First Person Please!

[DSMatticus]

the couple lines of code would probably equal to around 150,000 lines actually, and it would probably require more.

Yeah, no. I have a degree in comp. sci. and I fool* around with game development engines in my free time. I actually know what I am talking about here, and repositioning the camera (which is all the lazy GTAV way requires) is a laughably trivial task. Even the non-lazy standard FPS way is only slightly more coding time, but a massive amount of time creating new art assets.

 

Remember: camera facing is already not fixed to model facing, so it is genuinely the simple matter of changing the position of the camera relative to the model from "over the shoulder" to "close to, but not inside, the model's head." It's no more work than the shoulder swap that is already in Warframe. The question isn't whether it can be done - that's a joke. It could be done inside of someone's lunch break. The question is "can Warframe be played that way without looking like crap and/or making you nauseous?" And the answer to that is, "probably not, but wouldn't it be hilarious to find out?"

 

*Apparently the autocensor does not like it when I say "d*** around."

Edited November 3, 2015 by DSMatticus

[(XBOX)Blut Fatal]

yeah, but its only a glitch. imagine if it were edited by the developers. not from the glitch of course.

The glitch would in effect be the same, the game doesnt run well at all. it's too fast paced.

Yeah, no. I have a degree in comp. sci. and I $&*^ around with game development engines in my free time. I actually know what I am talking about here, and repositioning the camera (which is all the lazy GTAV way requires) is a laughably trivial task. Even the non-lazy standard FPS way is only slightly more coding time, but a massive amount of time creating new art assets.

 

Remember: camera facing is already not fixed to model facing, so it is genuinely the simple matter of changing the position of the camera relative to the model from "over the shoulder" to "close to, but not inside, the model's head." It's no more work than the shoulder swap that is already in Warframe. The question isn't whether it can be done - that's a joke. It could be done inside of someone's lunch break. The question is "can Warframe be played that way without looking like crap and/or making you nauseous?" And the answer to that is, "probably not, but wouldn't it be hilarious to find out?"

Lazy way doesn't equal to the best way or the correct way.

You can't use GTA as an example of coding in this, this game doesn't look like and feel like it was coded by a 4 year old skiddy. GTA is the laziest coding for a game, and I'm also including goat simulator in this.

[DSpite]

just like the majority of the weapons would.

 

So damn what? It's not as if everyone view would be forced into it. We are all adults here, and if we were given a set of sliders to re-position the camera to our individual liking, with a magical "reset to default" for people that are easily confused, we would decide what works and what does not, possibly also saving us from issues like this:

 

That is me, in firing animation, with the bat wings, on Rhino. Reason why I don't wear ANY cosmetic on the right shoulder.

 

Edited November 3, 2015 by DSpite

[(PSN)L-B-H-100]

Yeah, no. I have a degree in comp. sci. and I $&*^ around with game development engines in my free time. I actually know what I am talking about here, and repositioning the camera (which is all the lazy GTAV way requires) is a laughably trivial task. Even the non-lazy standard FPS way is only slightly more coding time, but a massive amount of time creating new art assets.

 

Remember: camera facing is already not fixed to model facing, so it is genuinely the simple matter of changing the position of the camera relative to the model from "over the shoulder" to "close to, but not inside, the model's head." It's no more work than the shoulder swap that is already in Warframe. The question isn't whether it can be done - that's a joke. It could be done inside of someone's lunch break. The question is "can Warframe be played that way without looking like crap and/or making you nauseous?" And the answer to that is, "probably not, but wouldn't it be hilarious to find out?"

exactly!

just the experience would be thrilling.

[(XBOX)Blut Fatal]

So damn what? It's not as if everyone view would be forced into it. We are all adults here, and if we were given a set of sliders to re-position the camera to our individual liking, with a magical "reset to default" for people that are easily confused, we would decide what works and what does not, possibly also saving us from issues like this:

 

That is me, in firing animation, with the bat wings, on Rhino. Reason why I don't wear ANY cosmetic on the right shoulder.

 

Besides the point, Devs said no years ago. One responce was something about the framework.

[(PSN)L-B-H-100]

The glitch would in effect be the same, the game doesnt run well at all. it's too fast paced.

Lazy way doesn't equal to the best way or the correct way.

You can't use GTA as an example of coding in this, this game doesn't look like and feel like it was coded by a 4 year old skiddy. GTA is the laziest coding for a game, and I'm also including goat simulator in this.

