Something Very Wrong with LOS Through Trees

[pad152]

The biggest issue with the LOS/LOF is the 32bit game engine, only 1 processor out of 8 (I7 processor)  is used for everything, only so many computer cycles can be used for LOS/LOF calculations. It's surprising it works as well as it does.

 

[CarlWAW]

The biggest issue with the LOS/LOF is the 32bit game engine, only 1 processor out of 8 (I7 processor)  is used for everything, only so many computer cycles can be used for LOS/LOF calculations. It's surprising it works as well as it does.

 

On all computers I used CM, turns are calculated very quickly, even in large scenarios. Turn calculation with all the LOS/LOF checks always is much faster than the resulting 1 minute of action.

It would prefer it the other way around: if LOS/LOF/SPOTTING calculations would be much better. They should eat up much more CPU power.

I'd prefer better LOS/LOF and spotting behaviour, smaller actions spots and more orientations of buildings or streets and I'd gladly exchange that for waiting several minutes for a turn to be calculated.

[A Canadian Cat]

The biggest issue with the LOS/LOF is the 32bit game engine, only 1 processor out of 8 (I7 processor)  is used for everything, only so many computer cycles can be used for LOS/LOF calculations. It's surprising it works as well as it does.

Nope. The game is working as intended for the vast majority of the time and adding more time slices to spotting will not change any of those regular out comes. It is not correct to say that the game using more resources to spend on Los and spotting checks will change much. It is intended that any given unit is not guaranteed to spot another unit in LOS. So if the spotting cycle were reduced the chances to spot in any given cycle would have to be reduced to keep the results in the game the same. An increase in resources dedicated to spotting checks could allow the game some room to tweak some corner cases but that is about it.

[JasonC]

IanL - Right, you just focus on the abuse and insult and campaigning to never improve anything.  Check.

[sburke]

Says the man who contributes oh so much to this community...beyond the constant egotistical rants.  Longevity in the space and pontificating without citing any sources does not constitute much of a contribution.  Check.

[A Canadian Cat]

IanL - Right, you just focus on the abuse and insult and campaigning to never improve anything.  Check.

How on earth was my last post abuse?

[Warts 'n' all]

That fact that IanL and others among us allow BFC some slack, rather than constantly moaning at them, is not "campaigning to never improve anything". They take on board ideas that are practical, and feasible for them to work with given the size of their staff. They produce great games at an affordable price. And for most of us, that is all we want from them.

[sburke]

That fact that IanL and others among us allow BFC some slack, rather than constantly moaning at them, is not "campaigning to never improve anything". They take on board ideas that are practical, and feasible for them to work with given the size of their staff. They produce great games at an affordable price. And for most of us, that is all we want from them.

mostly agree but it also is more than just giving them slack. There are limitations in the game engine. It is after all a computer game and one has to recognize right from the start that "easy" solutions and suggestions or even complaints are subject to the over riding aspect of what can actually be coded.  BF made some decisions early on about the design of the game and without a reengineering effort that could take years all tweaks, features etc have to fit within that framework. To date those decisions by BF have held up remarkably well.  Those decisions were also based on what could be handled by the majority of computing systems out there.  I have several computer games (boy is that an understatement though I can't claim hundreds). Of the ones in 3D, CM is the ONLY one that does not crash for me.  The TAC AI works surprisingly well most of the time which I do not find to be the norm in PC games.

Now there is always going to be debate on some aspects of behavior - how quickly should my TC button up, what should be the norm for setting up an MG in a house when we have no idea of the conditions under which that MG is setting up, spotting issues that are at the mercy of computer power and the variability in human error. Area firing at a building when you don't have los to the base. Yet within all that 99% of the time (hey if Jason can contend 90% of the threads on this forum are totally valid I can easily claim 99% on the game!) the game does a phenomenal job of doing what it claims to do. 

It is with that in mind that folks want to make sure that complaints are actually valid so BF isn't chasing its tail on items that actually aren't an issue. As an example I myself had commented in one thread that I had a guy shooting directly into a tree repeatedly - a sniper no less. And when I say directly I mean barrel resting in the bark. Before submitting I reviewed in multiple times zoomed in at various angles. Lo and behold I was wrong. The barrel was just to the side and what he was hitting was a fence just past the tree while aiming at a fleeting figure moving across his field of vision. 

That is more the point, no issue is accepted at face value. Not because we don't accept criticism, but because we need to get stuff to not overload Charles with what may be a non issue. I have submitted multiple tickets on behalf of various users when either the issue is incontrvertible or there is enough of a question raised about intended behavior  I won't submit a ticket on the set up time for an MG as I don't believe we have resolved what the time represents nor that it is inflated (Jason's uber experience to the contrary).  There are far more knowledgeable folks than I on subjects like that in the beta team and if they feel that there is merit I expect they would follow through on that - and they may very well have done so. Assuming they have there would then have to be a discussion in battlefront as to what that timing represents, what it should be, what changing it might also impact etc etc. the game is pretty mature now and not much gets changed now without a full picture of the implications. That to me sounds very responsible, appropriate and not at all what Jason would like to characterize it as.

