PDA

View Full Version : HUD



Prozac360
06-27-2005, 01:44 PM
Please please please grin if u see this... remove the goggle look of the hud.

babydave
06-27-2005, 01:52 PM
seconded

GR1 style un-cluttered First Person View

ZA_Corax
06-27-2005, 02:20 PM
Personally the HUD doesn't bother me... If game play is compromised with HUD then perhaps a revised skin might be considered.

What I would really like to find out is how the game plays on the GRIN's Diesel engine (from those screens the Diesel engine seems to have the appropriate bells and whistles)...

How is the game's physics and also collisions?

How are the frame rates with the proposed larger maps?

Minimum and recommend system requirements... so far we have Windows PC DVD.

CDN_Angus
06-27-2005, 06:19 PM
So on the PC version of Tom Clancy‚‚ā¨ôs Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter‚"ěĘ, we decided to stick to a first person view during the whole game.

serbkillovic
06-27-2005, 07:34 PM
the new HUD sucks!
and this is why I hate first person weapon view. It adds nothing to the game, it's fake and out of my 1280x960 pixels, I'll get like 10 pixels that show the actual game. Have fun finding your way around. Headaches galore.

kill the stupid frame around the screen. Kill the map that's on the top left, kill the compass, heck just make it like the original GR it was perfect.

CDN_Angus
06-27-2005, 08:03 PM
Originally posted by serbkillovic:
this is why I hate first person weapon view.
Originally posted by serbkillovic:
heck just make it like the original GR it was perfect.
You hate but yet you want it back? Or did you mean viewing the weapon itself?

Either way the OTS is not going to happen and that is a darn good thing!

bozibozic
06-27-2005, 08:07 PM
I dont mind as long as there is an HUD amount changey thingy http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif Like RvS where you could hide certain bits of the HUD, then ill be happy!

CIT_Fox
06-28-2005, 03:27 AM
Originally posted by Bozibozic:
I dont mind as long as there is an HUD amount changey thingy http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif Like RvS where you could hide certain bits of the HUD, then ill be happy!

Same here...I don't mind the goggle edge being present, as long as I can turn it off.
What would be even better is a completely customizable HUD layout (through an external config utility) that allows us to reposition the different parts of the HUD (like the heads-up screen, ammo count,...)

Fox

ColinCJ
06-28-2005, 04:49 AM
I expect the HUD will change in the near future in keeping with the PC gaming community.

Kurtz_
06-28-2005, 06:01 AM
I agree, there will be toggle options like GR.

For the purists, we will contract Hoak to build a light weight HUD. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

sneaky_sniper79
06-28-2005, 06:24 AM
Yeah I too hate the current HUD.
Maybe the gameplay is altered so that the compass, map and all that is actually useful? Then it would make sense to have these things so prominently on screen... but the brackets around the edges are just b*tt ugly!

serbkillovic
06-28-2005, 03:04 PM
Originally posted by CDN_Angus:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by serbkillovic:
this is why I hate first person weapon view.
Originally posted by serbkillovic:
heck just make it like the original GR it was perfect.
You hate but yet you want it back? Or did you mean viewing the weapon itself?

no I meant I liked the original, it had just the reticule. No gun on the screen to take up 1/4 of your view. I'm trying to spot the enemy not get off on my static gun model that provides nothing to the game. The original had a good HUD, it was clean enough, everything was stuck on the bottom so that the stuff directly in front of you was the only thing it hindered. The only HUD I would need is the one that tells me how much ammo/magz I have. I know my name, I know what a soldier looks like, I know if I'm wounded or healthy.
Either way the OTS is not going to happen and that is a darn good thing! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

combine_minion
07-08-2005, 08:48 PM
Prozac360 PLEAS PLEASE PLEASE TLAK TO ME ON AIM PLEASE. MY SCREENAME IS ST00GEMEISTER

apollo104
07-10-2005, 06:03 AM
Stance, Ammou count, health status, reticule.... that's all we need GRIN. Don't fix what isn't broken (and actually works very well.)

