User panel stuff on forum
  35 posts on 2 pages  First page12Last page
Advanced Configuration
2010-02-14, 09:47
Member
401 posts

Registered:
Mar 2006
Sometimes sucks.

http://img198.imageshack.us/img198/2653/hmmyp.jpg
2010-02-14, 14:24
Member
85 posts

Registered:
May 2007
What's the meaning of this post? :S
Str8 Outta Ritoniemi!
2010-02-14, 14:25
Member
401 posts

Registered:
Mar 2006
You can't see rl or your opponent on the other side of the map
2010-02-14, 15:31
Member
271 posts

Registered:
Feb 2006
there are really only two interesting values for v_viewheight. 0 and -6.
anything else is pointless. so yeah, why use 4?
moo
2010-02-14, 15:35
Member
401 posts

Registered:
Mar 2006
Spike wrote:
there are really only two interesting values for v_viewheight. 0 and -6.
anything else is pointless. so yeah, why use 4?

Well Milton plays with 4 and cl_crossy 2. Foe also told me 4 gives you some kind of an advantage but I'm not sure how you can benefit from being taller in game. Maybe its easier to aim with rl at your opponents feet?
2010-02-14, 16:51
Member
459 posts

Registered:
Mar 2008
Viewheight 4 has its advantages. Makes you able to see opponenets thats coming from a higher ground earlier (f.ex if you're camping LG @ DM4 and enemy comes from high-tele). Also lgblood will usually be at the bottom of your screen, even if the opponent shoots you quite high up. Less distractions. I don't agree with what spike said. The two interesting values of viewheight is 4 and -6 imo. Although if you're used to something else its probably better to just stick with it since it has so little impact on your game.
2010-02-14, 16:58
Member
10 posts

Registered:
Oct 2009
terrorhead wrote:
Spike wrote:
there are really only two interesting values for v_viewheight. 0 and -6.
anything else is pointless. so yeah, why use 4?

Well Milton plays with 4 and cl_crossy 2. Foe also told me 4 gives you some kind of an advantage but I'm not sure how you can benefit from being taller in game. Maybe its easier to aim with rl at your opponents feet?

Milton uses -6 viewheight and crossy 0, According to his config
2010-02-14, 17:22
Member
462 posts

Registered:
Jan 2006
Milton uses -6. I did too, for a while, until I switched back to 0... With -6 your viewpoint is exactly on the same level where your rockets launch, which is obviously useful when trying to shoot trough small holes so u dont accidentally hit the edges because the rocket launches lower than your view. This is also the only value where you can set your crosshair to always point correctly, regardless of the distance. The minus side is that opponent's lg hits you straight to your face which can be distracting. Also in povdmm4 it's easier to shaft over the rail with a higher viewpoint. So basically, it really depends on the map and the position and situation, it's hard to say what is best on average.
2010-02-14, 17:31
Administrator
381 posts

Registered:
Dec 2006
There are reasons to use positive viewheight; because of the way most maps are designed (with gravity in mind!) you are likely to see more when using a positive viewheight as it is more likely that your view will be blocked by a wall/floor than the ceiling. An example would be dm3 sng, it is easier to see when the mega is there.

As mentioned some people find it easier to cope with being shafted when using a high viewheight too.

Of course whether you feel these small visual advantages are worth it compared to more consistent accuracy over all distances (-6) is down to the player.
In an ideal world I'd like to get used to playing with multiple viewheights e.g. have a script that sets viewheight to -6 when I have RL and something higher when I don't. I think it would be a bit confusing though as the same place would look different depending on what weapons I have.
2010-02-15, 09:33
Member
401 posts

Registered:
Mar 2006
blAze wrote:
Milton uses -6. I did too, for a while, until I switched back to 0... With -6 your viewpoint is exactly on the same level where your rockets launch, which is obviously useful when trying to shoot trough small holes so u dont accidentally hit the edges because the rocket launches lower than your view. This is also the only value where you can set your crosshair to always point correctly, regardless of the distance. The minus side is that opponent's lg hits you straight to your face which can be distracting. Also in povdmm4 it's easier to shaft over the rail with a higher viewpoint. So basically, it really depends on the map and the position and situation, it's hard to say what is best on average.

I guess I have his old or some one else's config
2010-02-15, 16:21
Member
284 posts

Registered:
Oct 2006
I find v_viewheight 0 to be very good for most rl action. Especially longer distance rl is curiously harder when the rockets are shooting straight from your eyes (-6). Like a lot of oldschoolers, I've probably played a lot more with 0 than -6 and in a way it feels more natural. I think this goes even so far as to actually determine how you're used to shooting at the feet. When I first learned it, I was at 0 (cl_bob* 0), even though I've been using -6 mostly for quite some time, I'm still aiming at the feet like I did with 0. This means that often times I'm shooting a bit too much in front.

