A few issues since I bought the game yesterday

Yes I did, but hard mounting a camera to someone's helmet doesn't represent what the person actually sees, not to mention that helmets aren't hard mounted or glued to your face as well.

 

Yes they are, but the camera movement in BeamNG makes me feel that the spines in my back are made from steel while the ones in my neck are made from Jell-o.
I'd rather have a fixed camera rather than having one with odd movement.

 

I don't see the issue here, the camera moves pretty nice instead of being solidly placed in mid air like other said games. How is this a problem? Big woop!! your head moves in a real car. period. you seriously cant be causing such a ruckus because you *THINK* your head doesn't move this way in a real car. we are lucky we even GET such a great interior/camera setup in such an early stage in the games development, just be grateful! I am for sure, I actually think the camera is amazing, the only other game that I think the camera inside is good is LFS, and in that game you can adjust all sorts of parameters, such as x,y, and z position, as well as 1G tilt in either axis strength, even gear shift head movement. now THAT would be something to bring up as a suggestion, adding in On The Fly camera adjustments so we can silence these people with such a silly gripe. adjust it to your liking!

/rant

btw, you should go to the doctor and have those extra spines looked at

 

They move like a human head does. However, the vision from your eyes gets stabilised by your brains. Because we play BeamNG on a screen, this doesn't happen(because the edges around your screen aren't shaking), hence why the actual camara in BeamNG vibrates WAY WAY WAY WAY too much.

So no. The camera movement in BeamNG is more realistic than other games compared to the human head, or compared to us watching a youtube video of a camera mounted on top of a helmet, however the actual visible image we get while playing the game is way less realistic because we get a vibrating image while it should be smoother.

Before you tell someone to get some observational skills, please, stop taking ALL your camera movement reference from watching a video, and actually drive your car. The image appears way smoother in your brain than if you were watching a video of the same drive being recorded from your own helmet on Youtube.

Hence, Dennis is right.

Also, the camera in BeamNG also has some jellyness... Isn't always as rigid as it should be. However, that presents 2 opposites.. The only way to fix this is to fake the camera attachment like in other game. It's impossible to both have the current camera, but make it smoother, and at the same time less jelly-like... Personally, I'd rather have the jelly-ness, but without the vibration.

 

I agree somewhat. The camera movement can seem excessive at time (especially when you roll really fast, sometimes the camera is outside of the vehicle). Again, take into consideration that it's video on a screen, and not your eyes seeing the real world. Thus, your eyes can't compensate the way they can when you move or drive in real life. Maybe the bobble could be dampened a little bit and have a maximum movement range.

 

I think the reason why the camera appears to be outside is because it actually is. Try to use the rocket bolide mod, and use just the rockets on the Gridmap. Now, try to hit the three ramps so the highest one bends the right rocket, and then propulse. If you start doing really fast barrel rolls (gradually increasing in speed), and switch to the interior camera, well, it won't be interior after a bit. I may have a screenie of it, but it gets to be around 10-20 feet away from the car, and if you position it just right, to where it is pointing to the car, it will hurt your head (it goes back and forth A LOT).

It's because the camera is just a node, so the node can move, and since it is not attached to something from more than one side (as in, 180 degrees opposite of the other connections), it can be dragged by force (in this case, super rolls).

 

I figured. I don't think it's a bad way to do it (I remember in ROR where crashing hard would leave you with all sorts of weird camera angles), but a bit of tweaking wouldn't hurt either. But right now the devs probably have more important things to fix/improve..

 

I never noticed this being a big problem really, the camera seems to move only slightly. Less than in the video at least.

 

hmm... That second video gabester posted is perfect evidence of this real life vibration. Look at the top left of the video screen; you can see that the helmet is surprisingly stationary with respect to the horizon compared to the car.

Anyway I think the current camera system is a half measure. You have the physical vibration of the camera done because that arises naturally in the physics engine, which is a good start. You need to simulate the oculocephalic reflex for us because we can't do it ourselves. A reflex requires a set of stimuli to activate and these stimuli are frankly not present in a video game. So what needs to happen is a focus point ahead of the car needs to be created. Its just a point set relative to the car directly in-front of it. It should get further away the faster you go, nearing the horizon. This is where the camera will look towards and you simulate this reflex by getting the camera to try and stabilize itself relative to that point. That point represents where in real life you will naturally spend most of your time looking to plan out your route and spot obstacles.

I notice a lot driving down country roads I'm looking quite some distance ahead for 60% of the time and my peripheral vision is doing the close range stuff. In a city when I'm not going too fast I kinda spend half my time looking not much further ahead than the bumper of the car in front. This is what you need to take into account also, the slower you go the less you want to be stabilizing yourself relative to things in the distance.

 

Coming from someone who actually drives on the bumpiest roads as an every day part of life, I can tell you that the shaking and vibrations from BeamNG is not really like real life.

I'm not hating, I don't actually agree with you Gabe. Watching a video and driving is not the same, in real life you do not get these 'vibrations' which cause your vision to blur.
The roads I drive on are far worse than any road you guys drive on(That's what happens after thousands of earthquakes, including a 7.1 and many 6.0+).

Rant over, suggestion time?(Not point complaining without giving suggestions).

:
Maybe the camera should be defined by 2 node placements? One being fixed(Your spine/neck), and another, supported by a lot of beams with a shitload of damping(Your head/eyes obviously). That way you would reduce the vibrations that your eyes automatically do.


It honestly doesn't bother me, but before claiming that BeamNG has this ultimate 100% realistic camera view(And denying anything else), you should consider the 'customers' POV..

 

I think the only issue really is lack of a focal point. The camera moves just like our heads would, but because our eyes fixate on one point, even as our heads bob around, the view doesn't appear shaky or bumpy. I feel like this is an accurate representation from my personal experience. When driving it seems as the outside of the car (focal point) doesn't appear to move as much as the car's dash moves in front of the frame. I don't really know how to explain it, but the video below represents something very similar to what we see.

 

I drove along a road which looked like this for 1.5 miles today:


I find myself agreeing with gabester and n0ah in that the only issue is lack of focal point.


As for why the road looks like that. There is near 0 funding for road repairs in britain. Highway maintenance campaign for more funding constantly yet the government turn around and say that the roads are in perfect condition and that funding should be used for new roads rather than repairing old ones because they dont need it.


Yep. Total perfect condition (above roads are not unusual). Hell there is a lovely long straight on my uni commute along which people quite regularly hammer over 100mph along (hence why the police love speed trapping on it Its actually the place where I managed to get my little 1 litre to 105mph according to the speedo) and it has a 4 foot long pothole on one side, imagine hitting that at 100mph? I know someone that hit it at 50 and snapped a tie rod.

You hit the roads above and suddenly focal points go out the window too...
Government also insist on speed bumps absolutely god damn everywhere, suspension knackering buggers. I'd honestly prefer the god damned gatso's everywhere opposed to speedbumps, at least a gatso doesnt have the potential to physically damage your car, its just the worlds most expensive photographer instead.


As for vibration. My car idling (about 750rpm) physically vibrates, not loads but you can feel it through the wheel. Human eye will smooth out vibrations that small no problem though.

 

^

Bitch pls..

https://www.google.co.nz/search?q=c...=965#q=christchurch+earthquake+roads&tbm=isch

 

I think the roads there are not driven anymore. If they are then it wins, but I wouldn't think so.

 

Learn to read.

Your cameras are too springy and annoying, it's like being a sped up bobblehead rather than a human. If you would actually make cameras that resemble what we see in real life then I'd prefer that over anything, but you like to take footage from cameras hard mounted to helmets as realism instead.