Just lock FOV at 90.

how do you do this?

Minimum 90, I honestly wish I could use 100 or more.

I've played this game for a few years at 90 vertical fov, please don't make me change that.

then don't. the idea isn't to force but to expand. to make available the options to those who want to go further, whilst retaining the choice to remain with the option you're used to, if you want.

you shouldn't worry though...the chances of this happening is very slim because valve.

The default FOV is 75 (and people still use it) because that's how the game is supposed to look. We know Valve is trying to standardize the appearance of TF2, which is an overall GOOD thing; the last thing we need is a higher FOV cap which, aside from radically altering the appearance of the game, also impacts actual gameplay.

I'm honestly surprised that they'd allow custom HUDs in matchmaking, and those don't affect gameplay at all.

On a related note, I'm also glad they're restricting viewmodel_fov to 75 (in matchmaking). I don't understand how completely broken viewmodels at viewmodel_fov 90 are considered "acceptable" production value by casting organizations.

okay, this post actually doesn't make any sense. having a proper hud affects gameplay one would argue is in the same vein as having viewmodels that allow you to see more of your screen would.

the default hud damage numbers for instance are red and extremely small and hard to read. having a proper hud with good clean damage numbers fixes this problem.

same thing with having increased viewmodels, it allows you to see more of your screen allowing you to have a more of a clean experience with the game.

90 FOV isnt game breaking and doesnt really affect gameplay that much and its not even hard to find the commands for increasing viewmodels either if the player really finds it uncomfortable.

literally if you google "how to see more of your screen on tf2" there are multiple results that teach you how to increase your viewmodels

pro players in cs:go use different viewmodel settings as well, allowing to see more of their screen

its entirely preference based, based on what makes the player comfortable. its pretty silly to restrict something like that.

edit: oh you also mentioned 90FOV being broken during streamed matches, i see. i guess that actually does bring up a good point, it does kind of look strange in the matches. but i dont entirely see how anything else is actually an issue considering its all preference.

edit again: also..what do you mean you're glad they're restricting the viewmodel fov to 75 for matchmaking? call me crazy but I don't think this has been confirmed anywhere?? its just currently at 75fov and might be subject to change?

can anyone figure out how to widen fov using amd crimson? I've spent the last two hours fucking around with CRU and crimson trying to get my game with black bars @ 1920x850 144hz

it is not clear to me that having a higher fov = advantage. Anyone who have tried 150+ will realize that on a 16:9 monitor this is actually a disadvantage. On top of that, having a higher fov means that your field of view close to the middle gets compressed, which makes it more difficult to distinguish enemies or other objects at distance.

The initial FOV that players want will be dependent on your monitor ratio, the distance you're viewing the screen at and preference. Remember guys, we see 180~ in real life, so naturally sitting close to the screen you'd like to replicate that to a certain extent.

Since you can already brute-force a higher fov with aspect ratio it really doesn't make much sense to use 90 as the cap.

16:9's max FoV with a setting of 90 is currently 73ish vertically, 106ish horizontally, and 113ish diagonally.

We should cap every aspect ratio's diagonal fov at the same value (preferably at 113 so that 90% of players don't have to change anything) , so that using different aspect ratios is always a tradeoff of horizontal vs vertical, and so that superwide aspect ratios like 2:1 have diminishing returns instead of being useless or being overpowering.

i would say 90, cause im a fag

...seriously, 38% is satified with only 90 fov?

this video explains it pretty well
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLHsfQS9p_Y

There's this TF2 modification (source 2013 mod, whole new game you dont need tf2 installed) and they set the fov limit to 100

here's 90

http://images.akamai.steamusercontent.com/ugc/356149150092883557/D5A2692209FF3BCFC4B4C72A88161E8B47A22125/

and here's 100

http://images.akamai.steamusercontent.com/ugc/356149150092884678/DE3D115249DC45DEC89001B182A6728E22DEBE85/

For those wondering what mod he's talking about...

I know someone who has like 4 monitors and 2 of them are on the sides of the where a normal one would be so i think he has like 180 fov or something like that.

regarding my exploit's proof, sorry for the delay, vacation made it hard for me to get a demo

proof

recorded on a valve server on pl_upward

why is this even a question, it should be uncapped until it gets glitchy, why not just have the option available, no one is forcing you to play on their FOV, imagine if mouse sensitivity got capped how stupid would that preference being capped be?

r u srs?

