Turn 360 degree inside a car

[Dahart]

Cars are a potential hideout when you have been chased by a wolf or a bear.

I want to see whether its safe outside or not, but i can only turn my head around 180 degrees, so i cannot look out the back of the car. Why can't we look around full circle??

[Valuable Hunting Knife]

I actually managed this over the weekend!  I reloaded my rifle in the car by PV farmhouse, as I'd just been mauled after sniping a bear I needed to look around before leaving, but for some reason I was able to go full 'exorcist' and get a 360 view.

[UTC-10]

Probably because our head (the field of vision we see on the computer screen) can only really turn in a 180 degree arc so we can look to the left, look straight ahead, look to the right, maybe see a bit farther due to peripheral vision out of the corner of our eyes, and no farther.  This limitation is likely based on the idea that when sitting in a car or truck, we have our back against the seat.  To be able to look to the rear, we'd have to shift our torso and shoulders so that arc can shift enough to cover that direction.  The developers must have decided that, for game-play purposes, we can't do that. 

[ManicManiac]

On 10/26/2019 at 1:26 AM, ManicManiac said:

I would just recommend using the search function a little bit, this way you can get some idea of what's been discussed in the past.  It's not bad to resurrect ideas, but it's better if you have something new to add or a different take on what's been discussed before.  Sometimes the best way to know, is to look up what's been posted in the past to gain more background on what you want to talk about.  I try to do this before posting any ideas, that way I know I'm not just re-treading familiar territory (so to speak).

On 3/21/2020 at 1:24 AM, ManicManiac said:

search function

Way back in 2015 this conversation happened.
Back in February this conversation happened.

There are more... but that's what the search function is for. 

[Dahart]

 

On 4/6/2020 at 9:06 PM, Dum_Gen said:

The only realistic explanation that I came to is that the survivors have that huge backpack attached to their backs. Therefore, they have limited movement options, they can't move their head and can't move between front and back seats. But it is kinda lame that they just can't take if off inside the car.

Aehm, really now? You want to go down the road of "realism" with this game? We all know this game is so unrealistic in so many ways, so don't do it. You couldn't win this discussion.

Besides, there is no indication we have a huge track backpack after a plane crash. Instead, i think the game uses the common method of "magic pockets" as in 90% of all other games where you can pick stuff up. But thats all speculation so it doesn't matter.

On 4/6/2020 at 10:01 AM, UTC-10 said:

Probably because our head (the field of vision we see on the computer screen) can only really turn in a 180 degree arc so we can look to the left, look straight ahead, look to the right, maybe see a bit farther due to peripheral vision out of the corner of our eyes, and no farther.  This limitation is likely based on the idea that when sitting in a car or truck, we have our back against the seat.  To be able to look to the rear, we'd have to shift our torso and shoulders so that arc can shift enough to cover that direction.  The developers must have decided that, for game-play purposes, we can't do that. 

Again, don't start the "realism" argument, its pointless. And you really think you couldn't be bothered to "shift your torso and shoulders" so you can actually look around and see if the bear is still around? Because your life could depend on it?? C'mon, of course you would.

Same as staying inside the car to switch front/back. If you can stay in the safety a little longer, of course you would. Why take unnecessary risks by stepping outside?

[Dahart]

On 4/6/2020 at 10:43 PM, ManicManiac said:

Way back in 2015 this conversation happened.
Back in February this conversation happened.

There are more... but that's what the search function is for. 

To be honest, i find it a bit insulting trying to tell me what the search funtction is for. I assume we are all adults here and know how to use a forum.

I didn't use the search function because:

a) i know search results can be just as useful as a waste of time. Which is proven by the first search result you posted :

Way back in 2015 this conversation happened.

Its a conversation about a bug happening, where your head jumps from right to left in certain cars, in certain maps only. Its not a feature request...

b) i skimmed through the last 2 pages of wish list and didn't see anything related to my suggestion. Which means its not actively discussed in the community anymore as well as developers don't take note of it anymore. We all now only the first pages get attention, maybe even only the first one.

c) i was lazy because of a) And sorry but no, i can't be bothered to read through a several page long discussion to follow the train of thought and finally find out why the discussion has ended and to what conclusion it came.

 

[ManicManiac]

16 hours ago, Dahart said:

To be honest, i find it a bit insulting

I have no control over how you may choose to take my post.  I don't think I insulted anyone (nor was I trying to be condescending).   When I see very similar conversations popping up... then yes, I do recommend folks use the search function.  I just don't think redundant conversations are very productive.  I'm not saying we can't have them... but I don't think there's any harm in someone pointing out that it's been discussed before and offers some of those sources of information for consideration.

My intent was to be helpful, for whatever that's worth.

All I wanted to convey was (and I meant it in general terms so please permit me to clarify):  It's not bad to resurrect ideas, but I think it's better if we maybe have something new to add, or a different take on what's been discussed before.  Sometimes the best way to know, is to look up what's been posted in the past to gain more background on what we want to talk about.  I try to do this before posting any ideas, that way I know I'm not just re-treading familiar territory.

I certainly didn't tend for you to find that insulting, but I suppose there's really nothing I can do about that...  I think that's more about how one chooses to read it, than what I actually wrote. 

 

16 hours ago, Dahart said:

i was lazy ... i can't be bothered to read through a several page long discussion...

I didn't assume, but I figured it was a possibility.

To the original post... like I mentioned in some of the other threads I was referencing:  I think the mechanic is fine as is (the reasons why, I've already mentioned in those aforementioned discussions). 

Edited April 8, 2020 by ManicManiac
Edited to clarify and attempt to give context.