Battlefield 2 & 2142 Widescreen Hack

[Biotech2142]

As long PB says it is legal then is ok.

For me it just falls into hardware advantage but not intended by developers.

[Skates]

So, can this be used on a PB Enabled server if it falls under hardware advantage? Like if you can set your view distance to 100% and someone else only 80% you can be shooting them when they can't even see you.

[DeadlySin]

Nice prog, but it got jittery at times. I might ditch it just because of the fact that the crosshair jerks a little when you zoom.

[Biotech2142]

So, can this be used on a PB Enabled server if it falls under hardware advantage? Like if you can set your view distance to 100% and someone else only 80% you can be shooting them when they can't even see you.

Widescreen monitor: Own this hardware and you got FOV advantage with this "hack".

View distance is in-game customizable = intended by developers.

[Tetris L]

I want this so badly. Drool. If only more games would support it.

[Elementalist]

Widescreen monitor: Own this hardware and you got FOV advantage with this "hack".

View distance is in-game customizable = intended by developers.

Nah - you may as well say having a good machine is a 'hack', but it is 'intended by the developers' that a better machine means you can play the game with improved graphics and sound including viewing distance.

I just bought myself an 8800 ultra and I can now put my graphics settings to max. I can see SO much better and shoot people a LONG way off because of it. If I had an 800x600 monitor, a 5600 card and stereo speakers I could play, but I wouldn't be pulling off any long distance kills and wouldn't be as 'aware' of my surroundings = I would die more and kill less. It would be like a real soldier fighting with a gasmask on.

The reason widescreens are not coded for is they weren't coded for to begin with and, so, will take considerable effort to code for now. The minimal 'advantage' having 20% greater FOV is just a convenient excuse.

[Vreki]

The reason widescreens are not coded for is they weren't coded for to begin with and, so, will take considerable effort to code for now. The minimal 'advantage' having 20% greater FOV is just a convenient excuse.

Then how about this?


I don't think they need to recode much to include WS support if they wanted too, since the engine accepts the command line options for other resolutions. They have just fixed the FOV, which probably required more coding than leaving it alone.
That this hack is possible seems to support that.

[Elementalist]

Then how about this?


I don't think they need to recode much to include WS support if they wanted too, since the engine accepts the command line options for other resolutions. They have just fixed the FOV, which probably required more coding than leaving it alone.
That this hack is possible seems to support that.

Ok, well, saying 'coded' I was perhaps over-simplifying. There is a huge difference between coding (technically enabling) and coding, testing, packaging and releasing.

In my experience the developers are not the lazy ones - they just do as they are told (I am a developer) - the managers are the lazy ones; once they have a product out there that has made the bulk of its sales and is 'stable' they do not like to expend any effort/thought/money over it - they like to move on to the next and more profitable project.

I'll alter my quote, if I may, to: The reason widescreens are not supported is much more likely to be because widescreen was not supported in the original version and would take considerable effort/time/money to organise relative to the goodwill/money it would score the makers.

My personal opinion, especially given the punkbuster comment about the FOV 'hack' being allowed, is that the concept of widescreen being unsupported because it gives an an 'unfair advantage' was simply a convenient excuse for not overcoming a potentially complex technical issue which would not be a cost/benefit 'win' for the EA/DICE bigwigs.

It's just an opinion though

[Vreki]

My personal opinion, especially given the punkbuster comment about the FOV 'hack' being allowed, is that the concept of widescreen being unsupported because it gives an an 'unfair advantage' was simply a convenient excuse for not overcoming a potentially complex technical issue which would not be a cost/benefit 'win' for the EA/DICE bigwigs.

It's just an opinion though

Fair enough.
I on the other hand read the PB answer more like

A what? I mean... eeeh, yes we know all about it annnnnnnnd... it is currently,eh ,given the circumstances.... probably not an issue.

A typical management answer when cornered

I don't really understand how this can not trigger PB since it must modify or interfere with the game engine?

[Elementalist]

Fair enough.
I on the other hand read the PB answer more like

"A what? I mean... eeeh, yes we know all about it annnnnnnnd... it is currently,eh ,given the circumstances.... probably not an issue."

A typical management answer when cornered

I don't really understand how this can not trigger PB since it must modify or interfere with the game engine?

Hehe, yes, the PB answer does have the smell of a cornered manager :laugh:

I'm not quite sure how it doesn't get 'caught' by PB either - makes you worry what else 'slips by' no?

I get the feeling that widescreen may soon be supported in BF, so they couldn't very well say it breaks PB. Also, I think Quake Wars supports widescreen and uses PB, so...

[GrossKopf]

How does this "hack" differ from putting the widescreen dimensions in your command line? Does it make it look any different?

[Tetris L]

Back in the days of Unreal 1 and UT 1 you were free to set your FOV angle to whatever you wanted to. Server admins were able to restrict the minimum FOV, because it could be used to zoom in extremely using a macro. But nobody ever objected against high FOV values, or saw it as cheating. It's perfectly okay to me that you see more if you have a larger screen.

[Elementalist]

It's explained in various posts, I think, but it is pretty confusing (I have a widescreen monitor coming tomorrow, so I'm trying to get ready, myself).

I believe just changing the command line results in the program chopping off the top and bottom (and even some of the sides!) to fit it into a widescreen ratio. Nasty.

The 'hacks' (I believe there are more than one - I have done a fair bit of web cruising) somehow do not.

On reflection, I'm not sure how or why this works. Maybe using the command line to 'ask for' the right number of pixels does get the right number of pixels, but isn't enough to get it in a widescreen 'format' and the POV 'hack' manages to unmangle it?

I'm guessing. The POV hack must do more, because, no matter what resolution you ask for, that shouldn't alter the viewing angle you get to 'see' *shrug* *confused* How the heck does a POV hack get the program to give it more information?

[FPS[SONIC]]

How does this "hack" differ from putting the widescreen dimensions in your command line? Does it make it look any different?

Yeah, Elementalist got it correct in the post above. When you change the command line properties, it crops the existing 4x3 display window and fits the new 'widescreen' aspect ratio within that 4x3 window.

This gives the user a disavantage for having a widescreen display because they are seeing less information than those with 4x3 aspect ratio.

This software tool we are discussing actually appears to give true widescreen support to BF2/2142 without decreasing the resolution.

[TrooperJac]

Any chance of this being ported to 2142 1.41?

Thanks