S-n-A-k-E1
07-12-2005, 08:37 PM
Stance, Ammou count, health status, reticule.... that's all we need GRIN. Don't fix what isn't broken (and actually works very well.)

ExactLY!!! I dont get it people, u want a new game, but at the same time u want a loyal copy of GR1??!! The HUd on the first GR was less than accpetable, i mean no weapon animations? WTF just a flying cam that spawn bullets and create sound once u pull the trigger (dont get me wrong, i like GR and it expansions,they r great,but i think that a good weapon animation could make the game more enjoyable)....Seriously the HUD is way better as it is in GR3 plus its something new... if u want the old GR feeling go play the first one and ur all set...

EasyCo
07-12-2005, 10:21 PM
If you get rid of the goggle view and make the compass smaller I would be cool with it. There is just too much stuff getting in the way. I dont want anything blocking the enemy from my view.

silent_strike22
07-12-2005, 11:45 PM
i'm with apollo, you only need the bare necessities on your HUD, the rest can be on hotkeyed menus or something. like how you pulled up a map in OGR.

ZA_Corax
07-12-2005, 11:57 PM
How will this HUD work with night vision?

Are there going to be any night missions?

Will Ghosts have access to thermal imaging?

Maybe they should have a customizable HUD, adjustable intensity and transparency...

Just looking at different HUD designs, I have to agree this one needs a bit more work... If GRIN do decide to keep the goggle look, perhaps following some design cues on how Metroid did their HUD a'la 3D...

But minimized clutter would be the way to go...

Razz do you know what resolution were those PC screens taken?

WhiteKnight77
07-13-2005, 08:21 AM
Originally posted by S-n-A-k-E1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Stance, Ammou count, health status, reticule.... that's all we need GRIN. Don't fix what isn't broken (and actually works very well.)

ExactLY!!! I dont get it people, u want a new game, but at the same time u want a loyal copy of GR1??!! The HUd on the first GR was less than accpetable, i mean no weapon animations? WTF just a flying cam that spawn bullets and create sound once u pull the trigger (dont get me wrong, i like GR and it expansions,they r great,but i think that a good weapon animation could make the game more enjoyable)....Seriously the HUD is way better as it is in GR3 plus its something new... if u want the old GR feeling go play the first one and ur all set... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not another FPWV person. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif Do some searching, you will find pictures of people on patrol that have the weapon right under their chin thus not being able to see said weapon (do your eyes have the ability to pop out to look directly under your chin?).

GR's HUD could use a bit of tweaking (get rid of the threat indicator, but keep a compass), but everything else was fine. The video screen can be hotkeyed as suggested by SS22.

sneaky_sniper79
07-13-2005, 09:33 AM
Do some searching, you will find pictures of people on patrol that have the weapon right under their chin thus not being able to see said weapon (do your eyes have the ability to pop out to look directly under your chin?).

When a GR mission starts, you're not on patrol - you're right where the sh*t hits the fan; an enemy can be around the next corner or tree, and you must be ready to pop a bullet in him before he does it to you.

I did some searching, and look what I found:

Weapons up 1 (http://www.cocosheriff.org/images/swat-3opt.jpg)

Weapons up 2 (http://www.usmc.mil/marinelink/image1.nsf/Lookup/200241221823/$file/riflelo.jpg)

Personally, I would like to have a button that you can push to toggle between lowered and raised weapon, and if you'd fire while the weapon is lowered it'd take 0.5-1.0 secs for the weapon to come into view and not until then will your in-game character fire the first round.

Alternatively the first few rounds fired from a lowered weapon would be very inaccurate, as you seem to have started shooting in panic before the weapon was "in place".

I'm totally in favour of FPWV - and in my opinion it should not be possible to turn it off, because then everybody would do it just to get more free screen space (to be more aware of the surroundings) - and what's the point of incorporating a feature that (even though realistic and should be in any FPS game) would be turned off by almost everybody? Soon every other player is running around without FPWV (and with it a slightly better view of the surroundings), and the purists who haven't turned their FPWV off claim it isn't realistic to do so. ...And of course it isn't realistic, but quite favourable.

