Muzzleflash
<div class="IPBDescription">NS compared to CS</div> Sorry if this isn't really Off-Topic, but I felt that the General-Forum shouldn't see another topic about this...
Well, I've seen so many complaints about the muzzleflash in Natural Selection. Every time I read "OMG! Teh MUzzLEflaSH is TOO BIG!!!!!111" or more civilized ones like "Muzzleflash too big?" I wondered.
Like many others, I've played Natural-Selection since Halloween (the first release) and many other Half-Life MODS and FPSs before that. One thing I <i>never</i> noticed, neither in a good way nor in a bad one, was the muzzleflash.
The first thing I did when I read those complains was playing a short round of NS.
I couldn't see a problem, even when I tried.
But nice as I am, I thought "Perhaps it's something about resolution. Perhaps the muzzleflash doesn't scale right or something like that..."
But, to my surprise, it seems to be not a problem of screen resolution.
I've a 19" ACER monitor and a GeForce2 GTS 64MB. I can (and do) run all games at a 1024x768 resolution without things like AntiAliasin.
I've taken screenshots in both Natural-Selection and Counter-Strike. I chose Counter-Strike because I've never heard any complaints about their muzzleflash (wel, I've also never visited a CS-forum... )
I chose the resolution 400x300 (b/c it's the lowest I could choose), 640x480 (b/c it's a common low resolution), 1024x768 (b/c it's a common high resolution) and 1600x1200 (b/c it's the highest I could choose.
I scaled all images to a dimension of 640x480, the intent is to show you that the size of the muzzleflash scales well with the resolution.
Here are the results:
<b>Natural-Selection</b>
<img src='http://www.joshbeeler.com/ramses/images/misc/mfns.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image'>
<b>Counter-Strike</b>
<img src='http://www.joshbeeler.com/ramses/images/misc/mfcs.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image'>
<b>Both</b>
<img src='http://www.joshbeeler.com/ramses/images/misc/mfnscs.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image'>
I must admit that I can't see a problem with the muzzleflash in Natural Selection. Compared to Counter-Strike it isn't bigger but slightly more <i>massive</i> (not sure if that's the right word. It's not as slick as the CS one). In both cases the Crosshair is partly covered by the muzzleflash, but always visible.
My conclusion:
I'm not sure if the sprite-scaling works different in Direct3D or Software, but at least if you run Natural-Selection in OpenGL, I can't see your problem with the muzzleflash.
<i>Perhaps someone who has problems with the muzzleflash can post screenshots and system-specifications?</i>
Well, I've seen so many complaints about the muzzleflash in Natural Selection. Every time I read "OMG! Teh MUzzLEflaSH is TOO BIG!!!!!111" or more civilized ones like "Muzzleflash too big?" I wondered.
Like many others, I've played Natural-Selection since Halloween (the first release) and many other Half-Life MODS and FPSs before that. One thing I <i>never</i> noticed, neither in a good way nor in a bad one, was the muzzleflash.
The first thing I did when I read those complains was playing a short round of NS.
I couldn't see a problem, even when I tried.
But nice as I am, I thought "Perhaps it's something about resolution. Perhaps the muzzleflash doesn't scale right or something like that..."
But, to my surprise, it seems to be not a problem of screen resolution.
I've a 19" ACER monitor and a GeForce2 GTS 64MB. I can (and do) run all games at a 1024x768 resolution without things like AntiAliasin.
I've taken screenshots in both Natural-Selection and Counter-Strike. I chose Counter-Strike because I've never heard any complaints about their muzzleflash (wel, I've also never visited a CS-forum... )
I chose the resolution 400x300 (b/c it's the lowest I could choose), 640x480 (b/c it's a common low resolution), 1024x768 (b/c it's a common high resolution) and 1600x1200 (b/c it's the highest I could choose.
I scaled all images to a dimension of 640x480, the intent is to show you that the size of the muzzleflash scales well with the resolution.
Here are the results:
<b>Natural-Selection</b>
<img src='http://www.joshbeeler.com/ramses/images/misc/mfns.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image'>
<b>Counter-Strike</b>
<img src='http://www.joshbeeler.com/ramses/images/misc/mfcs.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image'>
<b>Both</b>
<img src='http://www.joshbeeler.com/ramses/images/misc/mfnscs.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image'>
I must admit that I can't see a problem with the muzzleflash in Natural Selection. Compared to Counter-Strike it isn't bigger but slightly more <i>massive</i> (not sure if that's the right word. It's not as slick as the CS one). In both cases the Crosshair is partly covered by the muzzleflash, but always visible.
My conclusion:
I'm not sure if the sprite-scaling works different in Direct3D or Software, but at least if you run Natural-Selection in OpenGL, I can't see your problem with the muzzleflash.
<i>Perhaps someone who has problems with the muzzleflash can post screenshots and system-specifications?</i>
Comments
<ul><li>The target you're trying to hit in NS is smaller
<li>The target you're trying to hit in NS is faster
<li>The CS muzzleflash is more translucent than the NS one (at the edges)
<li>The CS muzzleflash is the same diameter but it's an X while the NS one is an O</ul>
But does it really make <i>that</i> much of a difference?
In a recent thread about this topic (now locked) someone said
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->One of the main reasons alot of players wont convert is the following;
The LMG muzzle flash, it's a joke to be honest, it in fact turns to luck 'if you hit the skulk' if they're up close, with the gun and the flash it takes up 1/3 of your screen, some of this covering your aiming reticle... give a skulk celerity, carapace and leap and he'll be literally be unstoppable.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Come on, this is just plain nonsense.
Noone will stop playing NS because of the muzzleflash. It's far from 1/3 of your screen. Sure, if Skulks are close up and are jumping like crazy, perhaps even leaping, then it IS often only luck to hit them. But that has nothing to do with the muzzleflash.
Or another quote from the same person:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It literally blinds the screen with a flash making it impossible to hit for s***
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Again, In my opinion this is nonsense. Either my glasses safe me from being blinded, or some other mysterious reason, but saying that the muzzleflash <i>literally</i> blinds sound just wrong to me.
But no reason to start another discussion, I just want to show that it really isn't <i>that</i> much of a gameplay-factor...
50% of NS is how bad arse you feel while you play. that's why I got a Morita for the LMG and a three prong sprite. I feel like a true SST M.I. man with my stuff.
Go Humans....or go aliens who really should be nameless because they can't speak!.
Look at that flash.
<!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
some actual evidence (screenshots) when talking about
about teh fabbled "OMG the muzzel fl4$h r t00 b1g!!!!"
debate. I personally never noticed until it was pointed out
many many times. And even then I found that my eyes had
simply gotten used to the flash.
Bottom line: People are complaining about the muzzle flash
when they're tried to kill close quarter enemies. But if you allow
ANY Khaaraa to get THAT close thenyou were gonna die anyway.
Muzzle flash or no weapon model on screen at all.... letting a Skulk
(or even a Gorge for that matter) within 5-10 yards is asking for a killing.