Monday, October 27th 2008

Far Cry 2 Widescreen Resolution Fix Released

Ubisoft's Far Cry 2 suffers from the same issue Bioshock had when it was released. Both games have problems handling widescreen resolutions, but in Far Cry 2 the problem appears to be even bigger. When played in widescreen resolution, the game displays a cropped version of the original 4:3 video aspect. The wider screen resolution you use, the less you'll see because the game cuts the top and bottom edges to fit the wider aspect ratio. If you don't like the sound of that, there's a fix created by Racer_S over at Widescreen Gaming Forum. Please note that the fix only works with Far Cry 2 v1.00 and online players may receive a ban from the server they're playing if they use the hotfixer. The reason, Punkbuster may think you are a 1337 haxxor and ban you from the server. You may download the Far Cry 2 Widescreen fix from here.

    1) Run the application
    2) Edit options if needed
    3) Start Far Cry 2
    4) Press Numpad * to enable new FOV settings
    5) You can safely Alt-Tab from Far Cry and change settings at any time (defaults are X FOV = 1, Y FOV = 1.333)
Source: Widescreen Gaming Forum, Guru 3D
Add your own comment

24 Comments on Far Cry 2 Widescreen Resolution Fix Released

#2
Mussels
Moderprator
i mentioned this in my far cry 2 thread, it makes the game a loooot better.


It was theorised the reason the FOV was so small, was to make targets bigger on a console so they're easier to hit, with their poor aiming on joypads.
Posted on Reply
#3
eidairaman1
by: Mussels
i mentioned this in my far cry 2 thread, it makes the game a loooot better.


It was theorised the reason the FOV was so small, was to make targets bigger on a console so they're easier to hit, with their poor aiming on joypads.
they have a form of auto aim for those games, but honestly, they should have 2 diff dev teams for the game 1 for PC the other for the Consoles.because it seems they dev the game for console by the time its ready to release they rush the PC version and its garbage.
Posted on Reply
#4
Mussels
Moderprator
that the problem with mostly compatible consoles (The X360 runs a version of NT, and uses hardware similar to PC stuff)... they can just port it across at will, without having to put much effort in. The less time they spend on it, the less things they notice.
Posted on Reply
#5
BazookaJoe
I actually purchased a 360 Controller to use with 3D Apps like Maya (Rotation and other manipulations by remapping with Xpadder) .. and MAME32Fx...

Anyway, just for heck I mapped it out and attempted to play FC2 on the pad...

How a console can even pretend to be an FPS gaming platform without a mouse or some similar direct relational bi-axial input is beyond me...

Or is the AI on the console simply set to -50% and bullets set to the size of watermelons?
Posted on Reply
#6
Mussels
Moderprator
by: BazookaJoe

Or is the AI on the console simply set to -50% and bullets set to the size of watermelons?
Effectively, yes. As well as auto aim.
Posted on Reply
#7
DarkMatter
by: eidairaman1
they have a form of auto aim for those games, but honestly, they should have 2 diff dev teams for the game 1 for PC the other for the Consoles.because it seems they dev the game for console by the time its ready to release they rush the PC version and its garbage.
Even with auto aim they "have" to do it that way for two reasons (at least):

1 - Usually in a console you play from farther away. That makes it harder to see the details (enemies included) even with the higher screen. The screen size/distance ratio is much higher in the PC.

2 - Thanks to point one, in part, the FOV issue is not so noticeable in the TV. In fact, because you are farther from the screen the FOV should naturally be smaller. And also by making it smaller, you improve performance on constrained systems that are consoles. Less FOV = less details on screen at a time = less memory/power required.

About the PC version of multi-platform games, although it's not ideal, nowadays is much better than with previous generations of consoles. The ports are much better right now than in the past, even if they spend less time optimizing them. Because consoles and PC share a lot more nowadays, the game engine and various things are already better optimized than in the past. Maybe because they spend less time on them it's easier for things like this FOV issue to appear, but this things can easily be fixed with a patch, the core of the game can't.
Posted on Reply
#8
joinmeindeath417
by: DarkMatter
Even with auto aim they "have" to do it that way for two reasons (at least):

1 - Usually in a console you play from farther away. That makes it harder to see the details (enemies included) even with the higher screen. The screen size/distance ratio is much higher in the PC.