[Warts 'n' all]

Thanks for that fulsome explanation sb.

[slysniper]

Oh I see we have some passionate players that are getting a little out of hand because BF does not hand them all their wishes and hopes of what the game should be.

As others have mentioned. The fact it is a computer game  should be enough to understand you just cannot have all your dreams fulfilled with the likes of a few guys doing the best they can to write code to make a game that portrays combat realistically.

limitations is the norm in that world and they have done a excellent job of making it what it presently is.

Lets look at a much easier game to code but that is out there and see how perfect it is. Madden football. Been tweeking the same code concept for twenty years now and with staff in the hundred's for sure. Can I still find faults, you bet. Why,  its a computer game. It will never be like the real thing.

Had not touched it in years, played a season vs the AI and the playoffs (won the stupid thing) lost only one game in the season. Why.

Because its a game with only so much code that can only address so many actions. I as a human, find aspects of the game that are not be addressed by the code and I use it to my advantage.

Hey, all of us here want change, want better features and such.

The fact that some of us are a little more realistic and accepting of the fact it is just a game and we don't put unrealistic expectations on this company to provide us more than they can do is a good thing. because if we all acted like some here. I am sure that BF would have walked away from this endeavor long ago.

[Battlefront.com]

So if the spotting cycle were reduced the chances to spot in any given cycle would have to be reduced to keep the results in the game the same. An increase in resources dedicated to spotting checks could allow the game some room to tweak some corner cases but that is about it.

Just to chime in here... this is correct.  The complaints about corner cases are often misplaced because our goal should never be to eliminate them since doing that would make the game less realistic.

Also know that CM is 64bit.  Always has been, but Microsoft insists on making 32bit operating systems and that means there are limitations for accessing memory that are imposed on us OR we have to cut out 32bit OS support.  Since we've managed to keep the game functioning fine with the memory cap 32bit imposes we have continued to support it.  But we are getting to the point where we might voluntarily drop 32bit support.

Remember, 64bit support has nothing to do with utilizing multiple cores.  To do make use of multiple cores we have to specifically recode functions within the game.  For the most part we don't see much benefit in doing that.  Would it improve some functions?  Yes, for sure.  In fact, loading of scenarios is already multi-core as are some functions in the Editor (IIRC). We may wish to recode something specific to be multi-core in the future.  However, I can promise you all that the expectations you guys have for game improvements are vastly above what is actually achievable. Which is why we haven't been pushing these sorts of engineering tasks to the top of our ToDo list.

Steve

[Michael Emrys]

Oh I see we have some passionate players that are getting a little out of hand because BF does not hand them all their wishes and hopes of what the game should be.

I have a notion that because CM is such a rich gaming experience many players are eager to see it go that last step into *Perfection*...or at least what they conceive perfection to be. It may say something about where the human race is at this time that people are so desperately hungry for perfection and are expecting to find it in a computer game. Ah well, carry on.

Michael

[Melchior]

That fact that IanL and others among us allow BFC some slack, rather than constantly moaning at them, is not "campaigning to never improve anything". They take on board ideas that are practical, and feasible for them to work with given the size of their staff. They produce great games at an affordable price. And for most of us, that is all we want from them.

I've got something better than slack for BFC. It's called money. I've given them quite a bit of it and plan to give them more. It just so turns out I also have an opinion too, and given that BFC operates a forum it seems rather logical to me that it'd be the place to go to talk about the game for better or worse. 

Edited February 25, 2016 by CaptHawkeye

[DLaurier]

I have a notion that because CM is such a rich gaming experience many players are eager to see it go that last step into *Perfection*...or at least what they conceive perfection to be. It may say something about where the human race is at this time that people are so desperately hungry for perfection and are expecting to find it in a computer game. Ah well, carry on.

Michael

could be.
personaly i like the game.
it sometimes has its crappy moments, but so does real life.
Watching your lone tank get killed by a random stray mortar round, just before the enemy tank walks into your perfect ambush, tends to make me want to throw furniture. But that's life.
 

[Warts 'n' all]

I've got something better than slack for BFC. It's called money. I've given them quite a bit of it and plan to give them more. It just so turns out I also have an opinion too, and given that BFC operates a forum it seems rather logical to me that it'd be the place to go to talk about the game for better or worse. 

To the best of my knowledge you are not the person who used the phrase "campaigning to never improve anything", which is what I found a tad over the top, and cannot be considered a fair assessment of IanL's comments on this forum.

[Battlefront.com]

 I've given them quite a bit of it and plan to give them more. It just so turns out I also have an opinion too, and given that BFC operates a forum it seems rather logical to me that it'd be the place to go to talk about the game for better or worse. 

Yup!  And that is exactly what you should do.  However, opinions and money without realistic parameters aren't very useful to anybody.  "I have an opinion this game should be utterly perfect and I have $55 for you if you make it" doesn't really add much to the conversation, so our responsibility (as developers) is to provide the context necessary to keep the discussion from drifting into la-la-land.  Since there's only so much time we have to chime in on these sorts of topics (in case anybody hasn't noticed, there's way more of you guys than us ;)) we rely upon customers to help out.  Customers who have already read responses from us repeat things to help bring newer customers up to speed.  Customers who have experiences outside of CM that are relevant can provide context.  Customers who do not agree with the need for something also make their thoughts known because, after all, one man's opinion is only one man's opinion.