 

dude, we're only setting up examples. they obviously cant copy and paste GTAV's coding. please stop over exaggerating. i actually enjoyed the FPS in GTAV. so much that i spent almost 2 and a half hours using it in the campaign as well as multiplayer.

 

are you telling us that what we are trying to explain is going to end up looking exactly like the pictures presented? of course not!

like i said before, they are not going to build an FPS based from a glitch.

[DSpite]

This one the reasons why I know what it;s like. This happens to me all the time.

 

EDIT: I don't care that we wont a camera option. I'm fine with it, said it already a bunch of times. What annoys me is people that keep insisting that it's "hard to code" or "too much work" or a million other reasons including "it won't look right" all of which are totally irrelevant to the fact that all the people that would use it would put up with a few clipping issues here and there, just to get a centered view. It's a camera position for goodness sake. Try hitting "H" on your keyboard, oh look, the camera position just moved all the way across the other side. Yes, that one. We simply wanted it to stop in the middle and move forward about a meter.

 

---

 

Yes, great. Still not getting it are you. You move the camera another few inches forward, and that stops happening.

 

You can't clip INTO the model when you are FURTHER FORWARD then the model. Camera just has to "see" from a point one inch past the helmet.

 

You have no problem being 3 feet BEHIND, yet you keep insisting that it's suddenly impossible to play if you are a few inches ahead of the model.

That is just asinine.

 

Did it occur to you that every time I glitched into FPS I used it to test? I actually did a total of 3-4 hours worth of tests. Jump, parkour, weapon shots, sliding etc etc. It was fine, other then clipping issue.

 

This is what happened during jumps. The camera re-adjusted for the jump then went back to sitting on the helmet as the above shots.

 

Edited November 3, 2015 by DSpite

[(PSN)L-B-H-100]

EDIT: I don't care that we wont a camera option. I'm fine with it, said it already a bunch of times. What annoys me is people that keep insisting that it's "hard to code" or "too much work" or a million other reasons including "it won't look right" all of which are totally irrelevant to the fact that all the people that would use it would put up with a few clipping issues here and there, just to get a centered view. It's a camera position for goodness sake. Try hitting "H" on your keyboard, oh look, the camera position just moved all the way across the other side. Yes, that one. We simply wanted it to stop in the middle and move forward about a meter.

 

---

 

Yes, great. Still not getting it are you. You move the camera another few inches forward, and that stops happening.

 

You can't clip INTO the model when you are FURTHER FORWARD then the model. Camera just has to "see" from a point one inch past the helmet.

 

You have no problem being 3 feet BEHIND, yet you keep insisting that it's suddenly impossible to play if you are a few inches ahead of the model.

That is just asinine.

 

Did it occur to you that every time I glitched into FPS I used it to test? I actually did a total of 3-4 hours worth of tests. Jump, parkour, weapon shots, sliding etc etc. It was fine, other then clipping issue.

 

This is what happened during jumps. The camera re-adjusted for the jump then went back to sitting on the helmet as the above shots.

 

acctually, thats not a bad idea.

 

the camera would pan out every time you do a parkour move. i think that would balance it completely.

 

it could also be an option for other aspects such as melee. the camera could pan out when you equip your melee weapon. though i would like it if it was a first person melee. but that's just in case its too much for the developers to handle. they could always install it in the next few days.

 

but lets just point out that it is not "impossible". that's like saying that everything in the games coding was impossible to make in the first place. we're freak'n SPACE NINJAS for crying out loud, with mutant space dogs and enemies that constantly clone themselves!

 

some may feel as if my opinions are inane, but at least i don't have any doubt.

[KotoKuraken]

I'm with DSpite. If he's tested out the FPS glitch, and it seems fine, and it's a GLITCH, I'd say it's worth a shot giving the option for FPS mode.

 

I could imagine jumping into an infestation mission and feeling immersed in the horror that lurks everywhere on Eris.

[DSMatticus]

Lazy way doesn't equal to the best way or the correct way.
You can't use GTA as an example of coding in this, this game doesn't look like and feel like it was coded by a 4 year old skiddy. GTA is the laziest coding for a game, and I'm also including goat simulator in this.

Would you kindly put down those goalposts?

 

Beyond that, the overall quality of the engine's coding is completely irrelevant (and I really don't think you know what you're talking about when you talk about the quality of these engines to begin with). Again; the only thing truly required is changing the coordinates of the camera relative to the player model. That is a simple task in any engine; I'd hesitantly suggest that it would actually take a substantial amount of effort and incompetence to make a game that breaks when the camera's position is moved.

[(PSN)L-B-H-100]

What about with ADS?