I've tried switching back and forth a few times during the years, but I simply can't overcome the fact that rocket aim isn't exact with 0. Of course it's something you can get used to, but visually it's a real pain with quick situations where you clearly see your crosshair above the obstacle, but still hit it and broest all over yourself

In addition to seeing and shooting, you really have to consider how you view obstacles in the game in terms of movement. Switching from -6 to 0, you will have a bit of a learning curve on certain jumps' timing, because it simply looks different. This is not such a big deal on most of the basic maps as the biggest problem is generally with just low enough to jump over railings etc, like on povdmm4.

I'd say in the end, -6 is still the best 'compromise' if you will. There's simply something very comforting in its consistency and not having to learn how to make certain shots different from what your crosshair is showing. The crosshair issue is ofc affected by the type of crosshair you use. For me the difference is quite big, since I use a very small and thin crosshair. With bigger and bulkier crosshairs, it's probably easier to learn the shots and mind the obstacles with v_viewheight 0.

And ofc I feel like trying 0 again after all this talking

Btw. If you really can't see the dm3 sng mh just by walking on the steps with -6, you should check your fov (or eyesight

ps. never tried positive values (except for bobbing days)
2010-02-15, 16:44
Member
149 posts

Registered:
Nov 2006
Hangtime, when you set v_viewheight -6 for RL, if enemy shafts you, he shafts you in the face, so it doesn't really work.
If you have a weapon selected that is not RL you can set v_viewheight 0, but if you press your RL button/key you are aiming with v_viewheight 0, wich will make you miss the shot.
The only situation where its useful is LG vs LG, but its weird seing the screen changing all the time.

gl_shaftlight 0 and v_viewheight -6 seems to work fine for me.
r_shaftalpha helps alot, i wonder why there was no flamewar on this variable like there was with others. Yeah i know its disabled with ruleset smackdown, but still, gives an obvious advantage, thats why i dont like to play against someone with ruleset default, even in normal/practice games.
2010-02-15, 17:06
Member
462 posts

Registered:
Jan 2006
MatriX I think there is no flamewar about it exactly because it is disabled in smackdown. Personally I'd love to use it, and cl_rollalpha too, but they are disabled. And perhaps I have to go back to -6 after nio's motivational speech. gg.
2010-02-15, 17:23
Member
119 posts

Registered:
Sep 2007
i dunno if it's worth going to an inaccurate (to the crosshair) value just because you get shafted SECONDS out of a 20 min 4on4 or so
2010-02-15, 17:37
Member
1435 posts

Registered:
Jan 2006
FTEQW has a feature /crosshaircorrect 1 that will move the crosshair dynamically based on where you aim to fix the spot where the rocket (or whatever) will hit if you press attack. So with v_viewheight -6 it will not do anything (well, almost), with v_viewheight 0 or 4 your crosshair will actually move while you aim.
Not sure if it's allowed with the current ruleset.
2010-02-15, 19:26
Member
149 posts

Registered:
Nov 2006
Antilag feature can also be disabled and look what happened...
2010-02-17, 04:37
Member
252 posts

Registered:
Dec 2006
terrorhead wrote:
Foe also told me 4 gives you some kind of an advantage

I advocate v_viewheight 0; fov 110, cl_rollangle 4;cl_rollspeed 200;cl_rollalpha 9999999999 (unsmoothed rolling, e.g if you hit a wall you will snap back without any animation); and cl_crossy is negative something, the inaccuracy can be minimised, and especially at the important distances.
FYI viewheight 0, roll 4/200, fov 110 is what reload uses. If I ventured to suggest that 4 may offer some advantage it was only a whimsical hypothesis, the main reason to try it is just for the shear novelty of it.
'on 120 ping i have beaten mortuary dirtbox and reload' (tm) mz adrenalin
'i watched sting once very boring and not good at all' (tm) mz adrenalin
[i]'i shoulda won all
2010-02-17, 11:40
Member
164 posts

Registered:
Apr 2007
Intresting thread, i have never thought about it, and when i checked what i use, i hade viewheight 0 and cl_crossy 2.

but i think it is as rikoll said, its no use for one to change to another setting, have what you are used to i think that is the best.
2010-02-17, 12:16
Administrator
1024 posts

Registered:
Apr 2006
I found my rl improved a lot going from viewheight 0 to viewheight 4 (no change in crossy though), so it would probably be the
same for me if i used viewheight 0 and changed crossy. Still viewheight 4 is what im using currently.
2010-02-17, 12:45
Member
462 posts

Registered:
Jan 2006
Runamok.foe wrote:
terrorhead wrote:
Foe also told me 4 gives you some kind of an advantage

I advocate v_viewheight 0; fov 110, cl_rollangle 4;cl_rollspeed 200;cl_rollalpha 9999999999 (unsmoothed rolling, e.g if you hit a wall you will snap back without any animation); and cl_crossy is negative something, the inaccuracy can be minimised, and especially at the important distances.
FYI viewheight 0, roll 4/200, fov 110 is what reload uses. If I ventured to suggest that 4 may offer some advantage it was only a whimsical hypothesis, the main reason to try it is just for the shear novelty of it.

cl_rollalpha is not allowed (ruleset smackdown), fov 110 is quite low for games where you need to see around not to miss things. So often I watch demos where ppl with too low fov miss enemies and items that are clearly visible with a higher fov.
2010-02-17, 13:11
Member
459 posts

Registered:
Mar 2008
blAze wrote:
cl_rollalpha is not allowed (ruleset smackdown), fov 110 is quite low for games where you need to see around not to miss things. So often I watch demos where ppl with too low fov miss enemies and items that are clearly visible with a higher fov.