Aiera has a point, but he could have chosen a better analogy.

Capping fov is like capping fps or refresh rate, except with fov there's no value that's arguably "the best". treeton explains it pretty well. With refresh rates and fps we all agree (i hope) that higher is better, yet we don't limit that value to level the playing field? So why even discuss fov?

is that the "taunt while teleporting" bug?

Because in a non-linear game like TF2, having a FOV over a certain amount will actually harm game balance. For example, if a certain player has a higher FOV (and they actually take advantage of it), it's much easier for them to spot spies and avoid them, effectively nerfing spy as a class. Same for scout, a class that relies on being able to flank.

Regarding refresh rates and FPS, while having a higher FPS and higher refresh rate will definitely help a player's performance (assuming they aren't an idiot and can actually notice the difference), those variables don't directly impact balance, it just improves the overall experience. The same can be said for getting a better mouse, or better audio so you can hear footsteps.

shhhhh

god forbid we slightly nerf the strongest class in the game

also if you the people you are playing against have good awareness it wouldn't matter

i didn't know making a class useless was "slightly nerfing" it

regardless of how you feel about scout, it doesn't change the fact that a technical setting should not interfere with game balance. 90 is too low, but uncapping it is even worse.

having good awareness can definitely mitigate the issue, but that's a skill counter to the class, and there shouldn't be a literal checkbox that does the same thing for bad players, making the class bad against everyone.

You create 2 different categories of game "improvements" (to keep it simple): "game balance harming" and "experience improvers". You arbitrarily put "using higher fov" in one category, and "higher fps/rr" in the other. But how can the overall "game balance" NOT be tipped towards the players with the "improved experience"? There are certain classes that definitely benefit more from an increased framerate or refresh rate, over other classes. My whole point was to say that all these things can be boiled down to the same principle. The distinction that you are trying to make is completely arbitrary. Furthermore, you're completely ignoring the disadvantages of high fov, as stated by treeton (and many people in the past, and historical evidence of high tier fps players (like quakers) being actually quite restrictive in their fov choices)

Edit: ok on rereading your reply I now understand that it basically boils down to "spy (and scout) becomes harder when ppl use higher fov". Well, if you REALLY wanna talk about balance: The game IS linear (I think you mean symmetric), unlike a game like Natural Selection, because both teams have exactly the same options. So any detriment to a class works for both sides. No imbalance there.

Edit2: Also, a completely different point: the balance of FOV doesn't discriminate against people with worse hardware, unlike better fps/sound/etc. Anyone can run TF2 with vfov 75-90 (I'd be in favor of upping this restriction) and in any aspect ratio, regardless of hardware.

Yes I meant it's asymmetrical, not nonlinear, as opposed to something like Quake that isn't class-based. A detriment to both sides is technically equal, but it's still a detriment to a class. For example, you can't say that Scouts should have 300 base health instead of 125 if your argument is "Well, both BLU and RED will get this buff, therefore it's balanced", because it's equal, but not balanced.

Again, I'm not at all arguing that the max FOV should be 90. In my opinion it should be 110. I'm just arguing against an uncapped value.

For the record, FOV directly impacts performance. Higher FOV = lower performance, on a pretty big scale. There's a reason consoles have such a low FOV - it isn't because console players sit on the couch, it's because consoles are weak and so they lower FOV, which they can afford to do because players sit on the couch, in order to gain back some performance.

That being said, FOV doesn't cause much of a performance hit in TF2 for the same reason that graphics configs don't really do all that much in regards to performance, in the majority of cases. TF2 is not GPU-bound, and increasing the FOV is (mostly) only going to hit the GPU. Performance won't change much in TF2 because of this.

It's still definitely balanced, the balance is just shifted. The only thing that you can argue when class balance shifts, is: "Is it fun/interesting"? It's basically the exact same discussion as unlock discussions. Any kind of change in these areas doesn't affect overall balance, but DOES redefine how the game works and how the meta shifts. Obviously, nobody likes it when a game is changed so severely that the way it is played doesn't resemble at all the way it used to be played. Cause, if you want to play in a completely different way, then why not just play a different game, right?