 

not necessarily ADS. a more simple concept would be a simple zoom in. they could add ADS for the simple assault rifles and pistols, but not any of the difficultly designed weapons. i wouldn't mind a typical zoom in. I've played enough Fallout.

[YasaiTsume]

No....using Evolution engine for a FPS is such a waste tho.
I want to see my Warframe and not just the hands.

Edited November 3, 2015 by YasaiTsume

[(PSN)L-B-H-100]

I'm with DSpite. If he's tested out the FPS glitch, and it seems fine, and it's a GLITCH, I'd say it's worth a shot giving the option for FPS mode.

 

I could imagine jumping into an infestation mission and feeling immersed in the horror that lurks everywhere on Eris.

 

wow, that would be thrilling.

 

imagine slowly walking on a derelict ship, slowly turning around to the breath on your shoulder then "OH FU-!"

No....using Evolution engine for a FPS is such a waste tho.

I want to see my Warframe and not just the hands.

well, as we mentioned before, theres always the option of switching back and forth :D

[DSpite]

We are never going to get it. You basically just "break" the core idea of the 3rd person Warframe game.

 

Guild Wars 2 has actually added an FPS view, and I spend hours playing a short Asura, running in town, going into combat ... going under people and looking up skirts. You know, stuff.

 

Freakiest thing ever? FPS combat against a Champion Risen Megalodon. It's basically a pants changing scenario that one.

 

Wish I had some shots of when he runs up and bites you directly in the face.

 

Edited November 3, 2015 by DSpite

[(PSN)L-B-H-100]

Would you kindly put down those goalposts?

 

Beyond that, the overall quality of the engine's coding is completely irrelevant (and I really don't think you know what you're talking about when you talk about the quality of these engines to begin with). Again; the only thing truly required is changing the coordinates of the camera relative to the player model. That is a simple task in any engine; I'd hesitantly suggest that it would actually take a substantial amount of effort and incompetence to make a game that breaks when the camera's position is moved.

honestly id choose to be a 4 year old any day than to to create a whole FPS system from scratch.

highly agree. the concept is smart, not dumb. it requires less work, and is more likely to work.

[(XBOX)Blut Fatal]

EDIT: I don't care that we wont a camera option. I'm fine with it, said it already a bunch of times. What annoys me is people that keep insisting that it's "hard to code" or "too much work" or a million other reasons including "it won't look right" all of which are totally irrelevant to the fact that all the people that would use it would put up with a few clipping issues here and there, just to get a centered view. It's a camera position for goodness sake. Try hitting "H" on your keyboard, oh look, the camera position just moved all the way across the other side. Yes, that one. We simply wanted it to stop in the middle and move forward about a meter.

 

---

 

Yes, great. Still not getting it are you. You move the camera another few inches forward, and that stops happening.

 

You can't clip INTO the model when you are FURTHER FORWARD then the model. Camera just has to "see" from a point one inch past the helmet.

 

You have no problem being 3 feet BEHIND, yet you keep insisting that it's suddenly impossible to play if you are a few inches ahead of the model.

That is just asinine.

 

Did it occur to you that every time I glitched into FPS I used it to test? I actually did a total of 3-4 hours worth of tests. Jump, parkour, weapon shots, sliding etc etc. It was fine, other then clipping issue.

 

This is what happened during jumps. The camera re-adjusted for the jump then went back to sitting on the helmet as the above shots.

 

Zoom in vs FPS mode, they constantly talk about an FPS mode.

Zoom in is fairly easy to code, but a true fps mode which isn't. That's what I was saying.

Would you kindly put down those goalposts?

 

Beyond that, the overall quality of the engine's coding is completely irrelevant (and I really don't think you know what you're talking about when you talk about the quality of these engines to begin with). Again; the only thing truly required is changing the coordinates of the camera relative to the player model. That is a simple task in any engine; I'd hesitantly suggest that it would actually take a substantial amount of effort and incompetence to make a game that breaks when the camera's position is moved.

 

Compsci vs CEH, CDH Doctoral. I know far more than you think you know.

not necessarily ADS. a more simple concept would be a simple zoom in. they could add ADS for the simple assault rifles and pistols, but not any of the difficultly designed weapons. i wouldn't mind a typical zoom in. I've played enough Fallout.

See they are talking about FPS mode, not a simple zoom in.

[(PSN)L-B-H-100]

 

Guild Wars 2 has actually added an FPS view, and I spend hours playing a short Asura, running in town, going into combat ... going under people and looking up skirts. You know, stuff.

