Bioshock: artistic vision - or not as the case may be

xappie · Post by **xappie** » 22 Aug 2007, 15:17

Sweeet! Thanks.

Post by **Paddy the Wak** » 22 Aug 2007, 15:25

OK ... there are some big problems with Vista ...
Racer_S thinks he can sort it but he will need a few days ...

Sorry ... Vista users ... :(

Post by **ctrlsteef** » 22 Aug 2007, 15:26

The only people that should be sorry for the Vista users are the developers of the game. You guys are doing the best you can. :wink:

Keep up the good work mates.

Ascii_Aficionado · Post by **Ascii_Aficionado** » 22 Aug 2007, 15:26

he only people that should be sorry for the Vista users are the developers of the game. You guys are doing the best you can.

/applaud

Crozzfire · Post by **Crozzfire** » 22 Aug 2007, 15:27

Would it also be fixed for Vista 64 bit? I really appreciate the work you're doing (that the devs should've done).

Cabezone · Post by **Cabezone** » 22 Aug 2007, 15:29

works here in Vista 32. DX9 mode. The current Nvidia drivers(not the beta bioshock ones)

Cynagen · Post by **Cynagen** » 22 Aug 2007, 15:29

Ahem, this is just 2 cents, I was reading posts on page 1 of this massive thread... and somebody said "Quake III runs unmodified in widescreen, what is wrong with the developers when they can't do that a decade later?".

I just wanted to point out another game: Command & Conquer: Red Alert.

It was released back on October 31, 1996, and it supported 16:10 computer widescreen monitor size 640x400 NATIVELY. Heck, even the Wikipedia screenshot is a WS shot from the game!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Command_&_Conquer:_Red_Alert

2K, you are lazy lazy developers. I'll play your demo with the Racer_S fix, but I will not PAY for your game until you fix your blaten mistake. As for all the 360 players, if you apply the WS fix to new presses of the disc, you should rightfully give EVERYONE a new copy who's already bought the messed up one. You eat the cost of your lazy mistake, not us.

::TrueWS

Osuperman · Post by **Osuperman** » 22 Aug 2007, 15:31

OK ... there are some big problems with Vista ...
Racer_S thinks he can sort it but he will need a few days ...

Sorry ... Vista users ... :(

Thank you for the reply Paddy. I really do appreciate it, you guys are ace for doing this :) I'll hold off playing until then, and I am sorry for the mutliple posts. :oops:

Much obliged/Osups

sojrner · Post by **sojrner** » 22 Aug 2007, 15:31

[quote][quote]The point of proper widescreen support is so that you see more than a 4:3 display... with their method if widescreen you see less of the game!

It's a hack, unforgivable when ALL new displays for the past few years have been widescreen. I can run Quake3 unmodified (released in 1999) properly in widescreen, why can't games released almost a decade later support widescreen properly?

you would THINK that is the proper way to support it... but even some movies run that way. James Cameron has been quoted as saying he likes fullscreen better and actually films it as such and crops it the same way for "widescreen" at the theaters.

does not remove the massive LAME sticker on the idea, but "technically" it is widescreen format. Just for all sensible movie/game buffs it is the worst way to go.

The reason the top and bottom of motion pictures are cropped for widescreen cinema is because the lens that films it all is round.

8)

wasn't my point, but you are right. My point was that Cameron "prefers" the fullscreen rather than the wide... which is evil IMO. Rock on.

Googlestater · Post by **Googlestater** » 22 Aug 2007, 15:43

Cliff notes:
Skip to table 1 if you want to play as the Devs designed the game, and only correct for the widescreen zoom. Use numbers in the table on the sliders (both sliders MUST MATCH). Skip to table 2 if you wish to play as if the base FOV in 4:3 was 90 degrees (like many FPS games) according to the FOVcalc (linked at top of web page). Skip to table 3 if you wish to play as if the base FOV in 4:3 was 90 degrees according to alternate calculations by Drexion and I. If you feel nauseous from the Dev's small FOV (especially in 4:3), table 3 is for you.
Read on if you want technical, brain numbing, details and math.

Part 1)
I'm sure there will be disagreement here, but if you go in front of a doorway with a circle on it, you can see that the horizontal and vertical sliders MUST MATCH to maintain proper aspect ratio.
If there's too much disagreement on this, I'll post screenshots tomorrow of 4:3 vs 16:9 and various slider settings when close to an in-game circle.
This premise is what guides all the calculations below.
If they don't match, you are throwing off the relationship between horizonal FOV and vertical FOV. Now, if the devs did widescreen properly, you would NEED to adjust them differantly. They didn't, they essentially zoomed in (and cropped, but that part doesn't really matter for this). So you are essentially viewing a 4:3 screen on a 16:9 monitor for example. The devs are maintaining the proper 4:3 relationship between vertical and horizontal FOV already. So you merely have to zoom it back out, keeping the same relationship between the vert/horiz FOV's/sliders.

