Anti-epilepsy filter?

[Tacoma74]

Originally Posted by Tree_UK

+1, 100% agree. This is not a joke, the epilepsy rule/law is there to protect people who have the misfortune to suffer from this terrible condition, Ubi should be praised for taking action in 2008 not rubbished. Its sad that it has blighted Cliffs of Dover, but it is an oversight from the Dev's not from Ubisoft. It hasn't affected any other game or developers that adhere to the same restrictions.

None of this defeats the fact that this should be made optional. That is the main issue we're having right now. Yes epilepsy is serious, but why bring all of us down. Unless it is made optional or fixed to work like it should soon then the game will be off to a very bad start. Question is, will it be authorized to legally be made optional, or must we all suffer with this crap forever, or until it is effectively fixed? I shouldn't have to drop an extra lump sum of cash to be able to play this smoothly. Period.

[mazex]

Originally Posted by Tacoma74

None of this defeats the fact that this should be made optional. That is the main issue we're having right now. Yes epilepsy is serious, but why bring all of us down. Unless it is made optional or fixed to work like it should soon then the game will be off to a very bad start. Question is, will it be authorized to legally be made optional, or must we all suffer with this crap forever, or until it is effectively fixed? I shouldn't have to drop an extra lump sum of cash to be able to play this smoothly. Period.

I have no problem at all with making it optional, and I think that is how it should be done too. But as this is to comply with laws and government recommendations there may be some problem there unfortunately. Somehow all other Ubisoft titles have managed to do it without losing FPS... How about Assasins Creed : Brotherhood - that game has passed the same tests and has an average user score of 9.1 over at Gamespot now (released March 2011). They sure had to do some compromises to make it pass as there are a lot of gameplay involving going from dark rooms to sun bathing desert there... Hear a lot of people whining about how bad it looks and how it stutters all the time? Do you hear the devs blaming Ubisoft for making the implement the features that will make the game more friendly to people with these serious problems?

[Vevster]

Originally Posted by mazex

I have no problem at all with making it optional, and I think that is how it should be done too. But as this is to comply with laws and government recommendations there may be some problem there unfortunately. Somehow all other Ubisoft titles have managed to do it without losing FPS... How about Assasins Creed : Brotherhood - that game has passed the same tests and has an average user score of 9.1 over at Gamespot now (released March 2011). They sure had to do some compromises to make it pass as there are a lot of gameplay involving going from dark rooms to sun bathing desert there... Hear a lot of people whining about how bad it looks and how it stutters all the time? Do you hear the devs blaming Ubisoft for making the implement the features that will make the game more friendly to people with these serious problems?

Even it is has to be optional, it has to be implemented and the soft work with you, admitidly with an impact on perf, which should below; so it is still a question of implementation by the dev team.

Guys, lets wait to see Luthiers response to my thread, it could all be good if we can see the game running before the filter was added.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=19450

[Tacoma74]

Originally Posted by mazex

I have no problem at all with making it optional, and I think that is how it should be done too. But as this is to comply with laws and government recommendations there may be some problem there unfortunately. Somehow all other Ubisoft titles have managed to do it without losing FPS... How about Assasins Creed : Brotherhood - that game has passed the same tests and has an average user score of 9.1 over at Gamespot now (released March 2011). They sure had to do some compromises to make it pass as there are a lot of gameplay involving going from dark rooms to sun bathing desert there... Hear a lot of people whining about how bad it looks and how it stutters all the time? Do you hear the devs blaming Ubisoft for making the implement the features that will make the game more friendly to people with these serious problems?

We're not talking about Assassins Creed. The fact of the matter is that this game IS experiencing issues with this filter. While it has good purpose, it isn't meshing well with the games code that was already set in place before this was ever implemented. Newer games that are implementing this feature build their code around it making it much more stable. This game has been in development for around 5-6 years and hasn't had the opportunity to do so. The only solutions I can think of are to patch the XXXX out of it and make it less of a handicap, or to make it completely optional. That is all I have to say about it. Not going to waste another keystroke about this today.

[Codex]

Originally Posted by Tacoma74

Question is, will it be authorized to legally be made optional, or must we all suffer with this crap forever, or until it is effectively fixed? I shouldn't have to drop an extra lump sum of cash to be able to play this smoothly. Period.

According to the article referred to by Tree, there IS NO legal requirement to implement such a filter. The only legal requirement in all this is:

"On the statutory safeguards, the General Product Safety Regulations 2005 make it compulsory for producers to place warnings and instructions on all consumer products, including video games."

Now this is for the UK, not sure what it will be for other countries. But we've all seen the warning label in the manual's of games, legally that is enough. Also remember that UBI VOLUNTARILY decided to implement "photosensitive epilepsy" screening policy according to that article.

I smell a rat.

Originally Posted by Codex

According to the article referred to by Tree, there IS NO legal requirement to implement such a filter. The only legal requirement in all this is:

"On the statutory safeguards, the General Product Safety Regulations 2005 make it compulsory for producers to place warnings and instructions on all consumer products, including video games."

Now this is for the UK, not sure what it will be for other countries. But we've all seen the warning label in the manual's of games, legally that is enough. Also remember that UBI VOLUNTARILY decided to implement "photosensitive epilepsy" screening policy according to that article.

I smell a rat.

I smell one too.

[Tiger27]

Tree you do this stuff well, drop a few guesses disguised as legitimate info around and before you know it other people are quoting you as there source (sort of like wikki).

You all may be right about the conspiracy stuff but still, the game is not released yet in the West, wouldn't this be better if brought up when you know what you will get, all these comments are ensuring, is that a lot of people wont purchase this game, which will most likely see the end of any fixes we may have received, look at the state ROF was in when released, yet now it is a damn good flight sim, I just don't understand what anyone is hoping to achieve?

Obviously Tree, you would like someone from up high to tell you that you've been right all along, well that will be nice but at the end of the day all that will really be achieved is that we may never see another realistic WW2 FS again

[Rodney]

If this epilepsy filter causes slower frame rates for me when I get CoD and that makes me angry, and I end up hurting myself (e.g. by punching a wall) or someone else then I am absolutely going to SUE YOU UBI, thats right I am going to SUE YOU and BANKRUPT you UBI because of the harm your over the top anti-epilepsy filter does to my state of mind!!!

Originally Posted by Tiger27

Tree you do this stuff well, drop a few guesses disguised as legitimate info around and before you know it other people are quoting you as there source (sort of like wikki).

You all may be right about the conspiracy stuff but still, the game is not released yet in the West, wouldn't this be better if brought up when you know what you will get, all these comments are ensuring, is that a lot of people wont purchase this game, which will most likely see the end of any fixes we may have received, look at the state ROF was in when released, yet now it is a damn good flight sim, I just don't understand what anyone is hoping to achieve?

Obviously Tree, you would like someone from up high to tell you that you've been right all along, well that will be nice but at the end of the day all that will really be achieved is that we may never see another realistic WW2 FS again

Actually I would much rather someone tell me Ive been wrong all along and have a great sim to fly. It would be no loss to me, im a man and can acceppt when i have got things wrong, i often do. Its not like i have to face you everyday is it?