If the FPVW is implemented into G.R.A.W. and there is no option of turning it off, but a modder found a way to hack some file and do it anyway, that would in fact be cheating - because it is as you say: The weapon is very prominent and it is in the way of what you really need to see. But still, a soldier who wants to hit anything with his rifle needs to aim with it, and you don't aim from the hip; you hold the weapon against your shoulder and point it forward, by your head, toward where you want to shoot.

If you make FPWV optional, what other features would have to be optional just because some don't like it? Where would one draw the line? Maybe some people would think you run too slow in the game, so the option to increase your in-game character's running speed is added - and soon every other player is running around like Speedy Gonzales, and the purists who haven't increased their running speed claim it isn't realistic to run like Speedy Gonzales. ...And of course it isn't realistic, but quite favourable.

Others are disappointed the game doesn't feature the ability to drive tanks - so the option to do so is added. Soon every other player is driving around in a tank, and the purists who don't drive around in a tank claim it isn't realistic as real Ghosts wouldn't drive tanks. ...And of course it isn't realistic, but quite favourable.

Yeah these examples are over the top, and I'm sure you want the line to be drawn long before those options, but after FPWV. I, however, claim it should be drawn before FPWV. You'll have to excuse me, but even though you claim you don't want FPWV in the name of realism, to me (as one who claim FPWV is realistic) it just sounds like you you're doing it in the name of convenience, and merely trying to make it sound like it's in the name of realism.

Kurtz_
07-13-2005, 10:42 AM
I think the only reason that FPWV is in the game is because people just want too see the weapon model, not for realism. If you wanted realism, you would see no weapon at all and toggle directly to iron sights. I certainly don't want that, nor do I want to toggle from weapon down to weapon up. I like the ret only view but I don't mind FPWV.

D.i.C.e
07-13-2005, 10:48 AM
but wait if im not mistakeing when holding your gun out infront of you like the reconer's
do you can see weapon so whats the deal?
that as real as it gets.
DOH!.

D.i.C.e
07-13-2005, 10:51 AM
try it your self get a hammer or any thing thats like a gun and hold it out in front of you
like swat or Recons and you will notice.
what shows in front of you is weapon.

in this case the hammer or any thing thats like a gun.

cheers.

Squall_Rifleman
07-13-2005, 11:43 AM
Well, I didn't want to get into another FPWV discussion, I really regret having done so last time... But heck, I can't resist.

First of I would like to say that sneaky_sniper79's post says pretty much everything I'd say if I had the ability to write something understandable in English - you know, I try really hard, though.

A good FPWV system is important to me because of two things: immersion and realism. You may claim that it isn't realistic to have a weapon showing in the corner of the screen all the time, but again, that's not what we're asking for. We're asking for a system that visually represents (as opposed to the symbolic representation in GR) the sensation of porting and shooting a firearm in combat.

Some of you may have been attracted by Ghost Recon exactly because of the lack of FPWV, since this factor "puts GR apart" from other games. But that may not be the case for everyone - I was attracted by the realism and the strategic thinking necessary to get through the missions, and, after that, the overall teamwork sensation that I'd occasionally get on multiplayer, when I felt like playing it.

Personally, I'd rather have something that gets as close as possible to a realistic representation of handling a weapon in combat than something that symbolically does what is proposed. It's all about immersion, some may like it, some may not. But realism is certainly not an excuse to dislike it.

I'd make my suggestions on how this system could work, but I already did that the last time this subject came up, in this thread (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/2791043913/m/4351036423).

WhiteKnight77
07-13-2005, 12:32 PM
I have to laugh, those 2 pis show a sheriff's deputy on a rifle range and a soldier already kneeling and aiming.

http://images.military.com/pics/FL_squeeze_052305.jpg Can be found in this thread I posted in the ots view vs. fpwv? (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/3291043913/m/1321033223/r/6571096423#6571096423) thread.