Essentially all you need to do to fix the devs mistake is zoom out until the heights match again without the devs cropping (i.e. compensate for the dev's cropping). The sides will take care of themselves.

Part 2)
Here's the numbers for BOTH sliders if you want to keep the base FOV of 75 degrees that the devs use
Table 1:
16:9 = 0.75 sliders. Effective FOV = 100 degrees
16:10 = 0.833 sliders. Effective FOV = 90 degrees
5:4 = 1.066 sliders. Effective FOV = 70.4 degrees
4:3 = 1.0 sliders. Effective FOV = 75 degrees

Those are the corrective numbers to fix the zoom in that the devs do. That will reverse the zoom back down to the point where it will add the proper FOV to make up the differance between widescreen and full screen.
In the case of 5:4, its more square, not more widescreen. I dont have a 5:4 screen so I cannot verify that the game does a reverse zoom on it, but since it seems like they want to lock it to a FOV of 75 degrees, thats what makes sense to me. The only way to tell would be to switch resolutions between a 5:4 res and a 4:3 res and see if you gain part of top and bottom, instead of losing it on screenshots
[The numbers are derived by looking at what it takes to get the heights on a ratio to equal. So for instance, using a factor of 4 (this number is something to do with LCM least common multiple I belive, I know how to do it but I'm not sure of the exact term), you can multiply a 4:3 ratio into 16:12 ratio without changing the ratio itself. Now you have equal widths, 16:12 and 16:9. So you look at the height differance, its a factor of 0.75 (9 divided by 12). So theres your 0.75 corrective factor for thier zoom. Find the LCM between 16:10 & 4:3 and the LCM between 5:4 & 4:3 if you wish to verify the other numbers]

Part 3)
This part is if you want to start with a base of 90 degrees (for those who want to just increase the base FOV without regard to the devs design of 75 degree FOV). FOV of 90 degrees is found in such games as Doom, Half life, Quake 3, UT2k4
I used the FOV calculator here, telling it I had a base of 90 degrees:
http://www.widescreengamingforum.com/fovcalc.php
And then took those numbers to get an idea of what the slider should be
Table2:
16:9 = 0.706 sliders. Effective FOV 106 degrees
16:10 = 0.75 sliders. Effective FOV 100 degrees
5:4 = 0.869 sliders. Effective FOV 86.3 degrees
4:3 = 0.833 sliders. Effective FOV 90 degrees

Part 4)
This is starting with a base of 90 degrees (as opposed to the dev's design of 75 degrees) but doing some alternate calculations for FOV's on other types of monitors. Here's Drexion's calculations:
http://img329.imageshack.us/img329/7850/66811434ke6.jpg
My calculations (which are the same idea, just going about it a differant way) are that I start with a 16:12 monitor (4:3 adjusted with LCM) and compare it to a 16:9 monitor. Comparing the 12 and 9 we see that 12 = 1.33 * 9. So 16:9 should have a 1.33 times wider FOV. So the base 90 degrees FOV * 1.33 is 120 degrees. I'm unsure as to why this is quite differant than the FOVcalc, but there it is.
Table 3:
16:9 = 0.625 sliders. Effective FOV 120 degrees
16:10 = 0.694 sliders. Effective FOV 108 degrees
5:4 = 0.888 sliders. Effective FOV 84.375 degrees
4:3 = 0.833 sliders. Effective FOV 90 degrees

Part 5)
If you want an exact FOV, just divide 75 by your desired FOV. For instance, if you want 105 degrees FOV, 75 / 105 = 0.714 for both sliders.
The reason this works is that the devs designed the game to have a constant FOV of 75 degrees, regardless of your resolution, which is where thier unwanted zoom comes in the picture.

HUGE thanks to Racer_S who did the tool!
Also thanks to Drexion who has a 5:4 monitor and helped me out with some stuff.

Edit: I edited quite a number of things after discussing points with Drexion, I also cleaned it up a bit, added cliff notes, italics, etc.

Post by **Paddy the Wak** » 22 Aug 2007, 15:51

Would it also be fixed for Vista 64 bit? I really appreciate the work you're doing (that the devs should've done).

It is our plan to get it to work in all versions of Vista ... but there is no guaranties ..
Racer_S thinks he can do it ... it will just take a few days.

greylantern · Post by **greylantern** » 22 Aug 2007, 16:03

I registered here (I've lurked for ages) because of this whole bioshock farce. I got fed up of going around in circles on the 2kforums trying to explain to people who didn't understand the issue or didn't want to understand (trolls) and it's beyond a joke.

I think it's safe to say that most posters here are WS gamers who understand this stuff so it can be discussed without having to teach the basics of 3D programming and widescreen gaming to every other poster who decides to flame us for wanting proper widescreen support.