Haha yeah, I also notice that sometimes when watching demos / other people play. High FOV has so many advantages in QW since theres no headshots or sniper/railgun like weapons there. I personally don't notice any improvement on my LG aim by going for a lower FOV either, due to the limited range. My LG is far from among the best though. Only disadvantage I see with high FOV, is when you're shooting rockets from a long distance at certain walls / floor spots. Like upper-ya to rl on dm3. Should probably bind a zoom button for that sort of things when I can be bothered .

I think a dynamic viewheight is probably the best if you want to maximize your play in the long run. Like one button for -6 for use in some situations, then switch over to 4 in other situations. Probably a bit too much of a hassle for most players. An easy, perhaps not so useful way, is just to bind v_viewheight 4; cl_crossy 2 to your LG bind, and v_viewheight -6; cl_crossy 0 to your RL bind. Depending some on your weapon handling it won't make much difference since you only will get viewheight 4 AFTER engaging in combat with your opponenet, and not before.
2010-02-17, 13:28
Member
462 posts

Registered:
Jan 2006
Yeah I use lower fov for lg, I guess I could also use higher viewheight for it, but it's gonna make one confusing wpn alias then.
2010-02-18, 10:24
Member
61 posts

Registered:
Sep 2009
Interesting thread.

It might be important to mention that originally (before MQWCL?) almost everyone played with v_viewheight 4, because that was the default. There was no v_viewheight command to change. However, there was a way of changing it by using cl_bobcycle and cl_bob I think, but i'm not sure many people used it back then.

What I miss in the arguments is the fact that a higher perspective is usually favored? Isn't it easier to shoot rockets (most used weapon) from a higher perspective than a low to the ground perspective? Consider dm6 ra area, it is much easier shooting down from the ra because your perspective is better and you have a better view of the ground surrounding the feet of the enemy. That is the main reason I can't get used to rl aim with viewheight -6, there is almost no visible ground around the enemy's feet.
2010-02-18, 11:28
Member
459 posts

Registered:
Mar 2008
The main reason its easier to hit from a higher ground with RL, is that you can hit the ground the player on the lower area is standing on and still do plenty of splash damage. From a lower ground, you can't see the ground the opponent is standing on and obviously can't hit it then. You need to get a direct hit or use walls / a ceiling to deal splash damage which is usually harder, at least vs an opponent with decent movement. Also if you can see a ground with viewheight 4 that you normally couldn't with viewheight -6, you can't even shoot at it cause the rockets shoots from a lower view than your own, and you might just end up doing damage to yourself.
2010-02-18, 11:43
Administrator
2058 posts

Registered:
Jan 2006
fern wrote:
i dunno if it's worth going to an inaccurate (to the crosshair) value just because you get shafted SECONDS out of a 20 min 4on4 or so

It might be those few seconds that decides whether you're going to spend the rest of the 20 minute 4on4 with a dick up your arse or not.
www.facebook.com/QuakeWorld
2010-02-18, 13:45
Member
61 posts

Registered:
Sep 2009
I know it's just your perspective and you can't actually hit other areas regardless of your viewheight. Still, for me personally the higher viewpoint provides a better view for rl aiming. If I had a copy of QW installed at my work I could make two screenshots which show what I mean
2010-02-18, 14:12
News Writer
283 posts

Registered:
Jan 2007
Well yeah just imagine the extremes... if you're fighting at GL on DM6 for example, and you could switch to a view from the ceiling, it'd be much easier to hit the front/middle of the platform with rockets and thus cause much better splash damage. Or shooting over from ring to quad on dm3 - every pixel makes a big difference to where your rockets hit. That's one of the reasons why people (used to - less common now) jump just before they fired a rocket - to get a better perspective on the floor they were aiming at.
2010-02-18, 14:29
News Writer
1267 posts

Registered:
Jun 2007
#27
I remember all that jumping while shooting rockets
It made the rl fights look pretty lame
Chosen
2010-02-18, 16:03
Member
462 posts

Registered:
Jan 2006
After going back and forth with this I came to conclusion that 4on4 just goes so much better with -6 that I'm gonna stick with that, even though it's not that great for lg, imo. Somehow moving and rl fights just feel so much more accurate with it. Switching it for lg and having the crosshair pop up and down was just too messed up so I'm not going to go for that either. I've been asking around and I guess for -6 we have bps, milton and for 0 we have locktar and valla, so I guess it's possible to play well with both values. Feel free to add more good players that you know of.
2010-02-18, 16:27
Member
247 posts

Registered:
Jan 2006
Mors plays with -10 :/
  35 posts on 2 pages  First page12Last page