely feasible or desirable to ''balance hardware'' is so stupid it is indescribable.

 

I'm not ''offering an argument'' at all, as I do not care what any of you think, nor am I concerned with ''converting'' other people to my viewpoint, especially on such a tired topic, much less one that's tired AND ridiculous.

Balance is fine. Imagining it's even remotely feasible or desirable to ''balance hardware'' is so stupid it is indescribable.

 

I'm not ''offering an argument'' at all, as I do not care what any of you think, nor am I concerned with ''converting'' other people to my viewpoint, especially on such a tired topic, much less one that's tired AND ridiculous.

 

Tired and ridiculous for you, but not for the vast majority of DCS users, as can clearly be seen. And most probably we don’t care also what you think....

Balance is fine. Imagining it's even remotely feasible or desirable to ''balance hardware'' is so stupid it is indescribable.

It is entirely feasible — again, there are numerous methods for doing so and knowing and understanding that this is the case isn't actually stupid. Refusing to accept that it can be done, on the other hand, is nothing but wilful ignorance.

 

It's also very obviously desirable for anyone and everyone who is not wholly reliant on a crutch to be able to be better than other players. No-one in their right mind wants a simulator to be pay-to-win in terms of having external factors determine who has the ability to get the drop on whom, all else being equal (paying for a Tomcat to get an advantage over Yaks is a slightly different kettle of fish).

 

Can absolute parity be achieved? No, probably not. That's not an argument in favour of refusing to try to cover the worst gaps and smooth over the sharpest edges.

 

I'm not ''offering an argument'' at all, as I do not care what any of you think, nor am I concerned with ''converting'' other people to my viewpoint,

And yet you post… if that's really what you care or are concerned about (or not), then why do you even come to the thread when what you say simply doesn't matter?

VERY well said, Tippis.

Because it's a public forum and I can and felt like it. Welcome to the internet.

 

As for hardware balancing, show me one example where somebody did that in ANY game? Maybe in a shooter they nerfed mouse accuracy when a gamepad user joined the server? Oh, I know they ping everyone's graphic settings and enforce equality? Yeah, literally nobody does that or even tries because it's so ridiculous.

zhukov032186 has no issue with spotting. You shouldn't either. Notice his ironic signature! How droll.

As for hardware balancing, show me one example where somebody did that in ANY game?

They do it in the game that must not be mentioned (for visibility). They do it in a couple of space games (for controls).

 

It's all a matter of being determined enough to set a baseline for how things should look and behave under all circumstances and then employing whatever means and methods necessary to make every piece of kit perform as closely as possible to that baseline.

 

Just because you think it's ridiculous does not mean that it's not being done all over the place. It just means you have very narrow frames of reference and a preconceived notion of what it actually entails (hint: it has nothing to do with nerfing anything). The only ridiculous about any of this is how readily wilful ignorance is used as an argument to desperately cling to whatever crutch people are reliant on — it keeps appearing in any number of topics with no argument to support why this imbalance must at all cost be preserved…

Edited October 7, 2019 by Tippis

VERY well said again Tippis.

I wonder what bell rj finds so droll.

Model enlargement in your mentioned game (assuming that's what you're referring to) has nothing to do with ''hardware balancing'', it applies it to everyone as a generic aide to visibility. It is not polling your hardware, unless I'm grossly mistaken.

 

Oh? What kind of ''control balancing'' is being done in this space games and how well do they work? Enforced virtual joysticks for mouse users maybe? Yeah, a clunky ham fisted solution that just transfers the precision handicap from stick users to the mouse user. It still isn't balanced.

 

Which is kind of the point. There is little to nothing that can legitimately be done about people's hardware just so sore losers online won't say gems like:

 

''I lost because mouse is OP''

''I lost because 1080p is OP''

''blah blah some other lame excuse''

Model enlargement in your mentioned game (assuming that's what you're referring to) has nothing to do with ''hardware balancing'', it applies it to everyone as a generic aide to visibility. It is not polling your hardware, unless I'm grossly mistaken.

Hardware balancing is inherent in the method. The whole purpose is to maintain a consistency in how large something appears on-screen, and to replicate visual cues in ways that that work across all kinds of display hardware. In the end, that's really all that's needed for visibility.

 

What kind of ''control balancing'' is being done in this space games and how well do they work?

They work exceedingly well to the point where there is no “best input device” — only personal preference. Each input method (joysticks, mice, hand controllers, keyboards… probably yokes and the likes as well, although they're just joysticks with weird hinges :P) has its own control scheme tuned to the same baseline of input control, and then further options are available to tweak the exact response curves to your liking.

 

Which is kind of the point. There is little to nothing that can legitimately be done about people's hardware…

…except establishing a definitive, clear baseline and normalising all hardware to work as close to that baseline as possible. It's legitimate, and it can be done, and sore losers will spout the same gems regardless — in particular those who no longer can rely on their preferred crutch now that some other option becomes just as viable (or, as they would claim, OP).

Ummm... applying a 1.5x multiplier to an object at given range has nothing to do with hardware balancing. It does it whether you're at 4k on 65'' screen or 720p on a 17'' screen. It has literally nothing to do with hardware ''balance'' whatsoever. It IS an attempt to compensate for the fact the average monitor, particularly 10-15 years ago when it was about half the size they are now, which when combined with an ingame FoV etc etc made objects appear ''smaller than they are''. As screen size increases, this becomes less relevant in the first place as the FoV is coming closer to something ''reasonably appropriate''.

 

Otherwise, I stand by everything I said.

Edited October 7, 2019 by zhukov032186

Ummm... applying a 1.5x multiplier to an object at given range has nothing to do with hardware balancing.

But that's not what I'm talking about — I'm referring to the actual outcome, which has the inherent effect of normalising sizes across various FoVs. It was made to compensate for monitors that were in fact higher resolution (in terms of pixel density) than today's average, exactly because of the issues in the OP. The intent of the core methodology was not to fix an issue where objects would look smaller than they are due to resolution — it was to fix the problem that, when they're the correct size, they are smaller than they appear. It compensates for a cognitive process.

 

Unfortunately, while it would be easy to illustrate the effects this has, we can't really discuss the details (another reason why that rule is… problematic), but suffice to say that, at the end of the day, the way this particular methodology interacts with FoV, it yields a partial hardware normalisation almost by accident.

 

Not that the details really matter — it still comes down to the simple fact that it can be done; that it is being done; and indeed that it should be done, because again who in their right mind want an unbalanced P2W game (or, in this case, anti-P2W)? It's both feasible and desirable to solve this problem.