I guess my point would be that higher fov is really not that impactful to the game towards the point where it completely skews the meta. There's loads of people using higher hFOVs already (including me), and you don't notice anything special about them (cause we're all bad lololol inb4'd)

Are you sure? Considering your opionin I don't think you would like fov_desired to be 110 max. That value results in a huuuuge hfov on 16:9 monitors actually.

For the record, FOV directly impacts performance. Higher FOV = lower performance, on a pretty big scale. There's a reason consoles have such a low FOV - it isn't because console players sit on the couch, it's because consoles are weak and so they lower FOV, which they can afford to do because players sit on the couch, in order to gain back some performance.

That being said, FOV doesn't cause much of a performance hit in TF2 for the same reason that graphics configs don't really do all that much in regards to performance, in the majority of cases. TF2 is not GPU-bound, and increasing the FOV is (mostly) only going to hit the GPU. Performance won't change much in TF2 because of this.[/quote]

I don't have the facts on impact of FOV on rendering performance (I bet it's not that big), but I do know that the main reason for low FOVs on consoles is NOT performance. It stems from the player's average distance to the screen. The further away a screen is (or better said, the (relatively) smaller the game image is), the more natural it is to use a low fov, because the actual entire game image takes up a smaller part of your own eyes' fov. If that makes sense. Wikipedia explains it in a less retarded way: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_of_view_in_video_games#Choice_of_field_of_view

I already have access to anywhere between 90 and 120 using my exploit that I showed off above, and I feel like 110 is a good compromise between situational awareness and balance. At the very least, we should have 100.

I already mentioned that when I stated how players sit on the couch. However, the reason games use it is because of performance. The reason they get away with it is because it isn't bad since you're sitting on a couch.

There is a pretty big GPU hit in regards to increasing the FOV, because you are literally rendering more of the world, more players, more projectiles, etc, at least assuming the game in question used proper occlusion culling to begin with. Speaking of which, there's a pretty big bug in regards to having a high FOV (over 100) in TF2, since Source uses a form of occlusion culling called PVS, or "Potentially Visible Set". This breaks the world into "visleaves" that determine what parts of the map are rendered based on player positioning. However, something I've noticed when playing with an FOV over 100 is that these visleaves are rendered and compiled based on an assumption of a maximum of 90 FOV. When playing with anything higher, you're going to start seeing clipping, object unloading, and sometimes complete occlusion culling bugs where there isn't a visleaf loaded and you just see skybox in the corners of your vision. Here is an example of this happening in Black Mesa when the FOV is uncapped.

Here's a demo I just recorded on mvm_decoy showing off instances of both skybox bugs and object unloading due to occlusion culling.

An FYI for everyone:

Most arena FPS's go at least up to 120. However, that's a horizontal 4:3 based FOV, and yields a a true FOV of 133.17 on a 16:9 resolution.
As many know, the value you input for your FOV in source is actually the vertical FOV of a 4:3 res, so to obtain a horizontal FOV of 133.17 in source, you need a value of roughly 119.995 in console.

So if you want your 120 FOV from other games, yes, you would need a max FOV of 120 in source.

ED: Quake Live, Quake 1, Quake 2, and Quake 4 are all horizontal 4:3 res based, while Quake III Arena is horizontal custom resolution based (if this is relevant to anyone)

Oh right, I missed that part, I was in a hurry and had to go out x) .

I'm not a game developer so I was just making a guess about the performance impact, and I was doing so from the viewpoint of TF2. All that you do is render a little more world geometry, which is pretty basic to begin with. I'd imagine that in other games the added load could be way bigger. Considering what you explained about visleaves, I guess I'm not too wrong then (because you're saying that at a higher fov it still renders the same stuff as at a lower fov)?

As for the choice of using low fov on consoles: Still not sure about your argument. I'm too optimistic about game developers to think that they make design choices firstly because of raw graphical horsepower rather than overall game experience.

i dont think ppl realize that they can get 108,4 fov with 1280x600 resolution.

108,4 fov is the max on valve servers and comp servers. since its capped at 1.85:1