How many of you still use 2D Classic?

[elpano (Inactive)]

How can I change the entire match view (match and replays) from 3d to 2d?

[YKW (Inactive)]

On 30/10/2017 at 12:25, Neil Dejyothin said:

Hello all,

Let me give you some background on this, so you can better understand where we’re coming from.....

Hope that helps.

 

 

Sad news. You would always pop up on here with some great responses. And your name reminds me of an FM Newgen's name, which I respect. 

Thanks for the 15 years and good luck.

[edupampero (Inactive)]

Is it serious that they took the 2d classic? I went to debut the game today, and I had the sad conclusion that they removed the 2d, the generic that exists is totally horrible, the balls full of defects, a pathetic thing. Since I played this game, it was always in 2d classic and now they have taken the only joy I have? Unfortunately I am very disappointed, if they do not change that, I will never play this game again and I will not buy anymore. Totally disappointed, I hope they change that.

[bennytee (Inactive)]

7 hours ago, theanswer3 said:

How can I change the entire match view (match and replays) from 3d to 2d?

Small cog in the top right hand corner of the match screen 

[Naor5563 (Inactive)]

Poetry goes away with too much graphics ''improvements''. just remember it. I can understand the SI needs regarding this issue and I just hope you'll make the 2D classic be more friendly and watch able. please, fix it a bit. it's unrealistic in high levels.

[EVH5150 (Inactive)]

I've read the reasons why the rendering mode option has been removed, and I understand. Still, that's the end of me being able to play new FM releases as my PC just can't handle it.

[Colorado (Inactive)]

Just can't accept the 3D, the graphics and stadium designs are just way below what I feel is acceptable.

I strongly feel that unless SI can get it right then they shouldn't bother trying to force the 3D thing, I'm sorry but it looks like some from PlayStation 2 gen.

[doIT49 (Inactive)]

The funny things is 3D was much better on fm 17  

[Tony Wright 747 (Inactive)]

21 minutes ago, doIT49 said:

The funny things is 3D was much better on fm 17  

And better still on even earlier versions

[Majesticc (Inactive)]

I've played the game less than an hour since purchasing 2 months ago.

Not the same without 2D classic.

[ianscousemac (Inactive)]

19 hours ago, Majesticc said:

I must admit I haven't played FM 18 as much and I'm still playing fm17 due to my preference for 2d classic

 

[Tiger666 (Inactive)]

Yeah I went back to 17.

[Ricketts147 (Inactive)]

Only ever play classic 2d.  Commentary only with goal replays in 2d classic. (im old school been playing the game since old CM days)

Thank you SI for still providing this platform as without it I wouldnt play the game anymore :-)

[neilieboy (Inactive)]

I use 2d for a new club the first few games to get my tactics tweaked and right and then will move onto only commentary with 2d replays on goals if I find my club are doing well,.  any hiccups and I go back to watching games and altering tactics to suit.

[Shi Xiansheng (Inactive)]

I apologize both for this question being somewhat off-topic and for posting it multiple times in the forums, but I'd really like to be able to do this and don't know where to ask.  If someone knows, please advise.

Is there a way to be able to see player numbers (NOT names) in 3D?  I prefer 3D (though the 2D option is nice to have for post-match analysis) but I find it hard to distinguish the players.  The floating names are too large and would obscure the action, but numbers would suffice.  Oh, and I'm playing FM 16.  Anyone?

Edited January 11, 2018 by Shi Xiansheng

[shwanko (Inactive)]

On 10/22/2017 at 15:50, NotMyCat said:

See when I tried 3D I found the opposite.

I understood that the game engine was feeding the same information to the 3D representation as 2D but mistakes just looked so much more stark and ridiculous when it's actual players. Things like missed tackles looked beyond belief.

I find I get less frustrated with 2D!

bcz ignorance is a bless .. 

if you can't see it .. then is fine ..
my problem with 2D engine, is same ignorance that make 2D look better bcz you simply can't see it, is same reason why you miss many other information too which I think is important for a manager .. EX: did the defender cleared the ball using his head or legs or his chest ? did my player dribble? ..etc    

[keeper tom (Inactive)]

Keep trying 3D but just can't get on with the animations 

For the time being it's 2D all the way 

[ZoDiAC_ (Inactive)]

Happy to say good riddance. Took the life out of the game for me. I won't miss it as long as proper work is done on the 3D match engine (given years of great sales, wouldn't it be possible to do something a little better, visually? Or is the aesthetic choice that players will never have faces (which works as a design decision)?)