 

Freakiest thing ever? FPS combat against a Champion Risen Megalodon. It's basically a pants changing scenario that one.

 

Wish I had some shots of when he runs up and bites you directly in the face.

 

 

(O_o')

 

well that's a sight to behold. wish i had guild wars 2.

[Kai_Shiba]

(O_o')

 

well that's a sight to behold. wish i had guild wars 2.

I'm against this first person mode but I will let you know Guild wars 2 went free to play. Enjoy

[(PSN)L-B-H-100]

Zoom in vs FPS mode, they constantly talk about an FPS mode.

Zoom in is fairly easy to code, but a true fps mode which isn't. That's what I was saying.

 

Compsci vs CEH, CDH Doctoral. I know far more than you think you know.

See they are talking about FPS mode, not a simple zoom in.

of course we're talking about FPS mode its the main topic. i think you're confused as what we mean by "Zoom in" and FPS mode. i was simply creating the concept of weapons having a zoom in mode instead of iron sights with the FPS mode.

 

so what you are saying is though it may be hard to create an FPS mode, there's still a chance....... ;)

 

you write as if you have direct contact with a supporting audience, using works such as "they" or "see".

 

its not like we are going to take your word for it. your personal information does not matter.

[(PSN)L-B-H-100]

I'm against this first person mode but I will let you know Guild wars 2 went free to play. Enjoy

dont have a beafy computer yet. though i swear upon my life i will.

 

even if it did work on a less beafy computer, i would much rather have the best experience at first glance, know what i'm sayin?

[Kai_Shiba]

dont have a beafy computer yet. though i swear upon my life i will.

 

even if it did work on a less beafy computer, i would much rather have the best experience at first glance, know what i'm sayin?

[DSMatticus]

Compsci vs CEH, CDH Doctoral. I know far more than you think you know.

No, you really don't. I don't like to toss around these sorts of accusations because I don't know anything about you, but frankly I don't believe you and neither should anyone else. If you do have any professional expertise whatsoever, you certainly don't have any relevant expertise in videogame development even as an amateur hobbyist. And if you do, then you are making some embarrassing mistakes given your supposed "expertise."

 

Consider this peculiar mistake:

Zoom in vs FPS mode, they constantly talk about an FPS mode.

Zoom in is fairly easy to code, but a true fps mode which isn't. That's what I was saying.

Zooming in is not accomplished by moving the camera forward (which is what DSpite is describing). If zooming in were accomplished by moving the camera forward, then objects between the player model and the camera's new "zoomed in" position would become invisible. Imagine touching the tip of your sniper rifle to someone's nose and then being able to see through their head when you zoomed in - that's what would happen if zoom in were accomplished by moving the camera forward, because the camera would move past their head to see the world behind them.

 

Zooming in is almost always accomplished by narrowing the FOV, reducing the amount of the game world that the player can see - but because what the player can see must still fill the monitor, this increases the size of objects on the screen. What DSpite is describing would not be described as a zoom-in function by anyone who knew what they were talking about. It is a simple repositioning of the camera to a space slightly in front of the character's face. That is not a zoom. That is not anything special whatsoever. It is exactly what it says on the label; a repositioned camera, in this case intended to approximate first person without clipping or requiring special first person animation sets. Other games successfully do this, ranging from as graphically simple to Minecraft to as graphically complex as GTA V.

Edited November 3, 2015 by DSMatticus

[(PSN)L-B-H-100]

 

Zooming in is almost always accomplished by narrowing the FOV, reducing the amount of the game world that the player can see - but because what the player can see must still fill the monitor, this increases the size of objects on the screen. What DSpite is describing would not be described as a zoom-in function by anyone who knew what they were talking about. It is a simple repositioning of the camera to a space slightly in front of the character's face. That is not a zoom. That is not anything special whatsoever. It is exactly what it says on the label; a repositioned camera, in this case intended to approximate first person without clipping or requiring special first person animation sets. Other games successfully do this, ranging from as graphically simple to Minecraft to as graphically complex as GTA V.

 

MINECRAFT!

 

also a great example. heck, it even placed the camera in front of your character while looking at your character. if its as complex as stated, than why do other gaming companies make it look so simple?

[Bongever]

Id honestly prefer DE focus on improving the game as is than to add an FPS gimmick to it. Sure, you can argue these changes are possible, but any change to a game takes time and effort.

[DSpite]

(O_o')

 

well that's a sight to behold. wish i had guild wars 2.

 

It's free to play now. Or at least, the F2P part gets you a decent part of the action. Two characters slots, and so on, but plenty enough for most.