Seriously they make me sick, it's not actually any concern of theirs if they are happy with their WS or play at FS so why keep stirring it up instead accepting it as a valid issue? Ignorance mainly, and possibly for some 'entertainment' value they get out of arguing for the sake of it.

I'm also grey lantern over there and have been into this issues since Paddy first posted about it (I was running 4:3 at the time on the demo because I hadn't got my WS monitor hooked up). I've done my bit trying to explain to the idiots over there, now someone else can do it (pref 2k when they release a fix) ;)

Anyway, that's there - this is here.

Apart from getting that off my chest I wanted to say another thanks (also on 2k forums already) to Racer_S for the workaround/hack. I can't work out why the devs didn't put such a simple (even simpler for them cos they didn't have to hunt for memory locations) selectable FOV (or more standard just a selectable and properly implemented aspect ratio drop down box or something like most other games have).

I confirm it works perfectly for me on a 19" WS 1440x900 @ 0.7/0.7 - I know these are not accurate but it's what felt right when I A/B it and it's fine for now, will try the numbers above later to see if I can get it perfect.

I played it first with the hack on and it seemed great, then I toggled it off and my god it was terrible. The virtual head about 2 feet in front of the virtual body is ridiculous. The zoomed in FOV is never going to be 'correct' no matter how many people keep assuming it was an intentional design choice.

And for the record if that fov WAS intentional then I have severe worries about the design team, I hope for their sake it wasn't a choice but a mistake cos it was ridiculous.

Post by **Paddy the Wak** » 22 Aug 2007, 16:08

Hey greylantern ... welcome to the WSGF ... 8)

That thread over at the 2K forums just got out of hand ... but you have to laugh at the idiots ... no point trying to explain they don't want to really know ... :wink: ... :lol:

stone101 · Post by **stone101** » 22 Aug 2007, 16:09

Errrr guys.... does anyone know what would be the settings for 2560 X 1600 ?? this is way to complicated for on top of my normal working day :-)

thanks

Post by **g00seberry** » 22 Aug 2007, 16:11

:welcome

I stopped reading the 2K thread long ago. The people who it is effecting are mature and level-headed about it, while those it has nothing to do with go on rants and flame (mostly with profanity). Bizarre.
Rather have a much more mature discussion about it here methinks. :wink:

Googlestater · Post by **Googlestater** » 22 Aug 2007, 16:12

I confirm it works perfectly for me on a 19" WS 1440x900 @ 0.7/0.7 - I know these are not accurate but it's what felt right when I A/B it and it's fine for now, will try the numbers above later to see if I can get it perfect.

Check out my tables above, your 0.7 sliders are quite close to the 16:10 monitor numbers of 0.694 in table 3 :)

Errrr guys.... does anyone know what would be the settings for 2560 X 1600 ?? this is way to complicated for on top of my normal working day :-)

thanks

Try 0.694 (or 0.7 which is close enough) for the sliders on your 16:10 monitor and see what you think.

Cynagen · Post by **Cynagen** » 22 Aug 2007, 16:13

Errrr guys.... does anyone know what would be the settings for 2560 X 1600 ?? this is way to complicated for on top of my normal working day :-)

thanks

Use the 16:10 A/B because that resolution is just the 30" 16:10.

Cabezone · Post by **Cabezone** » 22 Aug 2007, 16:24

So Vista users with problems, try running it in DX9 mode, see if that works.

greylantern · Post by **greylantern** » 22 Aug 2007, 16:28

Thanks for the welcome guys.

Yeah i'm not posting anymore on that issue over there because I end up looking just as bad as the trolls. :shock:

Will use the theoretical perfect number 0.694 for my 16:10 then, I knew I was in the right ballpark because I was staring at the bathysphere as I adjusted and it was 'out of round' until I got close to those numbers (and the door was too rectangular).

2K should be donating money to Racer_s as with his fix there may be a lot of those who were cancelling orders now changing their minds.

And it looks stunning in 'proper' widescreen (just as we knew it could, just like other good games like HL2 look great in WS). What's more it now feels good too (except some mouse acceleration issues that were never there in 4:3 as far as I could tell).

Thanks again and keep up the good fight!

edit > another good reason to prefer this forum, it has the commonly accepted as needed 'edit' feature which is a pain in the... over on 2k.

barf0r · Post by **barf0r** » 22 Aug 2007, 16:29

Big thankyou to Racer_S, Googlestater and anyone else what has helped in some way to this hack.

I wasn't overly concerned when I heard about the vert- problem to be honest because I thought I wouldn't notice a difference.

But I used the hack along with Googlestater's numbers and the difference is unreal. It just looks so stupid with what the devs made it on my 1440*900. The hack set at 0.694 for me makes things look great, rather than the zoomed in rubbish from before.

Thanks to all involved!

Widescreen Gaming Forum