2 - Thanks to point one, in part, the FOV issue is not so noticeable in the TV. In fact, because you are farther from the screen the FOV should naturally be smaller. And also by making it smaller, you improve performance on constrained systems that are consoles. Less FOV = less details on screen at a time = less memory/power required.

About the PC version of multi-platform games, although it's not ideal, nowadays is much better than with previous generations of consoles. The ports are much better right now than in the past, even if they spend less time optimizing them. Because consoles and PC share a lot more nowadays, the game engine and various things are already better optimized than in the past. Maybe because they spend less time on them it's easier for things like this FOV issue to appear, but this things can easily be fixed with a patch, the core of the game can't.
wow finally a logical answer..

people need to stop bashing consoles and get over the fact that they have been around for a very long time and aren't going anywhere.

i am a pc gamer, and a console gamer, yes i like the mouse/keyboard thing way better but in the same aspect its just a matter of getting use to a gamepad. when i first got my xbox 360 i couldn't play FPS to save my own life..now i go usually 30 kills and like 4 deaths on cod 4. so because you tried to hook up your 360 gamepad to your computer and play far cry 2 or whatever doesn't mean other people aren't good with it, your just not use to it is all.

EDIT: reason for gaming on consoles more than pc's...because you have to wait like 20 minutes sometimes to join a server cause they put all these extra sounds and shit on there server and change the entire gameplay because they like doing that? its hard to find a server on any fps game that doesnt have some time of mod on it. consoles...thank god you cant do that or id give up online gaming
Posted on Reply
#9
BazookaJoe
I would have to argue that you are slightly incorrect there.

Consoles (for the most part) ARE gone, replaced by stripped down, outdated PC's running custom OS's, somewhat like a new series of fruit themed machines, but yes - I DO understand that they have a big role to play in filling the lower middle gaming class, which lets face it - is is a very large market.

It must be nice not having to worry about drivers or DirectX compatibility, or weather your hardware will handle the new engine (And lets not get started on punkbuster), but the fact that it is a large market does little to compensate for the fact that a game-pad is very poorly equipped device for playing FPS, no matter your skill level.

As such I was simply a little intrigued as to the choice to develop an FPS specifically for a device that primarily relys on a game pad for input, and since I actually HAD one of the controllers it was originally intended to be played on, I thought it might be fun to give it a try.

Oddly enough I HAVE found a 360 controller to be a very use full input device for 3D modeling - and even for example flying planes in Battlefield (on a PC), but once you have known the joy of "Snap-Shooting" an enemy with your sniper rifle, that you only just caught in the corner of your eye that very second, I'm sure you can understand how horribly frustrating it was to have to pan around the screen as though playing with some sort of presentation pointer, basically voiding the concept of being a sniper altogether.

Possibly the fault WAS indeed mine in not using the 360 controller on an actual 360, and running the version of the game that was meant to be played that way, PC's HAVE mice already so why would some idiot try and play using a 360 game pad? - Each to their own I suppose...
Posted on Reply
#10
CargoX
Little help here.

I tried to setup for my 1680x1050 by eye, and came out with x1.4 y1.2
But then I thought, meh, why not just x1.6 y1.0
Which is what I have it set to now.

Is that right?

I tried the setting from the other forum page
For .... 16:10 ...

X FOV: 1.31
Y FOV: 1.253
But that looked totally bugged out to me.
And I assume if I don't run FOVHack prior to FC2 it doesn't work, right?

Thanks all,
C
Posted on Reply
#11
Darknova
From the moment I started playing FC2 I thought it seemed cramped and confined, and everything seemed "larger than life". Soon as I activated this hack with the settings CargoX just mentioned (above post) every looked great and my headache disappeared.