All in all things work pretty well.  Usually the thing that gets the process off on the wrong track is someone falsely and ridiculously claiming that pouring the cold water of reality onto a flawed/misguided/unnecessary/dreamy opinion equates to censorship or wanting the game to never be improved.  Not only is such an opinion based on absolutely nothing (i.e. it is factually incorrect), but it usually distracts the discussion away from substance and towards unproductive posturing.

Put another way, we see this more often than I can count...  "if we don't angrily demand unreasonable and impossible things from Battlefront, then they won't give us even the smallest and easiest improvements.  And don't you dare tell me I'm being angry or unreasonable for I shall taunt you a second time!"

This mindset is far more flawed and damaging than any shortcoming in Combat Mission.  Unfortunately, it's not nearly so easy to patch that

Steve

Edited February 25, 2016 by Battlefront.com

[A Canadian Cat]

"if we don't angrily demand unreasonable and impossible things from Battlefront, then they won't give us even the smallest and easiest improvements.  And don't you dare tell me I'm being angry or unreasonable for I shall taunt you a second time!"

This one kills me . Certainly not limited to only here but I find it such an odd attitude and damned annoying.  The worst part is since you guys at BFC *are* constantly making improvements and adding cool stuff this crowd seems to think that when new stuff is released that they were responsible - "see if we had not been so over the top and constantly pushing for our insane views we would have not even gotten this little thing".  At least that is how it feels.  This is where that feeling of "perhaps I should just give up" comes from.

 

This mindset is far more flawed and damaging than any shortcoming in Combat Mission.  Unfortunately, it's not nearly so easily to patch that

LOL indeed.  Some days I feel like trying though

[Warts 'n' all]

 Careful Ian. I seem to remember a couple of months ago that agreeing with Steve got one labelled a "fanboy". That made me laugh, I can't even remember boyhood.

[A Canadian Cat]

LOL yeah that ship has sailed.  I may be a fan but, as you say, I cannot remember boyhood.  Yeah insults are the last refuge of the out-argued.  When the insults start flying then you know you have won - as long as you don't join in.

[Bulletpoint]

While I generally agree with most of you sensible people, I must say I have also often seen some people act a bit rude and dismissive to those who raise issues with the game or ask for change. Using words like "whiner" or "moaner", portraying people with requests as ridiculous children who stamp their feet and demand that BF cater to their every whim, etc... It's rarely warranted. Sometimes, the tone of the debate seems like in the schoolyard, when there's a conflict involving the "popular" kid, and several other kids will jump to his defense. I wonder how asking for improvements to a game can raise such passion. I think deep down we all have a list of things we personally would like to see improved or changed with the game, but that doesn't mean that most of us are immature or unreasonable, even if our lists don't exactly match.

Edited March 9, 2016 by Bulletpoint

[A Canadian Cat]

... I have also often seen some people act a bit rude and dismissive to those who raise issues with the game or ask for change. Using words like "whiner" or "moaner", portraying people with requests as ridiculous children who stamp their feet and demand that BF cater to their every whim, etc... It's rarely warranted....

I actually think the response is usually proportionate to the way the question is asked.  If people start a thread with a question or observation: "this happened to me, why is it my guys cannot easily see the enemy" or "this keeps happening to me, is that the way things really happened" - then they get a good discussion going and get good answers.  However when the start their thread with "I lost a tank again because it cannot see this game is totally broken and unplayable" - then they get a here is the worlds smallest violin type of response.

The one time I see that is a drag is when someone asks a question or makes a reasonable request and others jump in with the age old "this aspect of the game is totally broken and should be fixed now" posts and the poor OP's discussion gets derailed.  That I think sucks.  But frankly I know who I blame for that - hint I an't taking any of that blame.

Perhaps I have become a grumpy guss over the years and am prone to over reacting.  It is possible.

But I doubt it - GET OFF MY LAWN

[Michael Emrys]

I agree with IanL here. With very rare exceptions, the only people who get a rude response are the one who start out with a snarky attitude and are in fact immature whiners. Then they try to hide behind a claim that the "fanbois" don't allow reasonable criticism of the game, which is patently untrue. Practically everyone who jumps the defense of the game has also at one time or another made a criticism, raised a question, or offered a suggestion. And most of the time they have received reasonable, thoughtful responses. Anything else, I tend to look at as just the dues one has to pay for being on an internet public forum. And there seems to be a lot less crap here than on many such internet fora.

Michael

[A Canadian Cat]

+1 to that. The fact that this place is mostly sane and well moderated is why I spend time here. I have visited a few forums that were just so poisinus I have never bothered with them.

[Warts 'n' all]

I tend to be fairly tolerant. But this is what happened to the last chap to call me a "fanboi".

[Michael Emrys]

He'll look better without a head.

Michael