Poll per request of Marzy :D

The options are confusing? Which means the thin ones and which means the thick ones?

Originally posted by Grain
The options are confusing? Which means the thin ones and which means the thick ones?
http://www.dayofdefeat.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=37580

Non-FOV all the way.

some weapons look better with the fov and some dont..

I would like to see a middle ground, the FOV is a little much currently, makes the weapons look too stubby , but since the guns are down to the side, and not shouldered, the non-fov makes them look too skiny for the position they are in, barrels look like pencils. I would like to see about 20% of the FOV we see now, not enough to distort, just enhance.

Damn the KITTYKITTYKITTYKITTYty FOV to hell where it came from.

^^ he wanted to say SHxty.

anyway i don't like when the fov is too big in the end and it looks out of propotion and i also don't like no fov at all because on HL it just looks wierd, somewhere in the middle...

Depends on the weapon.

I agree with just about everyone here. Without the FOV some models just look odd. But with it they really do look too short and fat. The best way to go is with the middle grounds, semi-fov'd.

for what i hav heard every 1 dont like FOV's

im with them!

While some current weapons may be over done a bit with the FOV adjustments, on the whole, I prefer it to the old style.

fov deosnt really bother me, im too busy kicking ass to notice the fov on the weapon, if the model and skin appeals to me i usually d/l without thinking twice.

Originally posted by gabagoo
some weapons look better with the fov and some dont..

Originally posted by Pvt.Malarkey
some weapons look better with the fov and some dont..


it depends, if its a kar then its gonna look like a pea shooter at the end but my tommy doesnt need fov.

Down with FOV, it sucks. Say what you want about it making the weapons look too thin, I personally dont agree, but that's the way they really look, Brut's recently released no FOV Kar looks more like the real thing than any other model I've ever seen in DoD. Please, dev people, remove FOV altogether, or at least drastically reduce it in the next DoD version or DoD Source.

fov all the way

FOV me baby.

FOV = :mad: NO DEV TEAM! BAD!

I might be noobish now, but what is FOV, just wondering.

Carry on fighting the battlefields, soldiers.

FOV is alright for the Kar and such, but I still like it de-foved.

So I say, no on fovism.

Uspen, FOV means they make the gun REALLY huge at the end, so that the gun's size does not look as if it diminishes at the end when you look at it ingame. Personally, I think it's ugly.

while i do think fov is a good idea, most of the weapons have taken it too far.

the garand looks great with its fov, but the kar98 is so foved that it has lost its sleek and sexy shape and turned into a tube. the thompson also suffers from this affliction, as well as numerous other weapons.

in summary, fov modification is an excellent way to overcome the hl engine flaw of making the front look too small, but to overdo it makes things look ugly and/or stupid.

Theres very limited information about Halflifes Field Of Vision (FOV), and how it effects the look of v_models ingame, or how we would go about correcting these problems, in fact i could not find any. What we do know though is HL FOV distorts v_models in some way, and that FOV model editing came about because of this problem. So it would seem fair to presume that FOV edited models are an attempt to make a weapon look more like it would in real life, and if this is the case, it would seem to me that FOV editing is a move in the right direction.


With the lack of information, i decided to put a little experiment together, in the hope to get a better understanding on how halflife distorts the model.

First i found a pole and every 6 inches rapped a one inch piece of tape around, then i held it in a similar way to that of an ingame rifle, not shouldered, but more of a stock under the arm look. What i noticed was the tape and six inch spaces looked more or less as wide all the way along the pole, and also that it tapered off very little. I now made the pole as a 3d abject and compiled it as a weapon model, using similar origins, and used HLMV to compare it to what i'm seeing in real life, and this is what i found out.


1. The pole with no FOV edits, everything except the length looks wrong here, the pole tapers to much and tape and spaces all differ greatly.
2. The pole with FOV edits made to it's length and width of the tape and spaces, in an attempt to get everything looking more evenly matched. This was working, but i would have to of made the model really long if i was to carry on down that road.
3. So instead i decided my only option was to make the width and spaces even closer, to help combat the models overall length. This work well, and is looking much more like the real pole i'm holding, it's just tapering off way to much.
4. The same as 3 but the model has been tapered inwards towards the players view, and outwards towards center screen. This is not perfect, but out of them all it's the closest to what i'm holding.

Image (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/scitzo/FOV_stick.jpg)


So it appears that HL FOV is distorting are models so that those parts closet to are FOV are being stretched the most and look wider, and those running away from are FOV are more squashed together, and thinner. We also have a little better idea on how to go about trying to correct the problem. By making those parts closet to your FOV more squashed together, and the further away the model is from your FOV, the more it needs to be stretched, and that it also needs to be tapered.

Another thing to note, is origins play a big part in how any model can look FOV edited or not. Like if you play around with the origins in HLMV, or just watch different anim's. You will notice how wide, thin, longer or shorter the model will look. So if your thinking of making FOV edits to a model, it would probably be best to set up your models origins first, then make your edits.

Well there you go, we all like distorted models one way or another. Half of us like models that are shaped like the real thing, but once ingame, HL sucks and distorts them towards the center point of infinity, and the other half like those with distorted edits in an attempt to make them look more realistic, and save them being sucked beyond infantry.

I do think FOV editing is here to stay, and if done well can make a model look more realistic to how it would appear in the real world, but i don't think you will ever get it perfect. It's just in it's early stages, and is really a skill to be learnt, but with no knowledge base to get any info or guides from, and not enough people practicing methods and technics, it's going to take time before we maybe find a happy medium.


If you think i'm wrong in anything i say, then please leave a comment, these are just my observations and i may be wrong, and with there being very little info on this subject, anything thrown into the pot would be welcome.

i like the way you conducted your experiment marzy

your hired!

Here's hoping they have adressed this issue in the Source engine so we don't have to do these bizarre work-arounds.

Pole 1 looks the most natural to me.

Originally posted by Grain
Pole 1 looks the most natural to me.

But thats impossible, try rapping tape around a stick and see for yourself, i really don't know how you can say it looks most natural to you, when we know that the HL FOV distorts are models by default. Ok so you prefer none FOV edited weapons, that halflife distorts once ingame, thats fine, but to say it looks most natural is just plain crazy.