[Colorado (Inactive)]

Me. 3D looks like something from PlayStation One. I think it's terrible personally. 

[Transk53 (Inactive)]

Why have they taken out 2D?

[Svenc (Inactive)]

2d+3d. Many match analysis tools are 2d. At the same time, football matches tend to be kicked in 3d.

 

On 13.4.2018 at 22:07, Colorado said:

Me. 3D looks like something from PlayStation One.

Hm.

First generation 3d has aged terribly, in particular "realistic" looking games. Despite the specific focus and hours of man power invested into TV style presentations: There was just not enough texture RAM, computing power that only ever supported a handful of polygons per character, resolutions not much higher than in the Amiga era, framerates that often barely broke the 25fps mark turning some of the latter FIFAs on the original PSX into a dia show. Only more artistic 3D still tends to hold up some, such as Grim Fandango's where that severe hardware limitation was considered in picking the art style. E.g. computers of our time make character heads look like blocks of concrete? Let's base our character art on Mexican Day Of The Dead masks. Unfortunately, less of a viable design in action football games meant to mimic a TV experience.   Still fun and interesting looking back and seeing if the memory holds up -- because back then, the TV adverts of France 98 in between matches never ceased to blow you away regardless. Things improved pretty dramatically by the time the next generation of hardware was due though.

Edited April 15, 2018 by Svenc

[kingjericho (Inactive)]

On ‎14‎-‎04‎-‎2018 at 22:26, Transk53 said:

Why have they taken out 2D?

The old 2D had a different 'engine' from 3D so it was consuming many resources unnecessarily.

Even though I loved the old 2D I understand the decision and I have come to terms with the new 2D. It still looks way better than 3D. Until the 3D engine is immensely improved I don't think I'll change, and even if it had that big development I still don't know, 2D is just great, the perfect fit for what I want to see when watching the match.

[steff91 (Inactive)]

8 hours ago, kingjericho said:

The old 2D had a different 'engine' from 3D so it was consuming many resources unnecessarily.

Even though I loved the old 2D I understand the decision and I have come to terms with the new 2D. It still looks way better than 3D. Until the 3D engine is immensely improved I don't think I'll change, and even if it had that big development I still don't know, 2D is just great, the perfect fit for what I want to see when watching the match.

Do you watch extended or key? I quite like the 2D version as well..

[kingjericho (Inactive)]

11 hours ago, steff91 said:

Do you watch extended or key? I quite like the 2D version as well..

Key. I'm not a tactical expert so key highlights are enough for the type of changes I do during matches. I could probably use commentary only and it wouldn't affect the way I play the game and it would save me some time, but I like watching the highlights as it gives me a good overview of how the team is playing.

[Brian (Inactive)]

I play on 2D and comprehensive highlights with goals replay in 3D. Can’t play on comprehensive highlights and 3D, drives me nuts.

[Tino2020 (Inactive)]

I use 2d because  I don't have a video  card and if I try to use 3d without  a video card  the screen  turns red and orange and I can't see what's going on

Edited November 15, 2018 by Tino2020

[mack4ever (Inactive)]

On 17/04/2018 at 18:35, Rooks said:

I play on 2D and comprehensive highlights with goals replay in 3D. Can’t play on comprehensive highlights and 3D, drives me nuts.

Have you tried it with the data analyst view?

Up until FM19 I stuck with 2D but the data analyst view with a high camera angle works brilliantly for me. It's close enough to overhead, and zoomed out enough, that you can see the entire pitch and see exactly what is going on in all areas but has a bit more life to it because of the 3d.

[KUBI (Inactive)]

This thread started last year, there is no 2D classic in the game anymore. It's all 3-D, but with a 2-D view and also data analyst view.

[Tyburn (Inactive)]

Still with the grey border that ruins all immersion for us 2d viewers

[styluz05 (Inactive)]

100% still use it I find it easier to see shape and how tactics are working. I watch my replays of goals in 3D. 

[djpdavey (Inactive)]

2d movement and general play seems more realistic than 3d. Easier to see the whole picture as well.

[Colorado (Inactive)]

Yeah 2D definitely my preference.

[FMExperiment (Inactive)]

Still 2D for me. Seems like that's the majority preference here? I mean for me personally I play highlights on very fast so 3D makes little sense.

[Siven (Inactive)]

I have a beast of a PC, but i use 2D because it gives me a better view of the positioning of my players. Also some of the 3d animations just looked odd and always put me off

Simple as that really. 

I may give 3d another try this version tho.

[KGregory4444 (Inactive)]

Honestly don't think I'd play half as much if I had to watch 3D all the time, it may be due to my graphics not being the smoothest but when I watch 3D on Loki Doki's stream for example it doesnt look smooth! 

[superposh (Inactive)]

I pretty much always play on 2D. Being able to see player positioning and the way my tactics are working (or not working as is often the case) is much easier in 2D. I tried out 3D following the latest patch, to my surprise my crappy laptop handled it well on medium setting. Not sure I'll be converted to 3D just yet though, it just looks too 'cartoonish' . With 2D you use your imagination more, and all goals seen with a combination of 2D and your imagination are better than 3D... for me anyway. 

[VP. (Inactive)]

Always use 2D and probably always will, don't mind 3D for replays but as the animation still isn't perfect it's not for me.

Plus I prefer to speed my matches up a bit and with 2D you can do this fine and still be able to see exactly what is going, the same speed setting on 3D seems 10x faster!

[craigcwwe (Inactive)]

2D all the way including for goal replays. 

Love the top down view and it's much better for seeing how you are shaping up tactically as well as the opposition. 

[rafaelbenitez (Inactive)]

Only ever use 2D. 3D is immersion breaking for me.

[kiwityke1983 (Inactive)]

Haven't used it once since 3d was introduced. 

[ImDaWeasel (Inactive)]

2D till the day I die. They can get FIFA/PES level of graphics for the 3D engine and I will still use 2D. Only way to play FM. Only wish the split screen 2D option was still there.

[bigmattb28 (Inactive)]

I was hoping to use the 3D in FM20 but there is so much lag on 3D for me, not the laptop as it's 2 months old and a top end gaming laptop, so for now I'm using 2D.

[amer (Inactive)]

On 14/11/2019 at 21:41, sidslayer said:

Still with the grey border that ruins all immersion for us 2d viewers

Sports Interactive make about £35-40 million from sales every year, surely they can add stands rather than grey borders on the 2D screens.

Edited November 17, 2019 by amer
spelling

[KGregory4444 (Inactive)]

On 15/11/2019 at 12:48, superposh said:

I pretty much always play on 2D. Being able to see player positioning and the way my tactics are working (or not working as is often the case) is much easier in 2D. I tried out 3D following the latest patch, to my surprise my crappy laptop handled it well on medium setting. Not sure I'll be converted to 3D just yet though, it just looks too 'cartoonish' . With 2D you use your imagination more, and all goals seen with a combination of 2D and your imagination are better than 3D... for me anyway. 

I agree, all the 3D goals I see just look screamers from nowhere first time, with 2D you can almost slow that down and imagine a scuffed shot in the corner 😂

[metallimuse (Inactive)]

2D warrior also.

Will never, EVER, watch the game in 3D no matter the quality.

[grade (Inactive)]

Been using 3D as of late, but I seen the light and returned back to 2D.

I use 3D for replays.

[Zardoz (Inactive)]

2D ...  simply because my laptop has problems with 3D (it is a very old machine). In addition, I have a better overview to understand what is happening.

On th other side ... a full stadium is much more immersive than the 2 D plate and I have noticed that I often do not understand why this bloody bastard in the penalty looses the ball suddenly ... and 3D delvers more explanations for this. My blood pressure is much better on 3D.

[Serkan FY (Inactive)]

Never played this game in 3D regardless my gig. I won't bring the 3D quality into question as I know the target audience of this game. But it's just not for me.

Also, I think 2D is kind of the spirit of the Manager series.

[Chetsfmfan (Inactive)]

Same as many others, 2D for key highlights and 3D for goals - had it set like this for years.

I find it far easier to pick up tactical/positional changes

[Tyburn (Inactive)]

So with the vast (recent majority) being in favour of 2d could I ask, for another time, that the 2d experience be boosted. Starting with the ability to make the grey border around the pitch customisable. Primarily transparent. (Stadium pics!)