Don't get me wrong, when door knocking, you would have your weapon at least socketed in your shoulder and up close enough to be able to see it if not actually aiming through it when second in line prior to going through the door. When patroling down the street, you won't see it.

Prozac360
07-13-2005, 12:40 PM
IRL with your vision at about 180‚? field of view...

most games only support between 40‚? and 60‚? FOV ... so it wont always be realistic but more so then you would think...

when you get into things like Iron sights will make it harder to concentrate on the rest of your FOV while things such as Eotechs and Aimpoints will make it much easier to aim without noticing the weapon.

Realistic not completly.... but to say no FPWV is more realistic is like saying your gun is invisible IRL.

Squall_Rifleman
07-13-2005, 12:48 PM
Originally posted by WhiteKnight77:
I have to laugh, those 2 pis show a sheriff's deputy on a rifle range and a soldier already kneeling and aiming.

http://images.military.com/pics/FL_squeeze_052305.jpg Can be found in this thread I posted in the ots view vs. fpwv? (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/3291043913/m/1321033223/r/6571096423#6571096423) thread.

Don't get me wrong, when door knocking, you would have your weapon at least socketed in your shoulder and up close enough to be able to see it if not actually aiming through it when second in line prior to going through the door. When patroling down the street, you won't see it.

Originally posted by sneaky_sniper79:
When a GR mission starts, you're not on patrol - you're right where the sh*t hits the fan; an enemy can be around the next corner or tree, and you must be ready to pop a bullet in him before he does it to you.
Still, they could include an animation in which your in-game character puts the weapon close to his chest (completely out of view) after some time without moving/shooting or when just looking around.

sneaky_sniper79
07-13-2005, 04:21 PM
Still, they could include an animation in which your in-game character puts the weapon close to his chest (completely out of view) after some time without moving/shooting or when just looking around.

Exactly, I completely agree. You could even make it so that you actually run a little faster when having the weapon down, to make it more "worth it" to actually lower it at times, trading response time (having to raise your weapon to fire) for movement speed.

Laugh all you want, WK, to you're still claiming "no FPWV" in the name of convenience. And yeah I've seen that patrol picture of yours in many of your posts now, and it doesn't change my opinion. The people in my pictures are holding their weapons up because they're aiming at something - an activity I'd say a soldier in a battle devotes himself to quite frequently.
As I said, you're not on patrol when a mission starts in a GR game - you're pretty much in the middle of the beehive. You said yourself that you've got your weapon up when door knocking - isn't that pretty much what a GR missions starts off with?
If it's between "weapons down" and "weapons up", I'd say a GR mission is clearly more of a "weapons up" situation, hands down (no pun intended). http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Wouldn't you say that the toggle weapon up/down key was a neat idea though? Or are you dead convinced about your no-FPWV-at-all point?

WhiteKnight77
07-13-2005, 04:45 PM
Name one mission (not firefight or recon, the enemy AI were in the same places for both anyway) in GR where you inserted with enemy in your insertion point or under 40 meters from you at the start? On the caves map, the first enemy is in a bunker at least 75 meters away and you can't see him.

When a FPWV is actually representative of what is actually done and seen while shooting, I will rethink my stance on no FPWV, but until then, it does not need to be included. Devs from all companies have a long way to go to do so and getting it done with one mouse click isn't going to be easy.

Squall_Rifleman
07-13-2005, 05:51 PM
Originally posted by WhiteKnight77:
Name one mission (not firefight or recon, the enemy AI were in the same places for both anyway) in GR where you inserted with enemy in your insertion point or under 40 meters from you at the start? On the caves map, the first enemy is in a bunker at least 75 meters away and you can't see him.
But that's the point, you can't see them, hence you don't know whether they are right around the corner or meters away (unless the Threat Indicator is turned on, of course).

I remember when I started the campaign, on the first mission ("Iron Dragon", still my favorite of all times), I was slowly, slowly proceeding through the first part of map, cautiously looking behind every single tree before moving up... Only to find the first enemy on the wooden bunker 75 meters away, as you said, from the insertion zone. They were nowhere close, still I was cautious and nervous like if they could jump from behind a tree when I less expected. Well, you get the message - they might be anywhere, so you gotta be prepared.


Originally posted by WhiteKnight77:
When a FPWV is actually representative of what is actually done and seen while shooting, I will rethink my stance on no FPWV, but until then, it does not need to be included. Devs from all companies have a long way to go to do so and getting it done with one mouse click isn't going to be easy.
Actually I was thinking about using the mouse wheel to change between stances - roll it down to lower the weapon, roll it up to ready-to-fire/aim down the sights. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

I understand your concernment about this, though. They could improve the thing just as they could ruin it trying to improve it. But yeah, rethink your stance as you said...
I don't think they will actually implement something like this in GRAW. Judging by the screenshots released so far, we'll most likely be stuck with the dancing weapon that fires from the corner of the screen. I hope I'm wrong.

kainite
07-14-2005, 01:38 AM
I agree 100% with sneaky and squall.

And WK, while there might be some reasons for excluding the FPWV I think your really reaching here. Enemies within 100 meters? I would say that's a hotzone if I ever saw one. And that doesn't even matter anyway, cause you're not really supposed to know exactly where all the enemies are. That was a shortcoming of the static AI of GR.

As already said, it's likely a soldier would have his weapon both raised and slightly lowered, stock to shoulder, during a GR mission type. If we could have both weapon positions all would be peachy. If I had to select one of them, it would without doubt be a raised weapon ready to shoot whatever pops out behind that tree/corner/cover.

And thank the mighty lord GR was not and won't be a game about patrolling down a street.

sneaky_sniper79
07-14-2005, 01:43 AM
I also think you miss out on some great visual effects if you don't see the weapon - the muzzle flash and the ejected casings. I mean, you need something visual to go with the sound of the weapon - it all becomes so much more of a weapon then! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

TSraku
07-14-2005, 06:34 AM
They should integrate a customizable HUD, so everyone will be happy. I'd like the weapon in SP mode, but not on MP mode. Would be nice if they do it like in rvs, where you can toggle on and off HUD parts. But I won't cry if the weapon can't be "switched off" just for the "realism". This frame around looks pretty ridiculous, but I can live with it. The other HUD parts are looking nice, I like them (looks familiar with GR but has some nice improvements though). Except the mentioned frame, what does it represent? The soldiers glasses? Thats wierd..

WhiteKnight77
07-14-2005, 10:11 AM
Not once in daylight have I ever seen a muzzle flash from an M-16 much less any other rifle I have fired. You can't even see the brass eject past your eye as if you are a right handed shooter, your right eye at the sight/scope and the ejection port is on the right.

CDN_Angus
07-14-2005, 06:37 PM
Muzzle flash is only visible at night while lookng at someone else then yourself firing.

BSR_Dude
07-14-2005, 07:30 PM
I had a custom flash hider on my M4 and at night you could barely see a few sparks (much like those rising from a campfire). For the most part muzzle flash that most people picture comes from Hollywood.

I shot semi pro for many years and all I ever saw of my rifle, pistol or shotgun were the sights.

WhiteKnight77
07-14-2005, 08:27 PM
Best way to get an understanding of what you see if looking through a scope, hold a quarter or 50 cent piece within an inch of your eye and close the opposite eye and see if you see much of anything.

buddhiraja
07-15-2005, 12:56 AM
Hey sneaky sniper, great post on July 13.

Frankly speaking guys, we must accept that the gun is held in various positions depending on what the soldier is doing and what his state of alertness is.

While aiming, we would see the views that WK and Rugg has talked about. While patrolling in a semi-alert state, as shown in the picture WK has posted, we would not see the gun.

But, when we are alertly searching for enemies, with the gun at the shoulder, but we are not aiming, then we would see the top and front part of the gun. It will perhaps be slightly out of focus, but we will see it.