Shame the bugger still CTDs at random :
Posted on Reply
#12
CargoX
I've read the whole thread over there now and am more confused about what I should set it to.
I'm going to try x1.384 y1.15 next time I load up.

I don't have any bugs, problems, or other antics that people have reported.
I played a little while at x1.6y1.0 and it was pretty good. No more eye-sucking headaches. And I can see a lot more.
Posted on Reply
#13
CargoX
WoW. Well here is my puddy proof. I can only say that the x1.6y1.0 is fantastic. I knew the game was console neutered as soon as I felt the mouse and saw the monocular bound as a secondary of a primary.

This picture shows my system and screen comparisons.
On the Left is the FOVHack X 1.6 Y1.0 and on the Right is Disabled. Shot with Fraps.


Pretty damn drastic. MANY GREAT THANK TO THE CREATOR Racer_S and ToCAEDIT.COM
Posted on Reply
#15
WarEagleAU
Bird of Prey
Its good to see a fix for this finally.
Posted on Reply
#16
BazookaJoe
To Quote CargoX's very first screencap - this is probably the best way of adjusting FOV issues : To find something that is supposed to be round - center it about "half way" away in your view and tweak until it looks round...
Posted on Reply
#17
Wile E
Power User
by: Mussels
that the problem with mostly compatible consoles (The X360 runs a version of NT, and uses hardware similar to PC stuff)... they can just port it across at will, without having to put much effort in. The less time they spend on it, the less things they notice.
Actually, it's a much larger effort than you think. The 360 runs a Power PC cpu. Completely incompatible architecture to our x86 based machines. That's the reason we get so many bugs on a 360 to PC port.
Posted on Reply
#18
eidairaman1
Seems like the only FPS that did well on both PC and XB was Halo: Combat Evolved
by: DarkMatter
Even with auto aim they "have" to do it that way for two reasons (at least):

1 - Usually in a console you play from farther away. That makes it harder to see the details (enemies included) even with the higher screen. The screen size/distance ratio is much higher in the PC.

2 - Thanks to point one, in part, the FOV issue is not so noticeable in the TV. In fact, because you are farther from the screen the FOV should naturally be smaller. And also by making it smaller, you improve performance on constrained systems that are consoles. Less FOV = less details on screen at a time = less memory/power required.

About the PC version of multi-platform games, although it's not ideal, nowadays is much better than with previous generations of consoles. The ports are much better right now than in the past, even if they spend less time optimizing them. Because consoles and PC share a lot more nowadays, the game engine and various things are already better optimized than in the past. Maybe because they spend less time on them it's easier for things like this FOV issue to appear, but this things can easily be fixed with a patch, the core of the game can't.
Posted on Reply
#19
johnspack
Fix seems to work for me at 1900x1200, but may cause instability. I had an odd ctd (crash to desktop, some ppl don't seem to know that term!) while using it. And I really haven't encountered any stability problems with the game until now! So I stopped using it, no more problems. I'm going to watch the development of this...
Shadowfold, are those the settings for 1920x1200? Maybe I've been using bad settings?
Posted on Reply
#20
Wile E
Power User
by: eidairaman1
Seems like the only FPS that did well on both PC and XB was Halo: Combat Evolved
The original Halo was made for the original XBox, which did have an x86 cpu. Porting Xbox1 to PC was much simpler.
Posted on Reply
#21
johnspack
Think I was using 1.2 x 1.33, should work, guess the game is still buggy, I'll try the fix again.
Posted on Reply
#22
J-Man
Do I have this problem when I play @ 1920x1200?
Posted on Reply
#23
johnspack
No, seems to to be a glitch with my athon, big suprise... but now I'm using 1.4 x 1.33 at 1920x1200 and no problems. Yes, I'll get an intel as soon as I get the money!
Posted on Reply
#24
froser
Guys, could anyone help me out.
when ever i load up farcry 2. it goes into a black screen, i can still hear sound and stuff. and i can tell when it gets to the menu page, but it just stays black, any suggestions?
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment