how I love that everybody gives totally different values of fov according to their firm certainity that is truly based on their deep insight into pros' configs :]
I played with 90 for quite a while, I wouldn't say ping above 50 makes it any better or worse than 100+ FOVs. I now play with 105 though, can't play any lower, it's weird now.
*chhhrrrz* ...other news, an esr posting newbie called 'gripz', apparently with the letter z at the end in an attempt to look pr0, proposed a correlation between ping and fov that could easily breathe new life in the latest stagnating quake live discussions. Already, voices could be heard asking for a way to donate to show their overflowing gratitude for this elegantly simple, yet mind-blowing new discovery. if you haven't yet heard that the bird it the word, now you have. this is gay news, i am gay, thanks for listening.
I've used all fovs before. I think having precise mousepad/mouse is more important, lower fovs can mean that you can use less precise mouse movement because its so close up, you don't need to twitch aim with lg or rail to hit.
If you have like 105 fov then you need really precise mouse movement to control your shaft, since the enemy looks much smaller.
For duel I think higher fov gives more comfort. In the range of 100-105 (depending on screen size) because you can follow the enemy easier with your eyes since fov 90-95 will make you need to move the mouse more to capture them on screen.
I like shaft with cg_fov 180; cg_drawgun 2;cg_zoomfov 80; +zoom;cg_guny 2.25;cg_gunx -10;cg_gunz -10;cg_lightningimpact 0;cg_lightningstyle 4
(sparks 0 + tiny crosshair)
Ultimate zoom shaft in quakelive with fov 80 = easiest lg
I don't know if it's the only benefit, but using cg_fov 180 then cg_zoomfov XXX will make LG shaft even more thin than just using drawgun 2 and cg_gun[x/y/z] cvars.
actually both would be nice! I assume 120 is = to 110 horizontal at 1680x1050 but i wouldnt mind black borders to make the 16:10 look like 4:3 as long as i can play native.
now it only depends on how your tft is working with this input
possible problems might be:
- only one big black bar on the right
- added input delay due to processing (dunno for sure with 1:1 pixel...)
- weird driver settings scaling the picture
- wrong tft osd settings scaling the picture
there was some broscience behind fov 103 (might be by arqon?) ...not true apparently
duel: 100 ftw
if you play ca i have no reason/privilege to judge you for a higher fov, but agent, only dueller i know with a really high fov, plays on 120, so they say
I don't understand what are you talking about.
Negative fov would probably produce something like mirrored upside-down image, not "90° to the ... right" or anything like that.
I was thinking of the frustum as an angle say on the unit circle. 90° would be like highlighted as the first quadrant (upper right) with the view center going straight down the middle at 45°.
At -90° I imagined that the view center would take place at -45° (or 90° to the right of the first view center). It made me laugh : )
Of course not correct at all. The reversal of the terminal and initial sides would go like you suggested. Also funny : )
Does anyone know how the cg_fov 90, cg_zoomfov 100 can be translated in just a normal cg_fov value.
I can't come off of it since i used it from an old fox.cfg.
It seems many people think that higher fov is better for duel, while it is exactly just the opposite.
Why we all started increasing fov back in QW days? To see more, so we could see our opponent earlier. That worked well at the beginning and also gave us pleasant sense of speed. But back then our game wasnt so much aimbased like it is today. However over time things changed. Now a good dueler is one that can keep track of his opponent at all times. That means he can face him at any given moment which renders wide field of view less important. Instead aiming became real deal, and lower fov helps a lot in that department.
Additionaly increasing fov makes things seems faster while decreasing slower, so with low settings we have more time to make our shot :P
if you're playing on widescreen 22"+ tft, i dunno, never tried it, but i guess that it feels smoother/more comfortable with a higher fov ? Or am i wrong ?
Anyways in vq3/ql, you don't need anything higher than 100 tbh (on a crt), very balanced fov imho.
I don't even know what fov I'm using as I'm using foxs cfg.
And tbh, I tried figuring it out, but I decided I should just leave it the way it is, and start playing with his settings, and thats what I'm doing now.
in my opinion, fov does not matter in duel, since turning cm/360 has nothing to do with fov, and in duel, you always should know whats up and where your opponent is, might be handy to use a zoomfov that actually zooms out, not in
once arqon mentioned in osp forums 103 may be the most accurate (accurate in what terms?)
i use 98, not because it is natural fov, but vanishing point / architecture looks most natural to me. second its best compromise between hitscan acc and angle/view control for me.
one important thing i noticed with players like cypher that use fov <95 is that they miss their opponent at
times when the model is at tthe "corner of their eye". I see this and I laugh but missing your enemy's model could come at critical moments: in one game vs Rapha, Cypher was on dm13 rl catwalk and Rapha was creeping under him while Cypher was looking at lg ammo hallway. Cypher still missed him but the stream config managed to catch a little bit of rapha's green model wihle cypher completely missed him. I think Rapha consequently took RA though i'm not completely sure of that.