As I have said many times before, the correct approach will be to have all the gun positions and views with their respective advantages and disadvantages, like we can have the gun lowered and hence a better view, but it will take more time to aim from that position. If the gun is raised, and hence blocking the view partially, it would take less time to aim. Also, this position would give us a better peripheral view, in extreme CQBs, than aiming through the sight.

buddhiraja
07-15-2005, 02:06 AM
Originally posted by BSR_Dude:
I shot semi pro for many years and all I ever saw of my rifle, pistol or shotgun were the sights.

I think you are talking about the view while you were aiming the gun only. While a soldier is looking OVER his gun, actively searching for enemies then the gun is held at the shoulder perpendicular to the body and he would see the gun partially, though slightly out of focus.

kainite
07-15-2005, 03:16 AM
Home made test. Will you see your weapon?
Put a broom stick up to your chin. Come on, try it! Hold it straight out and point it forward as if it were a rifle. Both eyes open, scanning for targets. Now, do you see the shaft in front of you? You should. Otherwise you need to see an optician. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Now that we got that out of the way we have the issue of whether a soldier on a GR type mission will have his weapon raised or lowered. If you ask me I think it will vary depending on the situation. But I think it speaks for itself that he won't have his weapon as in Whiteknight's picture when he actually pulls the trigger. That is, of course, if he intends to hit anything but the dirt. So if we were only to chose one weapon position, why on earth would we want the lowered one if not merely for convenience?

So, weapon effects then. Well, it's true you won't actually see the muzzle flash in daylight. If you fire a standard assault rifle anyway. But I wouldn't start whining if we would see a flash in GRAW. It is'nt that big of a deal. It might even look kind of neat. But there can be other cool effects such as reload animations, lights etc, that you wouldn't have if there was no gun visible.

sneaky_sniper79
07-15-2005, 05:23 AM
Well I've said all I want in the FPWV discussion, so no more about that from me.

All I have to say now is, I know you guys are right about the fact that muzzle flashes aren't visible in daylight, but I still want the Hollywood style muzzle flashes - they're just so effin' cool, and put some fire to the "FIRE!"

I'm willing to trade realism for coolness in this matter, so maybe I'm a hypocrite. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

Also, muzzle flashes help you see the enemies that are shooting at you, something that might compensate for the fact that in a game - compared to reality - it's a lot harder to hear exactly where the gunfire is coming from. So, it actually fills a purpose in gameplay too.

TSraku
07-15-2005, 09:23 PM
Thats it, word up sniper79!

BSR_Dude
07-16-2005, 09:39 AM
Originally posted by buddhiraja:
While a soldier is looking OVER his gun, actively searching for enemies then the gun is held at the shoulder perpendicular to the body and he would see the gun partially, though slightly out of focus.

In this case you would hold the gun at low ready. At no time would any part of the gun be visible or obstructing the view as you were searching for targets. Low ready is the butt of the rifle firmly in your shoulder, muzzle pointed 8-10 feet in front of you. This almost guarantees that you don't shoot a friendly that is also patrolling. You would also stagger your patrol's spacing.

Alex_HS
07-16-2005, 09:43 AM
The reticule is bad and outdated, mostly because you cant have iron sights, aim dots or realistic scopes with that system.
Having a crosshair atached to your head is not more realistic than a corner weapon toggle.
The perfect solution imo would be a dynamic weapon toggle, one that shows only when you are supposed to see the weapon you carry, when crawling, reloading, etc. America's Army does this kinda well, the weapon may still show more than it should but its still better than running arround with a zoomed in crosshair, i am all for replacing crosshairs/reticules with realistic iron sights and scopes and a dynamic weapon toggle.
Regarding the HUD it looks terrible, i suppose it is clutered due to gameplay features and functionality, i would like if certain hud parts would only show when you are using specific equipment, a weapon or functions, for example in flashpoint your round/magazine counter only shows when you are using the rifle, otherwise you have a nice looking, clean display. I wouldnt like GR3 to look and play like Doom3 (you can swich weapon toggle off) http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif.